كا = )) ul sep 16, 2008 20050385 -COE-UA - 060219 -D- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS HAMPTON ROADS, VIRGINIA NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY SEP 06 2005 TRANSPORTATION U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District 803 Front Street Norfolk, VA 23510 September 2005 S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Craney Island Eastward Expansion Norfolk Harbor and Channels Hampton Roads, Virginia Responsible Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District ABSTRACT: The Norfolk District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) have prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to present information regarding a 580-acre eastward expansion of the Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area (CIDMMA) and development of a container terminal. The proposed project is located in the Port of Hampton Roads between the cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk, Virginia. Such an expansion would extend the useful life of the CIDMMA, provide additional acreage for long-term berthing and landside port facilities, and possibly serve as a logistical and tactical area supporting deployment of national defense forces. Numerous alternatives for this project were evaluated during the study. The Draft EIS addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed development on human and environmental issues identified during the public interest review, including onsite and offsite alternatives. All factors that may be relevant to the proposed development were considered. Among those factors are air quality, dredged material management, surface transportation, economics, aesthetics and light, wetlands, cultural resources, fish and wildlife resources, land use and coastal zone management, navigation, hydrodynamics, recreation, water quality, public safety, hazardous materials, social characteristics, environmental justice, noise, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. The Draft EIS provides relevant information to Federal, State, and local agencies and the public, on the potential impacts of the proposed project. The public response to the findings of the draft EIS will provide direction for the preparation of the Final EIS. Comments on this Draft EIS must be received by: November 7, 2005 DATE For further information, contact: Mr. Craig Seltzer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 803 Front Street Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 201-7390 Email: craig.l.seltzer@usace.army.mil DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES-1 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 1 : ! 빌 ​ DRAFT ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND APPENDIXES CRANEY ISLAND EXPANSION NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS VIRGINIA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District 803 Front Street Norfolk, Virginia 23510-1096 September 2005 에 ​ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.... E1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW E2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED E3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ........... E4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. ES-1 ES-2 ES-2 ES-4 ES-7 1-1 I-1 PARTI - PURPOSE AND NEED 1.0 CDDMMA EXPANSION Study Authority.. Study Area........ Need For and Objective of Action. Need for Additional Dredged Material Storage Capacity 1-1 1-2 I-2 I-3 ....... 2.0 TERMINAL CONSTRUCTION Purpose of New VPA Container Terminal. Improvements to Existing VPA Facilities to Meet Short-Term Needs. Effect of Maersk Property to Help Meet Short Term Needs..... Additional Port Land Area Required to Meet Long Term Needs 1-6 1-6 1-7 1-8 1-9 .... ..... II-1 .... ... Il-1 II-1 II-3 ........ PART II - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES............... 1.0 ALTERNATIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. ........... 1.1 ALTERNATIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA .... 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ........... 2.1 IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION, AND SCREENING OF INITIAL ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (STEPS 1-3). 2.1.1 CIDMMA Expansion Alternatives 2.1.2 Terminal Construction Alternatives .......... New Container Terminal Requirements. Description of Potential Locations. Comparison of Marine Terminal Alternatives ...... Selected Port Alternative............... 3.0 ELIMINATION OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE......... 4.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS (STEP 4). Eastward Expansion Alternative .... Eastward Expansion with West Dike Strengthening Alternative.......... 5.0 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS (STEP 5) 6.0 PLAN SELECTION (STEP 6)............. Proposed Action - Eastward Expansion of the CIDMMA ........ 7.0 DESCRIPTION OF EASTWARD CDMMA EXPANSION Access to Eastward Expansion and Proposed Craney Island Marine Terminal. 11-4 II-4 II-33 II-33 II-34 Il-36 II-38 II-38 11-39 JI-39 II-40 JI-40 Il-44 II-44 II-45 ..... II-47 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page i 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION TABLE OF CONTENTS 习 ​ (Continuerl Page II-47 Phased Development of Craney Island Marine Terminal .............. ............. ............ - ...... ........ .......... ......... PART III - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT............... III-1 1.0 COMBINED CIDMMA EXPANSION AND PROPOSED PORT DEVELOPMENT. III-1 1.1 WATER QUALITY ............. .....III-1 1.1.1 General Condition .III-1 1.1.2 Metals.............. JII-2 1.1.3 Hydrocarbons ....... III-3 1.1.4 Dissolved Oxygen ... III-3 1.1.5 Chesapeake Bay Program III-4 1.1.6 Elizabeth River Project/Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ............. III-4 1.1.7 Hydrodynamics ..... ............ JII-5 1.1.8 VIMS Hydrodynamic Study III-6 1.1.9 Groundwater. III-7 1.2 AIR QUALITY ........... JI-7 1.2.1 Air Quality Regulations and Standards........ JII-7 1.2.2 Regional Conditions....... III-9 1.2.2.1 Projected Regional Emissions Inventory ........ III-9 1.3 PROTECTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT......... III-10 1.3.1 State and Federal Regulations III-10 1.3.2 Species and Habitat...... III-1. 1.4 AQUATIC BIOTA........ III-17 1.4.1 .III-17 1.4.2 Essential Fish Habitat. .III-19 1.4.3 Crabs ........... III-21 1.4.4 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ... III-22 1.4.5 Benthos.......... .III-22 1.4.6 Clams ..... III-28 1.4.7 Oysters ... III-29 1.4.8 Non-Native Invasive Species ..... III-31 1.4.9 Other Flora and Fauna.. III-32 1.5 WETLANDS AND UPLANDS III-32 1.5.1 Wetlands.............. II1-32 1.5.2 Uplands III-33 1.6 SANCTUARIES AND REFUGES III-33 1.7 TRANSPORTATION ............... III-34 1.7.1 Transportation Impact Study Area ........ III-34 1.7.2 Highways III-34 1.7.3 Planned and Programmed Improvements III-35 1.7.4 Railroads ...... III-36 1.7.5 Federal Navigation Channels and Anchorages. III-38 1.7.6 Public and Private Terminals. ..... III-39 Finfish ........ ........ DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ii 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page .... III-39 III-41 .III-41 III-42 III-42 .II1-42 III-42 JII-42 III-43 .... III-44 1.7.7 Traffic.......... 1.8 UTILITIES...... 1.8.1 Water Supply 1.8.2 Wastewater... 1.8.3 Energy .... 1.8.4 Telecommunications 1.9 WASTE MANAGEMENT ............ 1.9.1 Solid Waste Disposal ........... 1.9.2 Hazardous Waste and Materials.............. 1.9.3 Generation, Storage, and Disposal of Hazardous and Petroleum Wastes ........ 1.9.4 CIDMMA........... 1.10 LAND USE .............. 1.10.1 Residential Uses 1.10.2 Commercial Uses ................. 1.10.3 Industrial and Institutional Uses....... 1.10.4 Open Space and Conservation Areas. 1.10.5 Zoning ..... 1.10.6 Local Plans. 1.11 NOISE..... 1.11.1 Ambient Noise Monitoring .... 1.11.2 Noise Regulations ............ 1.12 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES............. 1.12.1 Sensitive Receptors 1.13 RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL USE OF WATERS. 1.13.1 Commercial Shipping..... 1.13.2 Commercial Fishing .... 1.13.3 Recreational Boating and Fishing .... 1.14 ECONOMICS .............. 1.14.1 Affected Environment........... 1.14.2 Economic Impact of Virginia Port Authority.... 1.15 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE............ III-45 .III-47 .III-47 N11-47 ... III-47 III-47 .II)-48 .III-48 .III-49 III-50 .III-52 .III-52 III-52 .III-53 .III-53 III-54 .III-55 III-56 .III-56 .III-57 III-59 III-59 .III-61 .III-61 .II1-62 III-62 III-62 III-63 JI1-63 ... III-64 1 1.15.1 Affected Environment 1.16 PUBLIC SAFETY............. 1.16.1 Emergency Planning 1.16.2 Emergency Services .... 1.16.2.1 Fire Protection 1.16.2.2 Law Enforcement.... 1.16.2.3 Emergency Medical Services........... 1.16.2.4 Hurricane Evacuation ......... 1.17 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1.18 SECONDARY GROWTH............ 1.18.1 Population Growth III-68 III-68 1 Page iii DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION TABLE OF CONTENTS F (Continued Page - PART IV - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...........IV-1 1.1 HYDRODYNAMICS AND WATER QUALITY. ..IV-1 1.1.1 Hydrodynamic Modeling.. IV. 1.1.2 Water Quality ... .IV-3 1.1.2.1 Dredging for Access Channel and Cell Construction ...........IV-3 1.1.2.2 Terminal Development. .IV-5 1.1.2.3 Accidental Spills.......... .IV-12 1.1.2.4 Ship Operations/Overboard Waste IV-14 1.1.2.5 Wave Action/Erosion and Hydrodynamics ...... .IV-14 1.1.2.6 Ballast Water ........ IV-14 1.1.2.7 Sediment Suspension ..... IV-15 1.2 AIR QUALITY .............. .IV-15 1.2.1 Estimated Air Emissions from Dredging and Dike Construction at CIDMMA .....IV-15 1.2.2 General Conformity - CIDMMA Expansion........ ...........IV-17 1.2.3 Craney Island Terminal Emissions Inventory. .IV-18 1.2.4 Emissions Estimation Methodology IV-20 1.2.5 Craney Island Terminal Emissions Summary. IV-24 1.2.6 General Conformity – Terminal ................ .IV-26 1.3 PROTECTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT. IV-27 1.3.1 CIDMMA Expansion /Terminal Development.. .IV-27- 1.3.1.1 Sea Turtles .......... .IV-2, 1.3.1.2 Bald Eagles .IV-27 1.3.1.3 Piping Plover ...... .IV-28 1.3.1.4 Marine Mammals ........... .IV-28 1.3.1.5 Conclusions........... .IV-28 1.4 AQUATIC BIOTA.............. IV-29 1.4.1 CIDMMA Expansion ........ .IV-29 1.4.1.1 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) IV-29 1.4.1.2 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation .IV-30 1.4.1.3 Benthos ....... .IV-30 1.4.2 Other Flora and Fauna....... .IV-32 1.4.3 Terminal Development.. IV-32 1.4.3.1 Fish and Essential Fish Habitat... .IV-32 1.4.3.2 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) .......IV-32 1.4.3.3 Benthos ....... .IV-32 1.4.3.4 Other Flora and Fauna .IV-33 1.5 WETLANDS AND SUBAQUEOUS BOTTOMS .IV-33 1.5.1 Dredging and Cell Construction.......... .IV-33 1.5.2 Terminal Development.. .IV-33 1.5.2.1 Rail Spur and Road Access Corridors ...... .IV-34 1.5.2.2 Mudflats..... .IV-36 1.5.2.3 Subaqueous Bottom ..... .........IV-36 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page iv 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page ........IV-38 .IV-38 ../V-39 .IV-40 ....IV-42 1.6 SANCTUARIES AND REFUGES ..... 1.7 TRANSPORTATION ..... 1.7.1 Trip Generation ...... 1.7.2 Projected Daily Traffic........ 1.7.3 2018 Traffic Forecasts and Levels of Service. 1.7.4 Trip Distribution ....... 1.7.5 Roadways..... 1.7.6 Rail Traffic........... 1.7.7 Navigation and Terminal Facilities ...... 1.7.7.1 Vessel Traffic.......... 1.7.7.2 Terminal Facilities 1.8 UTILITIES ........... 1.8.1 Water Supply..... 1.8.2 Wastewater.. 1.8.3 Energy ... 1.8.4 Telecommunications 1.8.5 Relocation of Existing Utilities 1.9 WASTE MANAGEMENT ........... 1.9.1 CIDMMA Expansion ....... 1.9.1.1 Solid Waste..... 1.9.1.2 Hazardous Wastes and Materials......... 1.9.2 Terminal Development...... 1.9.2.1 Solid Waste........... 1.9.2.2 Hazardous Materials 1.10 LAND USE ............. 1.10.1 CIDMMA Expansion .... 1.10.1.1 Land Use... 1.10.1.2 Zoning..... 1.10.2 Terminal..... 1.10.2.1 Land Use ........... 1.11 NOISE ........ 1.11.1 CDMMA Expansion ............ 1.11.2 Terminal Development. 1.11.2.1 Trucks 1.11.2.2 Operations.. S........ 1.11.2.3 Trains ....... 1.12 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES 1.12.1 CDMMA Expansion 1.12.2 Terminal ............... 1.12.2.1 Ambient Light Levels ............. 1.12.2.2 Construction Impacts ...... 1.13 RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL USE OF WATERS.. 1.13.1 CIDMMA Expansion and Terminal Development .IV-43 .IV-43 .IV-45 IV-46 .IV-46 .IV-46 ./V-47 IV-47 .IV-48 .IV-48 IV-48 .IV-49 JV-49 IV-49 .IV-49 IV-49 .IV-49 IV-49 .IV-49 ........./V-50 .IV-50 .IV-50 .IV-51 .IV-51 .IV-51 .........IV-52 IV-52 .........IV-52 .IV-53 .IV-54 ..IV-54 .........IV-55 IV-55 .........IV-57 .IV-57 IV-57 ..IV-57 .........IV-57 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page V 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 1.13.1.1 Commercial Shipping .... 1.13.2.2 Commercial Fishing............... 1.13.1.3 Recreational Boating and Fishing ...... 1.14 ECONOMICS ............. 1.14.1 CDMMA Expansion - Direct, Indirect and Induced Impacts 1.14.2 Terminal Development - Direct, Indirect and Induced Impacts....... 1.14.3 Measurements of Economic Benefit ......... 1.14.4 Terminal Operation. 1.15 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.......... 1.15.1 CIDMMA Expansion and Terminal Development 1.16 PUBLIC SAFETY........... 1.16.1 CIMMA Expansion and Terminal Development. 1.17 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......... 1.17.1 CIDMMA Expansion...... 1.17.2 Terminal Development... 1.18 SECONDARY GROWTH. 1.18.1 Residential Growth............... 1.18.2 Commercial Development 1.18.3 Industrial Development..... 1.19 COASTAL ZONE RESOURCES AND PERMITS ....... 1.20 SAND BORROW FOR DIKE CONSTRUCTION 1.21 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS............ 1.21.1 Cumulative Effects Issues Identified During Scoping ... 1.21.2 Cumulative Effects Assessment Methodology 1.21.3 Identification of Past, Present and Future Actions...... 1.21.4 Results of Cumulative Effects Assessment. 1.22 MITIGATION ............... 1.22.1 Background ......... ./V-57 .IV-57 .IV-58 .IV-59 .IV-59 ./V-60 .IV-60 .IV-60 .IV-62 .IV-62 .IV-63 .IV-63 .IV-64 .IV-64 .IV-64 .IV-65 .IV-65 ....IV-66 .IV-66 .IV-67 .IV-67.. IV-67 .IV-69 ..... .....IV-69 .IV-72 IV-74 ...IV-74 ..IV-75 PART V - LIST OF PREPARERS..... LOP-1 PART VI - REFERENCES ...... R-1 PART VII - INDEX.. INDEX=1 Page vi DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Table No. Description Page PARTI - PROJECT NEED 1-1 Historical and Total CIDMMA Inflow (1957 – 2004)............. ) 1-2 Forecasted and Total CIDMMA Inflow (2005 – 2025)... 1-3 Undeveloped Area at VPA Facilities ......... ...... 1-5 I-6 1-8 ........ ........... ....... ...... PART II - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II-1 Results of Screening of Potential Solutions ............... .... II-9 II-2 Criteria for Rating Level of Impacts ..... II-27 II-3 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives II-29 II-4 Container Terminal Requirements for Indentified Potential Dredged Material Storage Lagoons II-37 II-5 Average Annual Benefits ........ II-42 II-6 Average Annual Project Cost and Incremental Cost........ 11-43 II-7 Alternative Plan Investment... 11-43 II-8 Average Annual Benefits ......... II-44 II-9 Estimated Quantities to be Dredged from Dike Foundations Across Channel ........... Il-45 11-10 Required Sand Fill for CIDMMA Expansion Dike Construction.. II 11-46 II-11 Craney Island Port Development Components by Phase....... 11-48 ....... PART III - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards...... .... III-8 III-2 2008 Projected Emission Inventory for Hampton Roads......... ........ III-10 III-3 Species of Potential Concern Identified Through Coordination with Agencies ........ III-13 III-4 Essential Fish Habitat................. ...III-20 III-5 Summary of Dredges for Commercial Benthic Species............... III-23 III-6 B-BI Stations Located East of CDMMA (within footprint of proposed east expansion).......... ..III-27 III-7 VIMS Hard Clam Stock Assessment (Mann, 2002).... III-30 III-8 Sanctuaries and Refuges III-34 III-9 Planned and Programmed Highway Improvements...... III-37 III-10 Estimated year 2018 No Action Truck Traffic III-40 III-11 Vessel Calls at Hampton Roads 1993 - 2001 ............ III-41 III-12 Possible Areas Containing Hazardous Materials or Waste III-13 Decibel Changes and Loudness III-49 III-14 Daytime Ambient Noise Monitoring ... III-45 .... III-51 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page vi 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page III-15 Federal Highway Administration Noise Abatement Criteria........ III-16 Registered Boats in Hampton Roads Area (1) ............ III-17 Existing and Forecasted Employment...... WI-52 JUL-56 III-59 III-60 III-18 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Affected Jurisdictions (1) (2)............ III-19 Ethnic Distribution of Populations in Study Area and Comparison Areas, Census 2000 ................. III-20 City of Portsmouth Hurricane Clearance Times ...... III-21 Hampton Roads Population Growth III-22 Forecasted Population Growth........... III-61 III-63 .... III-69 .... III-70 .................. PART IV - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV-1 Preliminary Evaluation of Performance-Based Criteria to Protect Water Quality at the Proposed Craney Island Container Terminal ........ .IV-9 IV-2 Net Increase in Loads for Representative Constituents Estimated Using the Simple Method ............ ............./V-10 IV-3 Technology-Based Criteria of the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations'...IV-11 IV-4 CIDDMA East Expansion Emission Estimates for Dredging and Dike Construction.IV-17 IV-5 Container Terminal Operational Emissions Sources .IV-19 IV-6 Mobile 5b Input Parameters .... .IV-23 IV-7 Craney Island Terminal Emissions Estimates for 2017 Phase I Condition.... IV-24 IV-8 Craney Island Terminal Emissions Estimates for 2050 Build-Out Condition ...........IV-2 IV-9 Comparison of Hampton Roads Emissions Inventory and Craney Island Terminal Emissions....... ............IV-25 IV-10 Comparison of Hampton Roads Crossing Study Emissions and Craney Island Terminal Truck/On-Road Emissions Estimates........ .IV-26 IV-11 Craney Island Eastward Expansion Project Potential Wetland Impacts - VDOT Wetland Inventory................. .IV-35 IV-12 Wetland Evaluation Technique (2.0) Evaluation Factors IV-37 IV-13 VDOT Wetland Functions and Values Assessment for Wetlands Along Proposed Craney Island Connector Highway and Selected Portions of 1-664.......... .IV-38 IV-14 Craney Island Truck Traffic Estimates ..... IV-41 IV-15 APM Maersk Terminal Truck Traffic Estimates .IV-42 IV-16 No Build and Proposed Action ADT and V/C ratio.... IV-44 IV-17 Level of Service Categories .IV-45 IV-18 Noise Level Results ..... .IV-54 IV-19 NEPA Documents and Borrow Areas... IV-68 IV-20 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Contributing to Cumulative Effects.......... ..........IV-73 IV-21 Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area - East Expansion Impacts and Mitigation .. .IV-77 IV-22 Consensus Mitigation Plan for Craney Island Expansion – May 26, 2005........ IV-89 - Page viji DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Following Part Description - PARTI - PROJECT NEED 1-1 Project Location 1-2 Container Cargo Forecast... 1-3 Current Port-Wide Land Use ..... 1-4 Future Port-Wide Land Use 1-5 Projected Demand and Current Capacity. 1-6 Projected Demand and Planned Capacity (Adding Maersk Terminal) 1-7 Minimum Container Port Land Requirement ..............I I .I I I ..I ..I ..... II II II PART II - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II-1 Study Alternatives Considered.............. II-2 Major Highways, Railroads and Channels.......... II-3 Land Use and Major Navigation and Surface Transportation Corridors ...... II-4 Proposed VDOT Transportation Projects in Craney Island Vicinity ...... II-5 Craney Island Port Development and Surrounding Areas II-6 VPA 2040 Master Plan Container Forecast vs. Planned Port Capacity II-7 Craney Island Phase I Port Development.......... II-8 Craney Island Build Out Port Development II II II II .... II ........... PART III - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III-1 Tidal Prism of the Elizabeth River Basin................ III-2 Hampton Roads Ozone Non-Attainment Area ..... III-3 Piping Plover and Least Tern Nest Sites..... III-4 Historical Trawl Locations Around Route 164 Connector III-5 Virginia Blue Crab Sanctuary.. III-6 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 2004 ..... III-7 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 2004 ...... III-8 Hard Clam Stock Assessment ............ III-9 Elizabeth River Oyster Reefs..... III-10 Population Densities of Hard Clams ....... III-11 National Wetlands Inventory Map.... III-12 Major Highways..... III-13 Major Railroads.. III-14 Land Use Map...... DII III III III DI III III III III III III III II III DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ix CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) III III-15 Noise Monitoring Locations III-16 Condemned Shellfish Area Number 7 .......... III-17 Work Force Population by Location ....... III-18 2000 Non-White Population Levels....... III-19 Population in Poverty... ....... III-20 Hampton Roads Forecasted Population Growth. III III III ........... 1 PART IV - ENVIRONNEMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV-1 Layout of New Cell............ .IV IV-2 Access Channel and Pre-Dredge Limits ......... IV IV-3 Dike Layout IV IV-4 Dike Alternative........ ......IV IV-5 Dike Alternative 3............. .../V IV-6 Comparison of 2016 Terminal Emissions and 2008 Projected Inventory for Hampton Roads ........ ........IV IV-7 Public Oyster Ground Number 1 ............. IV IV-8 Wetlands Along the Proposed VDOT Craney Island Connector Highway .... ............IV IV-9 Wetlands Along the Proposed VDOT Craney Island Connector Highway IV-10 Wetlands Along Selected Portions of 1-664....... ........IV IV-11 Wetlands Along Selected Portions of 1-664............. IV IV-12 Wetlands Along Selected Portions of 1-664 to U.S. Route 13, 58, & 460 ......................IV IV-13 Proposed VDOT Transportation Projects in Craney Island Vicinity ..... .IV IV-14 Noise Contour Map............ ...TV -2. ..y DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page x CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDICES A U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE PLANNING AID REPORT (P) B MITIGATION ANALYSIS (P) с CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT (CD) D HEA REPORTS (PETERSON, RUDDY, BUCHMAN) (CD) E VIMS BENTHIC STUDY (SEITZ AND LIPCIUS) (CD) F NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT COORDINATION TABLE (P) G PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE (P) H SECTION 404 (b) (1) EVALUATION (P) (P) = Print Copy (CD) = PDF file on CD DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page xi 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 1 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Craney Island Eastward Expansion Norfolk Harbor and Channels Hampton Roads, Virginia Responsible Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District ABSTRACT: The Norfolk District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) have prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to present information regarding a 580-acre eastward expansion of the Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area (CIDMMA) and development of a container terminal. The proposed project is located in the Port of Hampton Roads between the cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk, Virginia. Such an expansion would extend the useful life of the CIDMMA, provide additional acreage for long-term berthing and landside port facilities, and possibly serve as a logistical and tactical area supporting deployment of national defense forces. Numerous alternatives for this project were evaluated during the study. The Draft EIS addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed development on human and environmental issues identified during the public interest review, including onsite and offsite alternatives. All factors that may be relevant to the proposed development were considered. Among those factors are air quality, dredged material management, surface transportation, economics, aesthetics and light, wetlands, cultural resources, fish and wildlife resources, land use and coastal zone management, navigation, hydrodynamics, recreation, water quality, public safety, hazardous materials, social characteristics, environmental justice, noise, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. The Draft EIS provides relevant information to Federal, State, and local agencies and the public, on the potential impacts of the proposed project. The public response to the findings of the draft EIS will provide direction for the preparation of the Final EIS. > Comments on this Draft EIS must be received by: November 7, 2005 DATE For further information, contact: Mr. Craig Seltzer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 803 Front Street Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 201-7390 Email: craig.l.seltzer@usace.army.mil ' DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES-1 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY f E1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW This draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Norfolk District and its non-Federal sponsor, the Virginia Port Authority (VPA), in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4321-4347), 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and 33 CFR Parts 230 and 325. This document has been prepared to assess a range of alternatives and to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of those alternatives including proposed eastward expansion of the Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area (CIDMMA) and subsequent development of a marine containerized cargo terminal complex (container port) on the new cell. The CIDMMA is a Federally-owned and USACE -operated dredged material placement area that is open for public and private dredged material from the Norfolk Harbor and adjacent waters as defined in House Document 563 of the 79th Congress. The CIDMMA has been in continuous use since 1957, serving the dredging needs of the Norfolk Harbor. Originally designed for a life span of 20 years, with a capacity of 96 million cubic yards, the CIDMMA has over 225 million cubic yards of dredged material deposits as of the end of Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2004. Without adding additional dredged material placement capacity, the CIDMMA is projected to reach its useful life in 2025. The site of the proposed project, shown on Figure ES-1, lies between, and is adjacent to, the CIDMMA and the Craney Island Reach Federal navigation channel in the Elizabeth River. Specific elements of the proposed project include: 580 acres of marine bottom and open-water for construction of a new dredged materiai placement cell, including a main dike and perimeter dikes; and Subsequent re-development of the 580-acre cell for a container terminal complex including an access channel, berths, wharves, container yards, cranes, gate facilities, intermodal yards, new access roads and ramps, new rail track, cargo processing and support facilities, and stormwater management areas. E2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED E2.1 Dredged Material Containment Cell In accordance with the authorizing document, CIDMMA is to be used for the benefit of the maintenance and development of navigation improvements serving Government and private interests. CIDMMA is authorized to handle all types of navigational dredged material, including material suitable and unsuitable for open ocean disposal. It cannot be limited to only unsuitable material without additional Congressional authorization. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page E CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-U. 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since its construction, CIDMMA has received an average of 4.8 million cubic yards of dredged material annually. These deposits include both new work and maintenance of Federal channels and anchorages, as well as permit dredging from other Federal, state, municipal, and private users. The total annual volume varies from year to year. > Future inflow estimates were based on a survey of current and potential CIDMMA users. The estimates were also based on the assumption that CIDMMA would accept all material that was eligible for disposal, as is the actual practice. Furthermore, it was assumed that the District will continue to use dredged material beneficially whenever possible; however, based on the experience of recent years, it was assumed that little of the material will be suitable for beneficial use. Based on Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) simulations, CIDMMA will reach its maximum capacity in 2025. The CIDMMA capacity forecast was based on continuation of the management practices such as use of drying cells, optimization of layer thickness, dike raising, and implementation of alternative beneficial uses of dredged material. Interior dike heights currently range from 33 to 36 feet above MLW. The dikes are capable of being raised to an interior height of 47 feet, which is projected to accommodate forecasted inflow volumes until 2025. After 2025, with the dikes at an interior height of 47 feet, the CIDMMA foundation will have reached its bearing capacity, and additional inflows will no longer be accommodated. The need for a dredged material placement facility to accommodate Norfolk Harbor dredging projects will continue beyond 2025, when the CIDMMA is expected to reach capacity. However, without a Federal expansion project, future dredging operations will be forced to utilize the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)-designated Norfolk Ocean Disposal Site (NODS) as the primary disposal location for ocean-suitable material. The NODS is located approximately 35 nautical miles east of CIDMMA. E2.2 Terminal Development In recent years, the Port of Virginia has experienced average annual growth rates in containerized cargo of over 6 percent. These growth rates have resulted in significant annual cargo throughput, peak-operating conditions, and associated congestion that challenges the existing port infrastructure and equipment. Current market analysis indicates that the VPA will continue to see and have to accommodate steady growth well into the future. The VPA 2040 Master Plan was based on a 1999 forecast of containerized cargo at The Port of Virginia with a conservative and sustainable growth rate between 3.5 and 4.7 percent (average rate of 4.1 percent per year). а In the short-term, VPA will improve its existing facilities by maximizing the capacity at its existing cargo handling terminals prior to investing in new terminal development. Most of these improvements are planned to be in place by or before the year 2020. The Master Plan includes maximizing land use for high revenue generating cargo and minimizing non-revenue or less-revenue generating areas. This DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES-3 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY optimization program will make use of nearly all developable VPA lands. Even with these actions, T Port of Virginia will run out of capacity in 2007. Based on the VPA 2040 Master Plan, an estimated 664 acres of total container cargo area will be available after maximizing land use at VPA's existing terminals (i.e., Norfolk International Terminals, Portsmouth Marine Terminal, and Newport News Marine Terminal). This is 1,200 acres short of the over-1,800 acres projected to be needed in 2050. Even factoring in the new Maersk Sealand 280-acre port facility in Portsmouth, VA, more than 850 acres of container cargo area would still be needed by 2050. The proposed Craney Island Marine Terminal would provide 580 acres of new marine terminal space and meet port facility needs well into the planning horizon. E3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES E3.1 Identification, Examination, and Screening of Potential Alternatives Dredged material disposal alternatives were identified and evaluated individually on the basis of their suitability, applicability, and merit in meeting the planning objectives and constraints for the study. Potential port facilities were evaluated based on the availability of large tracts of waterfront property up to 850 acres, deep water access, and proximity to high capacity road and rail infrastructure. Alternatives that did not fulfill dredged material disposal and/or port infrastructure needs or were inappropriate due to other factors such as prohibitively high costs, were screened out. Judgments were made about each alternative based on knowledge from researching past studies and reports, including the USA Reconnaissance Report, the VPA 2040 Master Plan, and the professional experience and expertise of the Project Delivery Team. E3.2 Development of Initial Alternatives (Including No Action) and Initial Screening The following comprehensive list of all the alternatives identified for initial screening was developed . No Action Alternative: Under without project conditions, the dikes are capable of being raised to an interior height of 47 feet, which is projected to accommodate forecasted inflow volumes until 2025. After 2025, with the dikes at an interior height of 47 feet, the CIDMMA foundation will have reached its bearing capacity, and additional inflows will no longer be accommodated On Site Alternatives: These included modifications of the existing site that could extend the life of CIDMMA and provide port development. East Expansions: These included potential alternatives for eastward expansion footprints of the existing site that could extend the life of CIDMMA and provide port development. North Expansions: These included potential alternatives for northward expansion footprints of the existing site that could extend the life of CIDMMA and provide port development. A larger northward expansion and a smaller northward expansion were considered. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY West Expansions: These included potential alternatives for westward expansion footprints of the existing site that could extend the life of CIDMMA and provide port development. Several different westward expansion footprints were considered. East and North Expansions: These include potential alternatives for eastward and northward expansion footprints of the existing site that could extend the life of CIDMMA and provide port development. These expansion footprints were combinations of the north and east expansion footprints identified above. East and West Expansions: These included potential alternatives for eastward and westward expansion footprints of the existing site that could extend the life of CIDMMA and provide port development. These expansion footprints are combinations of the east and west expansion footprints identified above. North and West Expansions: These included potential alternatives for northward and westward expansion footprints of the existing site that could extend the life of CIDMMA and provide port development. These expansion footprints were combinations of the north and west expansion footprints identified above. Upland Placement Sites: These included new confined upland placement sites involving acquisition of upland real estate and construction of new diked facilities. Ocean Placement Sites: These included two ocean placement sites that were identified previously and were considered to be possible alternatives to the CIDMMA. Beneficial Use Sites: Beneficial use sites for the purposes of this EIS were those sites where dredged material could be used to achieve environmental benefits. Examples of such benefits include beach nourishment, marsh creation or restoration, oyster ground creation, fish and wildlife habitat, and use of dredged material as construction materials. Creation of New Containment Islands: These included building new islands in open water similar to the existing CIDMMA that could be operated as new DMMA's. These sites were identified in prior studies and were revisited for this EIS. Deep Hole Sites: These included locations within the Hampton Roads area where deep water exists that may have sufficient capacity to serve as repositories for placement of dredged material. Combined Aquatic Disposal Facilities: These included marine sites that could provide sand for various construction projects. Once the removal of borrow material was complete, dredged material could be placed into the pit. The pit would be filled until the bottom contours matched the adjacent bathymetry. Sites evaluated for Marine Terminal Construction 400 acres along the Chesapeake Bay and Back River in Hampton, VA. Crab Neck in York County. The site is located south of Goodwin Islands along the Chesapeake Bay, VA. Gloucester Point along the York River in Gloucester, VA. Maersk Sealand Property along the Elizabeth River in Portsmouth, VA. Sites along the James River in in Newport News and Isle of Wight County, VA. Sites along the Elizabeth River in Norfolk and Portsmouth, VA. La DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES-5 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E3.3 Evaluation of Alternative Plans Initial screening was conducted to identify the preferred alternatives and ultimately the Recommended Plan. Alternatives evaluated during this process included an examination of the existing CIDMMA facility, structural and operation improvements to extend the life of the existing CIDMMA and provide more capacity within it, various expansion footprints, and ocean placement. Sites were also evaluated in terms of land requirements for port development, proximity to the 50-foot Federal navigation channel, and access to major highway and railroad corridors. Environmental, economic, and engineering analyses were performed to determine each alternative's feasibility for construction, operation, and maintenance of a dredge material management area and a port facility. E3.4 No Action Alternative Under a No Action scenario, CIDMMA would reach its capacity by 2025. The CIDMMA would close and a new disposal site would need to be constructed for material deemed unsuitable for ocean disposal. In addition, engineering constraints would prohibit a marine terminal from being constructed on the current site as the elevation of the site would be too high. The VPA would continue to operate, but its future capacity would be limited to the combined maximum capacity of existing port facilities and the Maersk Property that is currently being developed. The unmet port facilities demand in Virginia would have to be diverted to other U.S. ports. The planning objectives are not satisfied by this alternative. Therefore, it was not carried forward for detailed evaluation. E3.5 Optimization and Comparison of Alternatives Screening and evaluation eliminated all but two plans that were considered for optimization to determine the Recommended Plan: 1) an eastward expansion and 2) the eastward expansion with a western dike strengthening. These alternatives received further scientific analysis, including a ship navigation study for port terminal operations, cumulative impacts evaluation, hydrodynamic modeling, and inflow modeling to predict ultimate dredged material storage capacity volume. More detailed cost data were also obtained. E3.6 East Port Expansion and West Berm Plan This alternative proposes the construction of a 580-acre disposal cell on the east side of the existing CIDMMA, in conjunction with strengthening the western dike in 2028. Perimeter dikes would be constructed around the area of the new cell to contain dredged material. The western limit of the proposed cell would tie into the existing east dike of the CIDMMA. After filling, the new cell would be turned over to the VPA for the construction of a new marine terminal. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E3.7 Eastward Expansion Alternative This alternative proposes the construction of a 580-acre disposal cell on the east side of the existing CIDMMA. Perimeter dikes would be constructed around the area of the new cell to contain dredged material. The western limit of the proposed cell would tie into the existing east dike of the CIDMMA. After filling, the new cell would be turned over to the VPA for the construction of a new marine terminal. No dike strengthening beyond routine operation and maintenance needs would occur. E3.8 Plan Selection The East Port Expansion and West Berm Plan was the alternative that reasonably maximized net economic benefits consistent with protecting the Nation's environment. Although the eastern expansion in combination with the western dike strengthening meets the planning objectives and maximizes beneficial contributions to the Nation, the plan is not supported by the local sponsor. Only the eastern expansion is supported by the local sponsor; therefore, the Eastward Expansion Alternative is designated as the Recommended Plan. E3.9 Recommended Plan Strong opposition from property owners located adjacent to the western boundary of the CIDMMA and from the city of Portsmouth to any project located on the western side of the CIDMMA discouraged further evaluation of the west dike strengthening option. Moreover, inflow modeling determined that the west dike strengthening is not needed until 2028. As a result, the Recommended Plan is the construction of the Eastward Expansion Alternative. The Recommended Plan ensures an extension of the useful life of CIDMMA, meets the minimum acreage required to ensure future cargo capacity in Hampton Roads, is accessible via the 50-foot Norfolk Harbor channel, and may be accessed by road and rail service. In addition, the Recommended Plan provides significant benefits to the Nation in terms of average annual economic benefits of $278 million. Average annual costs are also slightly less for the Recommended Plan. For these reasons, it is believed that implementation of the Recommended Plan is warranted. E4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES i E4.1 HYDRODYNAMICS AND WATER QUALITY 1 E4.1.1 CIDMMA Expansion Two hydrodynamic modeling studies were undertaken to evaluate the potential impacts of alternative CIDMMA expansion plans on the Lower James River, Hampton Roads Harbor, and the Elizabeth River. The conclusion of the initial modeling study indicated that there would be no significant effects to water DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES-7 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i circulation, sedimentation, salinity, currents, and tidal flushing from the Elizabeth River with an eastwarc expansion of the CIDMMA. As part of the modeling study, several directional expansion scenarios were evaluated, and the eastward expansion demonstrated the least effects. In order to assess the impacts of dredging and ship berthing during extreme conditions, more detailed hydrodynamic modeling was conducted testing the cumulative impact of the CIDMMA expansion, the dredging of the Maersk Terminal area, and the berthing of ships. As in the initial analyses, little change was noted when compared to the hydrodynamic effects of the eastward expansion alone. 1 1 The degree to which the Recommended Plan will impact water quality is expected to be relatively minor and short-term. The primary effect on water quality from dredging and cell construction will be the temporary increase in turbidity and total suspended solids from the incidental release of sediments. Short- term and localized increases in turbidity will occur during the dredging operations, along with reduced dissolved oxygen levels due to releases of organic materials into the water column. The steady state increase in suspended sediment associated with the dredging activities is on the order of the background concentration in the Elizabeth River and within the natural short-term variability in the background concentrations. Elevated contaminant levels in the sediment are not anticipated, but sediment will be evaluated during the next phase of the project (advanced design) to ascertain sediment quality and to develop appropriate mitigation (avoidance and minimization) measures. The proposed eastward expansion containment area will be designed to retain dredged material solids, while allowing the clarified carrier water to be released from the containment area through spillboxes. Four spillboxes are anticipated, two at the division dike, and two along the north dike. A water qualit assessment will be conducted during the PED Phase to ensure that any effluent discharged meets prescribed water quality standards. E4.1.2 Terminal Development Water quality impacts from terminal construction will be mitigated by erosion and sediment controls and best management practices (BMP's) implemented at the site, in accordance with state regulations. Results of a preliminary analysis indicate that, under the performance-based criteria, the proposed facility could potentially have to implement BMP's to remove about 4,000 lbs of phosphorus per year. The predicted net increase in load for phosphorus and other constituents is conservative (high) due to the relatively high concentrations (C) assumed. The estimated BMP removal efficiency target of 76 percent is dominated by the net increase loads due to the addition of impervious area. A more refined facility design information and pollutant loading analysis could result in a different estimated target for BMP removal efficiency. At full Build-Out, shipping traffic in the Hampton Roads Harbor System is expected to increase by about 20 percent or 19 vessel calls per week. Although the increased traffic also nominally increases the risk for potential maritime collisions, ship to ship computer aided simulations and modeling conducted by the DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES-E CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY U.S. Merchant Marine Academy show that impact to navigation from the Recommended Plan is negligible. Accordingly, hazardous material or fuel spills related to maritime collisions are not expected to increase as a result on the eastward expansion. Most container ships that dock at VPA terminals do not refuel in the Hampton Roads area. However, a small percentage of container ships do take on fuel from barges while moored at the Norfolk Harbor Anchorage. Although the projected increase in ship traffic would nominally increase the risk of refueling-related spills, the actual risk is expected to be small. No fuel will be transferred from the container terminal to ships. The proposed project would increase shipping traffic, and, therefore, has the potential to increase the chance for introduction of nuisance or exotic species into the Hampton Roads area by way of ship ballast water and, to a lesser extent, cargo. Mitigation measures for reducing the risk of exotic species , , introduction include strict adherence to applicable U.S. and international laws and implementation of voluntary guidelines regarding exchange of ballast water. E4.2 AIR QUALITY E4.2.1 CIDMMA Expansion The CIDMMA eastward expansion project constitutes a non-transportation Federal action within the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area. Provisions of the general conformity regulation are potentially applicable to Federal projects locating within nonattainment and maintenance areas. For the 2012 Build-Out condition (dredging and cell construction), both VOC and NOx emission estimates exceed the 100 tons per year threshold. Consequently, general conformity issues must be addressed in order to obtain approval to develop the facility. Appropriate air quality permits may be required prior to initiating construction, and, if needed, will be obtained prior to any proposed construction taking place. Compliance with general conformity requirements can be accomplished by the following approaches: Estimated dredging and cell construction emissions can be “offset” by obtaining emissions reductions within the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area. Emissions associated with dredging and cell construction can be incorporated into an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the nonattainment area. Based on information obtained from VDEQ, the process of developing a new SIP for the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area is expected to occur in 2005-2007. Coordination between the USACE, VPA, and appropriate state and local agencies will be needed to demonstrate that the proposed CIDMMA expansion construction will conform with future SIP's for the Hampton Roads regional area. Other mitigation measures that could be used to reduce emissions include either, or a combination of, watering to reduce construction dusts, increased usage of low sulfur fuels for diesel dredges, and electrification of diesel-powered dredges. Other technologies considered include: fuel emulsions, engine DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES-9 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY retrofits, particulate filters, oxidation catalysts, selective catalytic reduction technology, and othe emerging technologies. VPA presently has a policy that requires all new and replacement equipment to be of the lowest emission rating available. 1 E4.2.2 Terminal Development The Craney Island terminal project constitutes a non-transportation Federal action within the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area. Provisions of the general conformity regulation are potentially applicable to Federal projects locating within nonattainment and maintenance areas. To determine if a conformity determination is required, an emissions inventory of VOC and NOx emissions has been completed for the terminal. For the 2017 Phase I Condition, estimated NO, emissions from the planned terminal facility exceed the 100 tons per year threshold level prescribed by the general conformity regulation. For the 2050 Build-Out condition, both VOC and NO, emission estimates exceed the 100 tons per year threshold. Consequently, general conformity issues must be addressed in order to obtain approval to develop the facility. Compliance with general conformity requirements can be accomplished by the following approaches: X Estimated terminal facility emissions can be “offset” by obtaining emissions reductions within the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area. Emissions associated with the terminal can be incorporated into an approved SIP for the nonattainment area. Based on information obtained from VDEQ, the process of developing a new SIP for the Hampton Road ozone nonattainment area is expected to occur in 2005-2007. Coordination between the USACE, VPA and appropriate state and local agencies will be needed to demonstrate that the proposed Craney Island terminal will conform with future SIP's for the Hampton Roads regional area. E4.3 PROTECTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT No nesting Piping Plover pairs have been observed at CIDMMA since 1997. Development of the east expansion and the new port facility will not impact nest sites and the minimal historical use of the east side of the CIDMMA facility by Piping Plover furthers reduces any potential (future) impact. CIDMMA itself, where nests have been found in the past, is the site of continual construction activities. Ultimate Build-Out of the proposed port facility is not expected to impact piping plover habitat, as these birds are highly mobile and can easily avoid construction activities, no accidental takings during the construction process would be expected. In order to obtain material for dike construction, sand will be dredged from offshore channel areas by hopper dredge. The Atlantic Ocean Channel is designated as the primary source of material for dike construction. Endangered Species Act, Section 7, consultation has been completed for hopper dredging in the Atlantic Ocean Channel and the Thimble Shoal Channel. A Biological Opinion was completed and approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Reinitiation of consultation with NMFS may DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES-1. CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 ! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY be required to accommodate the volume of sand needed for the proposed project. If required, this will be accomplished during the PED Phase when more specific design information is developed on volumes and locations of suitable sand. One bald eagle nest was identified in 2002 approximately 2.5 miles east-southeast of the proposed east expansion within Hoffler Creek Wildlife Preserve, but was destroyed during Hurricane Isabel in September 2003. To date, eagles have not returned to this site. Eagles are most vulnerable to disturbance early in the nesting period. The largest recommended buffer zone around eagle nest sites in the Chesapeake Bay Region (CBR) has a radius of 1,320 feet (1/4 mile). Even if eagles should eventually return to occupy this nest site, it is unlikely that any disturbances resulting from construction and operation activities will impact nesting at this location given its 2.5 mile distance from the proposed expansion and port site. a According to the Virginia Marine Science Museum, dolphins and Atlantic right whales are sometimes involved in collisions with commercial, military, and recreational vessels each year throughout the CBR. Encounters with harbor porpoises are less common. Development of the proposed east expansion and port facility will cause an unavoidable increase in the number of vessels making calls to the Hampton Roads area, thus increasing the potential number of vessel encounters with marine mammals. However, marine mammals are mobile and typically are found in areas away from the proposed port facility; thus, the increased opportunity for collision and injury is expected to be minimal. E4.4 AQUATIC BIOTA E.4.4.1 Fisheries and Essential Fish Habitat The Elizabeth River and vicinity contain Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for egg, larvae, juveniles, and/or adults life stages of 11 fish species. It is notable that one species, sandbar shark (Charcharinus plumbeus), is designated as having a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC). The lower James River and nearby areas near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay cover approximately 29,500 acres of open water, and the total HAPC for the sandbar shark in the lower Chesapeake Bay is approximately 89,000 acres of open water. The permanent loss of aquatic habitat within the 580-acre cell footprint represents less than 1 percent of this area. Assessment of the project led to a determination that the project will not have an adverse effect on EFH; and, therefore, expanded EFH consultation is not required. Rip-rap placed on the dikes is likely to attract fish species that are normally associated with reef structures, species that are commonly found around estuarine inlets, and species that seasonally migrate along the coast. Bottom habitat in the dredged area will be modified as the water depth will be increased from 3-4 meters (m) to approximately 16 m. This may alter the fish use of the area by potentially favoring pelagic adults in lieu of smaller juveniles. Crab harvesting activities would be precluded. The resident benthic invertebrate community in the dredged area will be eliminated for approximately one year or less until a new assemblage repopulates. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES-11 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E.4.4.2 Benthos There will be a temporary loss of benthic infauna from dredging associated with deepening the inbound channels and from preparing the ship access/egress areas to and from the proposed terminal facility. There will be a permanent loss of approximately 580 acres of estuarine bottom habitat used by fish, shellfish, crabs, and bottom dwelling organisms. In addition, a loss of about 580 acres of open water above the estuarine bottom habitat will also occur. Based on Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity evaluations and other site specific studies, the area to be filled is generally poor quality and exhibits degraded conditions. No significant quantities of commercially valuable species, such as clams and oysters, are in the impact area. Off-site and out-of-kind mitigation is proposed to mitigate the effects of bottom habitat loss and open water effects to finfish, crabs, and bottom-dwelling organisms. Mitigation alternatives presented in the mitigation plan that has been developed to compensate for lost functional values include: oyster habitat restoration, wetland restoration, sediment cleanup, riparian buffers/conservation areas, bird management, and shoreline stabilization. Mitigation of the loss of about 580 acres of open water will occur partially via the widening and deepening of adjacent berthing areas for the port facility, which will provide an equivalent cross-sectional area of open water. i Increases in turbidity associated with dredging significant enough to impact populations of phytoplankton, macro-algae, and zooplankton near the proposed action site are not expected. The "rough" structure provided by rip-rap on the exterior surface of the dikes at the proposed CIDMN eastward expansion, especially given the large area of the dike surface, is likely to provide an extremely diverse and productive community, and serve as a nursery and feeding area for many fishes and invertebrates, including the blue crab. During the advanced Design Phase, other options may be investigated to provide an ecologically-friendly surface on the dikes, thereby helping to offset a portion of the benthic and fisheries habitat that is lost. E4.5 WETLANDS No wetlands occur between the existing perimeter dike and rip-rap shoreline at CIDMMA and the Norfolk Harbor Channel to the east. Therefore, no vegetated wetland impacts are anticipated within the east expansion footprint or the adjoining access channel areas. No wetlands occur between the existing perimeter dike and rip-rap shoreline at CIDMMA and the Norfolk Harbor Channel to the east. Therefore, no vegetated wetland impacts are anticipated within the east expansion footprint or the adjoining access channel areas. Wetland impacts may occur from construction and operation of the rail corridor within the VDOT Craney Island connector highway and the 1-664 expansion corridor from the intersection of VA Route 164 to 1- 64. Efforts to avoid or minimize wetlands impacts where feasible will be evaluated during the Design Phase of the projects. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES- CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-01 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E.4.6 SANCTUARIES AND REFUGES Hoffler Creek Wildlife Preserve, located approximately 2.5 miles west of the proposed project area, consists of 142 acres of wetlands, dense forest, and a saltwater lake. The preserve is inland from the Hampton Roads Harbor and, therefore, would not have a view of the proposed port facility. No impacts to this preserve are anticipated from port development or operation. Other sanctuaries and refuges located in the region are at least 10 miles away from the CIDMMA eastward expansion area. Therefore, port development and operations are not expected to impact these resources. Compensatory mitigation involving wetland and aquatic habitat restoration is proposed at Ragged Island Wildlife Management Area in the lower James River. Oyster restoration is proposed in Hoffler Creek, adjacent to the Hoffler Creek Wildlife Preserve in the city of Portsmouth. E4.7 TRANSPORTATION Construction and operation of the Craney Island terminal will have minimal impacts on local streets and major highways. Future terminal operations will access the site from a new connector highway to VA Route 164 and from there to I-664 and 1-64. An average of six to seven additional trains per day would be needed to transport containers in and out of the Craney Island terminal under Build-Out conditions. Significant impacts on existing railroads are not anticipated since additional rail capacity will be provided when developing the new rail corridor to connect the Craney Island terminal with existing rail lines. E4.8 UTILITIES Little utility infrastructure currently exists on Craney Island, so it will be necessary to add additional infrastructure to extend utilities (power lines, phone/cable lines, water mains, sanitary sewer lines, etc.) from the city of Portsmouth to the proposed project site. All such utility work will have environmental permitting requirements to protect wetlands, endangered species, water quality, etc. There will be temporary construction impacts associated with the utility extension. A Navy fuel line that extends along the east side of the existing CIDMMA will have to be relocated for construction of the new cell. A discussion of environmental impacts associated with the fuel line relocation will occur during the advanced planning and design phase and appropriate permitting activities will be undertaken at that time. Compliance with state and Federal regulations for this activity will minimize the potential for adverse environmental impact. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page ES-13 4368-010 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E.4.9 WASTE MANAGEMENT Construction of the proposed expansion cell will not produce significant quantities of waste. Any solid waste resulting from cell construction will be disposed of according to applicable state and Federal regulations. Therefore, no impacts are expected. Hazardous materials or fuel products associated with the activities conducted during the Construction Phase of the CIDMMA terminal are expected to be minimal. Contractors involved with the construction activities will be required to prepare emergency response plans and waste management plans for any hazardous materials required during the Construction Phase, although no other hazardous materials are expected to be encountered during the Construction Phase of the project. E4.10 LAND USE The expansion of CIDMMA and the development of the container terminal are not anticipated to result in the conversion of land use outside the limits of the eastward expansion and the existing CIDMMA. Direct impacts on land uses along the route of the proposed freight rail line are also not anticipated to be significant, as the route, although not finalized at this time, is expected to traverse the existing rights-of- way of the Craney Island connector highway and existing VA Route 164 and 1-664. If the final rail corridor substantially deviates from this route, then the land use analysis would be updated as part of supplemental NEPA documentation prepared by the VPA prior to port facility construction. E4.11 NOISE Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the eastward expansion will be localized to the area where construction equipment and/or dredging is occurring. In addition, construction activities will occur at sufficient distances (i.e., greater than 1 mile away) from sensitive receptors so that no excessive or out-of-character noise levels will be experienced. Therefore, no mitigation measures will be required. > Under Build-Out conditions, noise levels from terminal operations will not have an adverse effect on any sensitive receptors, given the long distances (8,000 feet or more) between the port footprint and the receptors. Furthermore, no residential areas would be exposed to sound levels that approach the Federal Highway Administration noise abatement criterion of 67 dBA for “Activity Category B.” E4.12 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES Impacts on the area's visual and aesthetic resources from cell construction will range from no impact to low impact as a result of: (1) the substantial distance between the project site and most prospective viewer(s); (2) the fact that the existing CIDMMA obstructs most views of the expansion site, especially from land; and (3) the visually imperceptible difference from most perspectives across the landscape between the expansion site and the existing (adjacent) 2,500-acre CIDMMA. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES-1 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed terminal facility would result in an increase in nighttime ambient light levels resulting from general lighting and security lighting at the property boundaries of the container terminal. The port facility would also receive light reflections from surrounding water bodies. Viewsheds for residential communities likely would not experience increases in nighttime ambient light levels from operation of the proposed port due to the distance of those areas from the port boundary. E4.13 RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL USE OF WATERS The anticipated increase in vessel traffic from 9 to 15 weekly calls under Phase I and Build-Out, respectively, could be accommodated and would not be expected to significantly affect safety in the harbor (Virginia Pilots Association, April 2002). Voluntary displacement of recreational boaters to other areas of Hampton Roads may occur. The east cell expansion will displace all commercial and recreational fishing within the boundaries of the footprint of the cell. Mitigation will be provided to enhance and restore wetlands, oyster grounds, and bottom areas where many fish species feed and use as habitat and nursery areas. E4.14 ECONOMICS Construction of the terminal in four phases is estimated to cost $1.28 billion and is expected to provide direct and indirect employment for more than 1,100 individuals in construction and other industries over the 20-year construction period (2013-2032). This equates to generated earnings of approximately $734 million and $1.4 billion in final output to the economy. At full Build-Out in 2032, demand for terminal facilities is projected to reach 2,500,000 TEU's, resulting in increased local benefits over the 50-year study period. Annual averages will be 27,000 permanent jobs throughout Virginia's economy, $870 million in earnings, and $2.5 billion in average annual output. Port-oriented distribution centers are expected to add an additional 25,000 jobs, $788 million in annual earnings, and $2.7 billion in output. Resulting income taxes are estimated at approximately $155 million. E.4.15 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE No adverse impacts associated with environmental justice issues are expected to occur. However, long- term economic benefits to the community are anticipated due to an increase in employment opportunities and increased demand for local services. E4.16 PUBLIC SAFETY The development and operation of the new cell and terminal are not anticipated to adversely affect, or to be affected by, various elements of public safety in the project area. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES-15 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E4.17 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES No historical/cultural resources have been identified within the project footprint. Thus, no impacts to such resources are anticipated. 1 E4.18 SECONDARY GROWTH Operation of the proposed container terminal is not anticipated to have a significant adverse affect on population growth or associated residential development, as most jobs that would be created at the Craney Island terminal, or at other businesses indirectly benefiting from the Preferred Alternative, are expected to be filled by workers already living in the region. A beneficial effect on commercial and industrial development, however, is anticipated, as new businesses or expanded businesses that would serve the Craney Island terminal are likely to be located at existing facilities or on redeveloped sites. E4.19 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS A total of 17 Federal, state, and private economic development, maritime, environmental remediation, and transportation projects were evaluated and identified as contributing to cumulative effects in the Hampton Roads area, including the Elizabeth River Basin. The Recommended Plan, when considered in the context of past, present, and future activities, can be expected to contribute to the overall cumulative effects to specific resources. Some of these cumulative effects can be considered positive, while others, if not successfully mitigated, would be considered in a negative context. However, the potential cumulative effects associated with this proposed project, when mitigated, are not expected to be substantial. E4.20 MITIGATION In accordance with CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA, and with ER 1105-2-100, “Policy and Planning Guidance for Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies (Planning Guidance Notebook),” the project-related adverse environmental impacts (i.e., impacts to fish and wildlife resources) have been avoided or minimized to the extent practicable, and a mitigation plan has been developed to compensate for remaining unavoidable significant adverse impacts. A Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analysis (CESICA) has been performed to identify the most cost-effective plan(s). The mitigation plan was developed with input from representatives of 12 Federal and state agencies and 3 local interest groups. The Mitigation Committee convened on 15 occasions between June 2002 and May 2005. Using data from existing studies, and those performed specifically for this feasibility investigation, the group was tasked with assessing the degree of habitat impact associated with the 580-acre fill, formulating mitigation ratios to replace or to increase the ecological function and productivity of the area lost, and developing a conceptual mitigation plan comprised of various tidal and sub-tidal habitats. A "landscape approach” was pursued to establish physical connectivity between various mitigation sites and to establish ecological synergy. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES- CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-01.. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY D) The USACE and VPA, in collaboration with the Mitigation Committee, has identified specific feasible mitigation options. The USACE has used CESICA to evaluate the options and to identify a “Best Buy” plan that is cost-effective and fully compensates for the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project. During plan development, every effort was made to accommodate the diverse input of the stakeholders involved in this process. The recommended plan, which is based on 3 years of stakeholder involvement, scientific study, and thorough analysis of all data and information collected, proposes 487 acres of compensatory mitigation in the form of sediment clean-up and restoration, wetlands restoration and conservation, and oyster reef restoration, and provides large scale ecosystem benefits at a total cost of approximately $50 million. Upon successful completion, the mitigation plan will restore and replace important ecological functions and habitat in the lower James River and Elizabeth River estuaries and the Chesapeake Bay in compensation for the aquatic habitat and resources impacted by implementation of the Recommended Plan. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page ES-17 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 ! haar MA US ARMY we DISPOSAL AREA Ted S visãās) Crainey island S, NAVAL SUPPŁYL CENTER AVARURE MOUTH Ergate loans Pines Merrifield PORTSMOUTH Legend Proposed East Expansion 0.5 1 Miles CRANEY 19 LAND REACH TABETH Light Laletar Po 0 0.25 Source: - USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Map, Norfolk North, VA PROJECT LOCATION / EAST EXPANSION Figure ES-1 G Purpose and Need 1 1 PARTI PURPOSE AND NEED 1.0 CIDMMA EXPANSION Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area (CIDMMA) (see Figure I-1) is a Federally-owned and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)-operated dredged material placement area that is open for public and private dredged material from the Norfolk Harbor and adjacent waters as defined in House Document 563 of the 79th Congress. The CIDMMA has been in continuous use since 1957, serving the dredging needs of the Norfolk Harbor. Located approximately 140 miles southeast of Washington, D.C., the site is bordered by the Elizabeth River to the east; the James River to the north and west, and the City of Portsmouth, Virginia to the south. Originally designed for a life span of 20 years, with a capacity of 96 million cubic yards, CDMMA has over 225 million cubic yards of dredged material deposits as of the end of Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2004. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates the potential environmental consequences of the USACE and the non-Federal sponsor, the Virginia Port Authority's (VPA's) proposed action to construct a 580-acre eastward expansion of the existing CIDMMA. The proposed project would accommodate additional dredged material placement capacity and, after the cell is filled, port development on top of the dredged material placement facility. This document presents the environmental consequences associated with the dredging of access channels, cell construction, and port development and operation on the constructed 580-acre cell. This EIS was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1500-1508), and USACE procedures for implementing NEPA (ER 200-2-2). Article I. Study Authority Article II. This study is authorized by resolution of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure dated 24 September 1997, which reads: “Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives, That the Secretary of the Army is requested to review the report of the Chief of Engineers on the Norfolk Harbor and Channels (Deepening), contained in House Document 99- 88, 994h Congress, 1" Session, and conduct a study of eastward expansion of the Federally owned Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area (CIDMMA). Such study shall be directly coordinated with the sponsor, the Commonwealth of Virginia, through the Secretary of Transportation represented by the Virginia Port Authority, and shall give specific attention to rapid filling to accommodate anticipated port expansion and to the operation of the existing facility while extending the useful life of CIDMMA, and shall take into account all relevant environmental issues and the subsequent transfer of the expanded area of CIDMMA to the Commonwealth of Virginia.” DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 1-1 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION PURPOSE AND NEED I Study Area The Port of Hampton Roads is located in the southeastern region of the Commonwealth of Virginia at the southem end of Chesapeake Bay, midway on the Atlantic Seaboard (approximately 170 miles south of Baltimore, MD, and 220 miles north of Wilmington, N.C.). The harbor is a natural roadstead of 25 square miles formed by the confluence of the James, Nansemond, and Elizabeth Rivers. It is recognized as one of the largest and finest natural harbors in the world and is a primary stimulus to the economic well-being of the region, the Commonwealth, and the Nation. The land area surrounding the harbor encompasses about 1,500 square miles and includes the cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach, as well as Isle of Wight County on the southside and Hampton and Newport News on the northside. The 2004 population of this area was approximately 1.4 million people. 1 Hampton Roads is one of the largest and most active ports in the U.S. Foreign, national, regional, and local markets are conveniently accessible to the port through the numerous steamship services to worldwide ports and the strategic position that the port occupies with respect to national and regional transportation patterns. The geographic location of the port and an excellent rail and highway network make it economically and efficiently available to a significant portion of the Nation's population and manufacturing centers. The port is most strategically located with respect to the vast coal fields of Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky, and extensive amounts of steam and metallurgical coal resources are transported by rail from these areas to Norfolk and Newport News for both overseas shipment and domestic use. Other bulk commodities and breakbulk commodities also comprise a significant and important part of the waterbome shipments through the port. Container shipments have grown significantly in recent years and are projected to show substantial increases in the future. The port generates significant local, regional, and national economic impacts, providing employment, payroll, and , tax revenues in Hampton Roads, the Commonwealth, and the Nation. The location and the study area are shown on Figure l-1. Article III. Need For and Objective of Action Article IV. The purpose of the Feasibility Study was to determine the need for and Federal interest in an eastward expansion of CIDMMA. Three areas of potential Federal interest in the eastward expansion of CIDMMA were identified in the Reconnaissance Phase for further evaluation as follows: 1. Increased dredged material disposal capacity. The additional cell would extend the useful life of CIDMMA as a dredged material containment area. Studies to further evaluate alternatives to extend the useful life of CIDMMA as an economical dredged material placement area are in the Federal interest and would be consistent with Army policies. 2. Growth in commodity movements and waterborne transportation savings. Once filled, CIMMA could provide additional acreage for the development of projected long-term berthing and landside port facilities adjacent to the Norfolk Harbor Channel. Expansion could provide National Economic Development (NED) benefits in terms of transportation savings by providing an area for development of an East Coast megaport, thus keeping the U.S. competitive in the growing container market. 3. National Defense. Expansion of CIMMA could serve as a defense logistical and tactical area supporting deployment of national defense forces. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 1-2 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION PURPOSE AND NEED I NEPA and the USACE Principles and Guidelines (ER 1105-2-100) provide the basis for Federal Policy concerning multi-objectives planning. The Federal objective of water and related land resources project planning is to contribute to NED consistent with protecting the Nation's environment, pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements. Water and related land resources project plans are formulated to alleviate problems and take advantage of opportunities in ways that contribute to this objective. Article V. Need for Additional Dredged Material Storage Capacity (a) CIDMMA Existing Conditions Placement of dredged material at CIDMMA is limited to users within the geographical area of Norfolk Harbor and adjacent waters. In general, this includes the navigable waters of the ports of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Hampton, and Newport News. Each project requesting use of CIDMMA is evaluated by the District on a case-by-case basis. The District determines if the project can legally use the facility, consistent with the project's authorizing documents. In accordance with the authorization, CIDMMA is to be used for the benefit of the maintenance and development of navigation improvements serving Government and private interests. CIDMMA is authorized to handle all types of navigational dredged material, including material suitable and unsuitable for open ocean disposal. It cannot be limited to only unsuitable material without additional Congressional authorization. If dredging is not related to navigation, i.e., road building, railroad crossings, interior lakes and ponds etc., then disposal at CIDMMA will be denied. Also, CIDMMA cannot be used for disposal of material excavated from upland areas or for disposal of construction debris, except for limited special cases, such as beneficial use of concrete for rip-rap to protect exterior dikes from erosion. The current management strategy for operating CIDMMA is based on Section 148 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1976 (P.L. 94-587) that states the “Chief of Engineers, shall...extend the capacity and useful life of dredged material disposal areas such that the need for new dredged material disposal areas is kept to a minimum.” The Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), formerly Waterways Experiment Station, published Technical Report EL-91-11, Development of a Management Plan for CIDMMA in December 1991. ERDC recommended that Norfolk District sub-divide CIDMMA into three cells so that the dredged material could be placed in one cell while the other two cells dry out. The benefit of drying the dredged material is that significantly more volume is created for dredged material placement. The ERDC Management Plan also noted “...lift thicknesses in excess of 5 feet begin to significantly affect desiccation and consolidation behavior." In addition to drying the material, another way of increasing storage capacity is by increasing the facility's dike height. The CIDMMA was built on top of clay layers that were naturally deposited within Hampton Roads. Soils investigations revealed that water was trapped in the marine clay under CIDMMA and was under pressure due to the weight of the facility and that this water limited the foundation's load bearing DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 1-3 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION PURPOSE AND NEED I capacity. In order to relieve the pressure, strip drains were installed to create water exit pathways that improved foundation strength. Strip drains were installed from 1995 through 2001. With greater foundation strength, the dike elevations have been increased to heights greater than allowed without the installation of strip drains. Currently the dikes have been raised to elevations ranging from 36 to 40 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW). Under the current management program, the dikes are raised in anticipation of the next year's inflow. ! (b) CIDMMA Future Conditions Since its construction, CIDMMA has received an average of 4.8 million cubic yards of dredged material annually. These deposits include both new work and maintenance of Federal channels and anchorages, as well as permit dredging from other Federal, state, municipal, and private users. The total annual volume varies from year to year (see Table 1-1). For example, in 1970, prior to the subdivision of the site into three cells, more than 16 million cubic yards of material were placed in CIDMMA. At the other extreme, less than 1 million cubic yards were deposited in 1990. Some of this annual variation is due to the 2- to 3-year dredging cycle of the CIDMMA Rehandling Basin, which receives material from vessels that do not have pump-out capabilities, such as bottom dumping scows. In developing future deposition rate estimates for CIDMMA, the District queried Norfolk Harbor users that have historically placed large volumes of material into the CIDMMA, such as the USACE Norfolk District Operations Division, Navy, and the VPA. In addition, known future users, such as Maersk, that will require dredged material volume capacity in the future were also queried. All of the queried users provided the approximate location of dredging, estimates of future dredged material inflow quantities, and the anticipated timing of the inflows. The inflow schedules were reviewed to ensure the scheduled deposits would not exceed the capabilities of the facility. In addition, the dredged material inflow estimates were periodically updated during the course of the Feasibility Study. Future inflow estimates are also based on the assumption that CIDMMA would accept all material that was eligible for disposal, as is the actual practice. Furthermore, it is assumed that the District will continue to use dredged material beneficially whenever possible; however, based on the experience of recent years, it is assumed that little of the material placed into the existing site will be suitable for beneficial use. Individual year-by-year inflow projections were developed for 2005-2022. For years beyond 2022, this analysis assumes that the historic average of 4.8 million cubic yards per year will continue to be a reasonable estimate of the future deposition rate into CIDMMA, inclusive of maintenance and identified new work dredging. This estimate is consistent with the Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, Long- Term Disposal (Inner Harbor) draft information report, dated June 1990, which projected the deposits into CIDMMA to be 4 million cubic yards annually without accounting for new dredging projects that have been initiated since 1990, such as the 50-foot inbound element and the new Maersk container handling facility. In addition, sensitivity analyses were conducted on the in-flow estimate for the years beyond 2022, and it was found that in-flow during these later years has only a small impact on the projected useful life of the facility. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 1-4 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION PURPOSE AND NEED I Table 1-1. Historical and total CIDMMA inflow (1957 – 2004) Volume (cubic yd) Volume (cubic yd) Fiscal year Fiscal year 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 3,700,000 6,550,000 8,060,000 7,020,000 4,120,000 4,680,000 1,440,000 3,730,000 5,730,000 6,320,000 11,560,000 4,890,000 5,060,000 16,460,000 8,910,000 4,030,000 3,170,000 5,290,000 3,540,000 5,890,000 2,000,000 7,030,000 2,880,000 6,340,000 3,170,000 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 6,170,000 2,690,000 10,070,000 1,890,000 3,710,000 2,830,000 12,800,000 3,100,000 930,000 3,910,000 1,530,000 3,960,000 1,440,000 2,630,000 5,370,000 1,060,000 2,000,000 2,940,000 1,990,000 3,110,000 3,030,000 3,610,000 3,000,000 Total 225,630,000 Section 5.02 Without Project Conditions: Dredged Material Disposal Capacity Shortfall Table 1-2 presents the CIDMMA dredged material inflow forecast. The CIDMMA inflow forecast is based on the user survey and historical inflows discussed in the “Existing Conditions” section. The inflow forecast includes only those future inflows that have the highest level of certainty. Other potential inflows, such as material that would result from deepening the main channel to its authorized depth of 55 feet, or material that would result from berth deepening beyond existing conditions, have not been included in the forecast. User surveys and other information were forwarded to ERDC for analysis and development of with and without project capacity projections for CIDMMA. ERDC used the Primary Consolidation, Secondary Compression and Desiccation of Dredged Fill computer model to estimate the lifespan of the CIDMMA. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 1-5 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION PURPOSE AND NEED The model was calibrated using past surveys of CIDMMA and past inflows. Base simulations, CIDMMA will reach its maximum capacity in 2025 under without project condi Table 1-2. Forecasted and total CIDMMA inflow (2005 – 2025) Fiscal year Fiscal year 1 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Volume (cubic yd) 10,600,000 8,500,000 3,900,000 5,150,000 7,400,000 3,720,000 4,300,000 4,020,000 3,900,000 4,620,000 3,950,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Volu (cubic 4,600 4,700 2,500 2,650. 4,100. 2,500. 2,650 4,800 4,800 4,800 Forecast total (2005-2025) CIDMMA useful life total 98,1 323,7 Section 5.03 The CIDMMA capacity forecast is based on continuation of the management practices ide “Existing Conditions” section, such as use of drying cells, optimization of layer thickness, strip drains, and implementing alternative beneficial uses of dredged material. CIDMM/ regularly increased to meet short-term inflow projections by raising the interior height Interior dike heights currently range from 33 to 36 feet above MLW. Under without proje the dikes are capable of being raised to an interior height of 47 feet, which is projected to a forecasted inflow volumes until 2025. After 2025, with the dikes at an interior height of CIDMMA foundation will have reached its bearing capacity, and additional inflows will accommodated. 2.0 TERMINAL CONSTRUCTION Purpose of New VPA Container Terminal The purpose of the proposed container terminal at CIDMMA will be to provide the Comn Virginia with sufficient capacity to meet the containerized cargo forecast for Hampton continuing long-term cargo growth anticipated during the 2050 planning horizon. In recen Port of Virginia has experienced average annual growth rates in containerized cargo of ov DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION PURPOSE AND NEED I - These growth rates have resulted in significant annual cargo throughput, peak-operating conditions, and associated congestion that challenges the existing port infrastructure and equipment. Current market analysis indicates that the Commonwealth, represented by the VPA, must continue to accommodate steady growth well into the future. The VPA 2040 Master Plan was based on a 1999 forecast for containerized cargo at The Port of Virginia with a growth rate between 3.5 and 4.7 percent, or an average rate of 4.1 percent per year (see Figure 1-2). This growth rate is lower than the recent historical rate and, therefore, is considered conservative and sustainable. In fact, recent forecasts (2004) used to develop the economic benefits project a growth rate of 4.6 percent. It is the recent experience of most U.S. ports that actual growth has outpaced forecasted growth. Therefore, positive cargo growth is realistic for the Port of Virginia, which has the natural advantages of deep water and geographic location to accommodate a significant portion of the projected growth in East Coast cargo for the next 20 to 50 years. Improvements to Existing VPA Facilities to Meet Short-Term Needs Portions of VPA's current facilities were constructed prior to 1920. Due to age, these facilities are both functionally obsolete and deteriorated to a point where repair and maintenance yields diminished returns. Additionally, much of the port's container handling equipment is at the end of its useful life and will soon require replacement. ) In order to improve existing facilities and protect capital, the VPA has chosen to maximize the capacity at its existing cargo handling terminals prior to investing in new terminal development. This approach has resulted in development of a capital investment program for the VPA's three existing maritime terminals. The capital improvement projects for existing VPA facilities through the year 2040 planning horizon include: Norfolk International Terminals (NIT) Portsmouth Marine Terminal (PMT) Newport News Marine Terminal (NNMT) $735 million $187 million $ 26 million The recommendations of the VPA 2040 Master Plan include specific projects for each of the VPA facilities. The recommendations for all VPA maritime facilities are summarized as: Reconstruction of some container wharfage for anticipated larger (Suez Class) vessels Acquisition of 100-foot gage (Suez Class) container cranes Dredging along berthing areas varies by terminal and ranges from -45 feet to -55 feet Rehabilitation of container yard to replace aging pavement Intermodal yard renovation Increase gate capacity and other civil/utility improvements Straddle carrier and other equipment acquisitions Demolition of aged warehouses and replacement with container storage yard Most of these improvements are planned to be in place by 2020. In fact, the NIT South Renovations are well underway. The wharf reconstruction (Phase I) is complete, and 8 new 100-foot gage cranes are in DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 1-7 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION PURPOSE AND NEED I use. The container yard repaving is Phase II, and the first 48 of 108 is complete. Dredging of the berths and access channels at NIT to -50 feet MLW is expected to be completed in 2006. In addition, in an effort to maximize capacity of the VPA's existing terminals, a Master Plan for optimizing land use was developed. This Plan includes maximizing land use to accommodate the expected increase in containerized cargo volume until an additional terminal facility can be constructed. Site plan maps are included in the appendices that depict the current land use of the VPA marine terminals and the future land use after the implementation of the VPA 2040 Master Plan. To maximize the VPA container handling area, the VPA also minimized non-revenue or low-revenue generating areas. This optimization program will make use of all developable VPA lands, as summarized in Table 1-3 and Figures 1-3 and 1-4. Much of what remains in the "undeveloped area" category is not suitable for cargo handling use (e.g., lands designated for required environmental mitigation). Table 1-3: UNDEVELOPED AREA AT VPA FACILITIES VPA Facility Current Undeveloped Area (acres) 89.0 34.7 5.8 2040 Plan Undeveloped Area (acres) 19.0 0.0 NIT PMT NNMT 5.8 Even with the extensive plans for expanding the capacity of its existing facilities, the VPA's terminals will run out of capacity in 2007. Figure 1-5 shows the unmet demand curve as projected by the conservative growth rate in the VPA 2040 Master Plan. Effect of Maersk Property to Help Meet Short Term Needs In April 2004, Maersk Sealand, a division of the A.P. Moller Group, announced the development of a 500-acre waterfront site in Portsmouth, VA. The planned 280-acre container terminal will significantly enhance the Port of Virginia's capability to handle containerized cargo between its opening in 2007 and the opening of the (proposed) Craney Island Marine Terminal in 2017. This terminal will not eliminate the need for the VPA to improve its existing facilities or the need to develop a port facility at CIDMMA in order to meet long-term forecasted cargo growth. Instead, development of the Maersk Property will extend the date by which the (proposed) Craney Island Marine Terminal would need to be operating by about 8 years (i.e., year 2015 opening date versus about 2007 without development of Maersk Property). See Figure 1-6 for the increased regional capacity as a result of the Maersk Terminal. a. Additional Land Area Required to Meet Long Term Port Needs The substantial on-going efforts to increase the capacity of the VPA's existing marine terminals and to develop the Maersk property will help meet cargo demand in short-term. However, despite these efforts, a new container terminal will be needed to provide the VPA with sufficient capacity to meet the long- DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 1-8 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION - PURPOSE AND NEED I term containerized cargo forecast. Planning, design, and construction of a new terminal will require 10 to 15 years. Therefore, in order to meet future needs, it is necessary to plan for port expansion now. An analysis was conducted to project additional required port land area for the long-term. As an initial step, the Hampton Roads container cargo forecast was extended to the year 2050 based on the VPA 2040 Master Plan. The baseline forecast of 4.1 percent was used for the land analysis. Refer back to Figure 1-2 to see this curve. Using the 2050 containerized cargo forecast, corresponding container yard acreage requirements were projected as shown in Figure 1-7. Over 1,800 acres are needed to accommodate the projected increases in containerized cargo volume. Note the operating efficiency of the terminals is assumed to increase at 2 percent per year and is capped at a maximum practical capacity of 5,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU's) per acre per year. An estimated 664 acres of total container cargo area will be available after maximizing land use at VPA's existing terminals (i.e., NIT, PMT, and NNMT). This is 1,200 acres short of the over-1,800 acres projected to be needed in 2050 (from Figure 1-7). Even factoring in the new Maersk port facility in Portsmouth, more than 850 acres of container cargo area would still be needed by 2050. The proposed site of the east expansion of CIDMMA would provide 580 acres of new marine terminal space and will help meet minimum cargo capacity demands through 2035. An additional 270 acres will still be needed to meet the 2050 forecasted capacity demand. The “Evaluation of Potential Locations” section of this document will discuss the other locations that were considered. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 1-9 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Figures Figure 1-1 Welt DC ag CHESAPEAKE BAY bo V Shidy Area NORTHAMPTON Yog Spa Chanel JAMES SHAY COUNTY A York River Line Chamel ATLANTIC OCEAN Zamena SURRY NEWPORT NEWS HAMPTON Channi Norfol. Dredged Material Manager Ares Thimble Shoa Channel ISLE OF WIGHT M. NORFOLK Atlantic Ocean Chanel VIRGINIA BEACH PORTSMOUT SUFFOLK Dame Neck Dredged Material Management Arez CHESAPEAKE 40,000 20,000 0 40,000 Feet CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS HAMPTON ROADS, VIRGINIA LOCATION MAP PL ATE 1 NORFOLK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS MARCH 2003 LOCATION MAP no ! Figure 1-2 Container Cargo Forecast Baseline Forecast, 4.1% High Forecast, 4.7% 12.00 10.00 % -Low Forecast, 3.5% 8.00 Million TEU's 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 2009 2000 2010 中 ​Year Source: VPA 2040 Master Plan CONTAINER CARGO FORECAST Figure 1-3 10 Current Port-wide Land Use Administration & Maintenance Areas 4% Undeveloped Area 14% Containerized Cargo Area 48% Roadways & Railways 15% Break-bulk Cargo Area 19% CURRENT PORT-WIDE LAND USE C 1 1 Figure 1-4 Future Port-wide Land Use Administration & Maintenance Areas 4% Undeveloped Area 3% Roadways & Railways 15% Break-bulk Cargo Area 8% Containerized Cargo Area 70% FUTURE PORT-WIDE LAND USE | | | Figure 1-5 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 4.1% Average Annual Growth Rate Difference Represents Unmet Demand TEUs per year 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 Regional Capacity Existing Facilities 2001 2007 2010 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037 2040 2004 2013 2016 2019 PROJECT DEMAND AND CURRENT CAPACITY ខ្ញុំ Figure 1-6 6,000,000 Containerized Cargo Demand 14.1% Growth) 5,000,000 4,000,000 TEUs per year Maersk Phase II Maersk Phasel 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 Regional Capacity With Maersk Terminal 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2022 2025 2028 2034 2037 2040 2019 2031 PROJECT DEMAND AND PLANNED CAPACITY no - Figure 1-7 2000 1800 1600 1200 Acre Shortage By 2050 1400 C.Y. Required to Meet Forecasted Demand 1200 Acres of Container Yard 1000 800 600 400 664 Acres Existing Container Yard 200 0 2005 2020 នី Years MINIMUM CONTAINER PORT LAND REQUIREMENT ។ Evaluation of Alternatives i ! 1 PARTIT EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 1.0 ALTERNATIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT The alternative plan formulation process is designed to identify plans that are publicly acceptable, implementable, and feasible from economic, environmental, engineering, and social standpoints. It requires the systematic preparation and evaluation of alternative solutions for addressing identified problems, needs, and opportunities under the objectives of National Economic Development (NED), consistent with protecting the Nation's environment. Alternative plans are formulated to identify specific ways to achieve the planning objectives, so as to solve the identified problems and realize the identified opportunities. Each alternative plan is formulated in consideration of four criteria: (1) completeness, (2) efficiency, (3) effectiveness, and (4) acceptability. Completeness is the extent to which the alternative plans provide and account for all necessary investments or other actions to ensure the realization of the planning objectives, including actions by other Federal and non-Federal entities. Efficiency is the extent to which an alternative plan is the most cost-effective means of achieving the objectives. Effectiveness is the extent to which the alternatives plans contribute to achieve the planning objectives. Acceptability is the extent to which the alternative plans are acceptable in terms of applicable laws, regulations, and public policies. Alternatives evaluated in this section include new and existing sites for dredge material management and port facilities. The primary objective of this analysis is to determine which alternative or combination of alternatives will meet the need for increased dredge material disposal capacity, additional marine cargo handling facilities, and military logistical and tactical deployment support areas while minimizing environmental impacts to the extent practical. 1.1 ALTERNATIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA The following specific formulation and evaluation criteria have been identified for this study. Technical Criteria The plan selected should be consistent with local, regional, and state goals for water resources development. Plans must be realistic and reflect state-of-the-art measures and analysis techniques. The optimization scale of project development should be identified by analyzing NED and engineering feasibility. The plan should be capable of handling all types of material normally dredged in Hampton Roads, i.e., silt, sand, shell, and mixtures of these, as well as suitable and unsuitable material. The plan should accommodate large and small input loads without undue sacrifice of effectiveness. It should be capable of accommodating unanticipated new work without DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page II-1 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 EVALUATION OF IT ALTERNATIVES II 1 appreciable disruption. With the possible exception of extreme storms, the plan should function regardless of weather conditions. The entire plan should withstand disruption as a result of damage to part of the system. It should be a product of proven elements and practices and be resilient under emergency or catastrophic a conditions, such as storms, floods, waves, and so on. The plan should be capable of serving or utilizing all types of dredging equipment, including hopper dredges, hydraulic pipeline dredges, and mechanical (bucket) dredges. It should permit simultaneous operation of several types of dredges. Levees must be sized sufficiently to withstand storm tides and wave action. The plan should be capable of accommodating future port development. 1 Economic Criteria Each separable unit of improvement must provide benefits at least equal to its costs. The scope of the proposed development must be scaled to provide maximum net benefits. However, departure from a project that provides economic optimum is possible in cases where the departure is justifiable and substantiated. There must be no more economical means, evaluated on a comparable basis, of accomplishing the same purpose that would be precluded from development if the Federal plan was under taken. This limitation applies only to those alternative possibilities that would be physically displaced or economically precluded from development if the project were undertaken. Institutional Criteria Plans must be consistent with existing Federal, state, and local laws; Plans must be locally supported to the extent that non-Federal partner provide a letter of intent stating that it understands its responsibilities and obligations as set forth in the WRDA of 1986, as amended. Prior to the Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) Phase, the non-Federal partner would enter into a written Design Agreement to cost share 25 percent of the costs of the Design Phase upfront. Ultimate cost-sharing of design is the same percentage as for construction. Settlement is made at the time of construction subsequent to execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA). Prior to the Construction Phase, the non-Federal partner would enter into a written PCA to provide all items of local cooperation satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army, as mandated by Section 22 of Public Law 91-611, as amended. Environmental and Social Criteria The plan should minimize the commitment of natural resources, whether they are marine bottom- DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page II-2 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II lands, wetlands, other coastal zones, inland environments, or wildlife in these areas. The plan should minimize environmental impacts and maximize environmental quality in the project area to the extent practicable considering environmental, economic, and engineering criteria. The available sources of expertise should be used to identify environmental resources that might be endangered, damaged, or destroyed by plan implementation. These would include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and appropriate state agencies, such as Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC), Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VHDR). Measures should be incorporated into the Recommended Plan to protect, preserve, restore, or enhance environmental quality in the project area. The plan should be capable of being integrated into local or regional planning for water and air pollution abatement, transportation, recreation, and land use. As much as possible, the plan should minimize noise, dust, odor, unsightliness, and potential health risks. The plan should meet existing public health and environmental control standards. As nearly as possible, the plan should be aesthetically pleasing to the public, which has to support and live with it. The plan should not displace, devalue, or destroy important historical and cultural landmarks or sites. The adverse impacts on area recreation resources should be minimized. The plan should be publicly acceptable. The degree to which any water resources development project meets the foregoing criteria is taken as a measure of its relative merit. Clearly, no plan could meet all these criteria fully. However, the evaluation, selection, and development of alternatives will emphasize optimization in terms of the respective economic (NED) benefits along with the consideration of environmental, social, and regional impacts. 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS The alternatives analysis involves six essential steps: Step 1: Identification, examination, and screening of potential solutions; Step 2: Development of initial alternative plans; Step 3: Screening of initial alternative plans; Step 4: Evaluation of alternative plans; Step 5: Optimization and comparison of alternative plans; and Step 6: Selection of a plan. . . DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page II-3 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II 2.1 IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION, AND SCREENING OF INITIAL ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (STEPS 1-3) > In Steps 1-3, dredged material disposal alternatives and potential marine terminal sites were identified and evaluated individually on the basis of their suitability, applicability, and merit in meeting the planning objectives and constraints for the study. Without undertaking an in-depth analysis, the goal of this step was to screen out those solutions that obviously do not accommodate the need for increased dredged material disposal capacity or port expansion, have significant environmental impacts, or are inappropriate due to other factors such as prohibitively high costs. As part of this step, all the long-term dredge material management alternatives and all potential marine terminal locations in the Hampton Roads area are considered. 2.1.1 CIDMMA EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES A comprehensive list of all the dredge material alternatives identified for initial screening is included in Table II-1. Identified potential long-term dredged material storage locations are shown in Figure II-1. Currently the CIDMMA operates consistent with a Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP). Part of the plan calls for use of the existing north, center, and south containment cells to be rotated. Rotation allows optimal drying of the dredged material within the facility. A general assumption for initial alternatives screening is that any proposed confined disposal facility (CDF) expansion cell will be added into the cell rotation plan to continue optimal drying of material within the facility. In addition, it is assumed that expansion cells will be rapidly filled for port development, which consists of having dredged material placed into that cell as rapidly as possible without the expansion cell participating in the DMMP cell rotation for optimal drying. Table II-1 serves as a simplified synopsis of the initial screening analysis. This section explains how to use this table. The first column is a listing of all the possible alternatives for long-term dredged material storage for Hampton Roads. The remaining columns are grouped together to provide a concise reference to indicate whether the associated alternative meets the objectives of the study: provision for dredged material capacity, consideration to port development, military usage, and environmental considerations. The alternatives are grouped into the following major categories: No Action Alternative: Based on ERDC simulations, CIDMMA will reach its maximum capacity in 2025 under without project conditions. CIDMMA capacity is regularly increased to meet short-term inflow projections by raising the interior height of the dikes. Interior dike heights currently range from 33 to 36 feet above MLW. Under without project conditions, the dikes are capable of being raised to an interior height of 47 feet, which is projected to accommodate forecasted inflow volumes until 2025. After 2025, with the dikes at an interior height of 47 feet, the CIDMMA foundation will have reached its bearing capacity, and additional DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 11-4 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II inflows will no longer be accommodated. At this time ocean disposal will be utilized for suitable material. On Site Alternatives: These include modifications of the existing site that could extend the life of CIDMMA and provide port development. An example of such a measure is installation of strip drains to help consolidate material within the site. • East Expansions: These include potential solutions for eastward expansion footprints of the existing site that could extend the life of CIDMMA and provide port development. Expansion cell dikes would be constructed from the existing CIDMMA eastern dike into the Elizabeth River, and the cell would be filled with dredged material. Many different dike construction and construction phasing techniques were considered. Consideration was given to utilization of this site as only a CDF and as a CDF with port terminal development. When considering a port terminal, such development would occur on top of the expansion footprint once the cell has been filled with dredged material. A channel and berthing area would be dredged to allow ship access to the port facility. North Expansions: These include potential solutions for northward expansion footprints of the existing site that could extend the life of CIDMMA and provide port development. A larger northward expansion and a smaller northward expansion were considered. A northward expansion cell would require dike construction from the existing CIDMMA northern dike northward into Hampton Roads. The cell would be filled with dredged material. Many different dike construction and construction phasing techniques were considered. Utilization of this site both as only a CDF and as a CDF with port terminal development was both considered. When considering a port terminal, such development would occur on top of the expansion footprint once the cell has been filled with dredged material. A channel and berthing area would be dredged to allow ship access to the port facility. West Expansions: These include potential solutions for westward expansion footprints of the existing site that could extend the life of CIDMMA and provide port development. Several different westward expansion footprints were considered. The smallest footprint expansion was one that would minimally extend the life of the facility. The largest possible expansion was the footprint that would fit within physical constraints surrounding the site. A westward expansion cell would require dike construction from the existing CDMMA western dike westward into the James River. The cell would be filled with dredged material. Many different dike construction and construction phasing techniques were considered. Utilization of this site both as only a CDF and as a CDF with port terminal development was both considered. When considering a port terminal, such development would occur on top of the expansion footprint once the cell has been filled with dredged material. A channel and berthing area would be dredged to allow ship access to the port facility. . East and North Expansions: These include potential solutions for eastward and northward expansion footprints of the existing site that could extend the life of CIDMMA and provide port development. These expansion footprints are combinations of the north and east expansion footprints discussed above. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 11-5 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II East and West Expansions: These include potential solutions for eastward and westward expansion footprints of the existing site that could extend the life of CIDMMA and provide port development. These expansion footprints are combinations of the east and west expansion footprints discussed above. North and West Expansions: These include potential solutions for northward and westward expansion footprints of the existing site that could extend the life of CIDMMA and provide port development. These expansion footprints are combinations of the north and west expansion footprints discussed above. Upland Placement Sites: These include new confined upland placement sites involving acquisition of upland real estate and construction of new diked facilities. Such sites are located in land areas that are considered upland, not periodically inundated with seawater during tidal fluctuations. Such placement sites generally require larger tracts of land. The tracts should be of such a shape to facilitate water clarification goals of a dredged material placement site. Upland sites are constructed by building containment dikes to hold the dredged material. The dimensions of the upland site should be such that appropriate ponding and freeboard are maintained at all times. Weir structures should be installed to allow ponding of the water and decanting of clarified water. Management plans should be developed to optimally operate the site and maximize its lifespan. For the upland sites examined in this study, each lifecycle phase should be considered. Design efforts should consider site location, environmental and institutional considerations, real estate, technical parameters, and so forth. Initial construction and operation and maintenance (O&M), as well as closeout phases are also considered. . Ocean Placement Sites: These include the two ocean placement sites accessible off the Virginia coast: Dam Neck Ocean Disposal Site (DNODS), and Norfolk Ocean Site (NOS). These two sites were designated previously and are considered to be possible alternatives to the CIDMMA. Beneficial Use Sites: These include beneficial use of dredged material placement. Beneficial use sites for the purposes of this study are those sites where dredged material could be used to accomplish environmental benefits. Examples of such benefits could include beach nourishment, marsh creation or restoration, oyster ground creation, creation of fish and wildlife habitat, and use of dredged material as construction materials. Design, construction, and placement techniques, as well as O&M procedures are specific to the beneficial use goal. 1 Creation of New Island Facilities: These include building new islands in open water similar to the existing CDMMA that could be operated as new DMMA's. These sites were identified in prior studies and were revisited for this study. In most cases, such sites would require building dikes up from the existing subaqueous bottom to contain a large area of harbor, bay, or river bottom. Dredged material would be deposited into the site until the dredged material elevation exceeded the high water line. Then the site would be operated much as the existing CIDMMA is operated. Management plans should be developed to optimally operate the site and maximize its lifespan. Each lifecycle phase should also be considered. Design efforts should consider site DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 11-6 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ! EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II location, environmental and institutional considerations, real estate, technical parameters, etc. Initial construction, O&M, and closeout phases are also considered. Deep Hole Sites: These include locations within the Hampton Roads area where deep water exists that may have sufficient capacity to serve as pits for placement of dredged material. The concept of such a placement site is that dredged material would be deposited into the deep holes such that the deep holes would eventually be filled enough for the bottom contours to increase enough to match the surrounding bathymetry. Combined Aquatic Disposal Facilities: These include sites that could be used as borrow sources of sand that could be used for numerous construction projects. Once the sand is removed, a pit would remain that could provide dredged material storage capacity. Once the removal of borrow material is complete, dredged material could be placed into the pit. The pit would be filled until the increasing bottom contours match the surrounding bathymetry. The second column indicates whether the alternative provides dredged material placement capacity. Results of screening analysis are summarized in the third column as: “Yes.” In this case, the alternative provides long-term dredged material storage capacity for Norfolk Harbor (generally the geographic area currently included within the bounds authorized to the existing CIDMMA facility). "No." In this case, the alternative does not provide sufficient long-term dredged material storage capacity. "Possibly.” The level of design detail to determine whether dredged material storage capacity could be increased cannot be determined. However, with the limited information available increased storage appears to be likely. “Minimally.” At the current level of design, an increase of dredged material storage capacity appears likely, but the increased capacity does not really increase enough to provide long-term capacity for Norfolk Harbor. The third column includes information as to whether the alternative would allow development of a port terminal facility in conjunction with the dredged material placement site. Results of the screening analysis for this study objective are summarized as: "Yes.” In this case, the alternative has potential for port terminal development and as a dredged material placement site. "No." The alternative does not provide potential for terminal development. The fourth column includes information as to whether the alternative provides for military use of the site. There were two potential military uses of each alternative. The first use would be use of the alternative as a port facility for military logistics. The facility could be used to provide for transport of troops, supplies, weapons, equipment, and so forth. The second use would be for military training purposes. The existing DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 11-7 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II CIDMMA facility is used regularly for military training purposes. The results of screening analysis for this study objective are summarized as: “Yes.” In this case, the alternative provides potential for both types of military use, training and logistics. "No." The alternative does not provide potential for either military use. “Partial.” Here, the alternative provides for either logistical or training use. In most cases, “Partial” means only training use is support. “Possibly.” There could be military use opportunities, but the degree to which the site could be used cannot be determined at the level of design for this study. “Conflict.” A conflicting use would be an alternative that prevents military activities that are current on-going at an alternative's location from continuing once the alternative is constructed. The fifth column depicts the results of the initial environmental analysis of the various alternatives in an abbreviated form. This analysis, presented in Tables Il-2 and II-3, evaluated the degree of impact of the alternatives in various environmental categories. The last column in Table II-1 is a brief synopsis of the major reasons for eliminating or carrying forward an alternative. This column's data indicate whether an alternative progressed to the next phase of the analysis or was eliminated from consideration. 1 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 11-8 4368-010 1 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION II EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Page II-9 4368-010 filled, then port is constructed, then remaining 2/3rd's of cell is filled.) Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF DREDGE MATERIAL MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Disposal Analysis - (First, southern 1/3 of cell is Meets objectives Extends life Provides for quality Supports Aquatic biota and air Retain For Least-Cost Dredged Material future Yes Environmental development port Yes Disposal Analysis - An additional alternative site is needed to meet the port development objective. needs Determination Retain For Least-Cost Dredged Material considerations Aquatic biota Partial No No significant Elevation is too high for marine terminal construction. No No Does not meet objectives. Constructability, operability, and storage capacity effects effects No Yes No No No significant Partial is needed to meet the port development objective. Retain For Least-Cost Dredged Material Disposal Analysis - An additional alternative site effects of existing anticipated CDMMA facility national defense Potential solutions No NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Yes ON SITE ALTERNATIVE: Existing CIDMMA & west berm construction No/ Possibly significant ON SITE ALTERNATIVES: Various potential solutions that include port development on existing CIMMA problems. Possible reduction in capacity. Yes EAST EXPANSION: Eastward expansion for CDF cell only Yes EAST EXPANSION: Eastward expansion for CDF cell & port development DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS (Cont'd) Meets objectives Provides for Supports anticipated national defense development needs Environmental considerations Determination Yes Yes Yes Aquatic biota and air quality RETAIN. (First, southern 1/3 of cell is filled, then port is constructed, then remaining 2/3rd's of cell is filled.) EAST EXPANSION: EASTWARD EXPANSION FOR CDF CELL & PORT DEVELOPMENT & WEST BERM CONSTRUCTION Yes No Partial NORTH EXPANSION: Large northward expansion for CDF cell only Aquatic biota, hydrodynamics, and water quality Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder community. Also, institutional concerns. Yes Yes Yes NORTH EXPANSION: Large northward expansion for CDF cell & port development Aquatic biota, hydrodynamics, water quality, and air quality Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder community. Also, institutional concerns. i Extends life of existing CIDMMA facility future port Potential solutions DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION - ze II-10 68-010 ti II EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Page 11-11 4368-010 commercial water use Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS Water quality, Environmental No defense Determination Partial considerations community. commercial water use future port Water quality, Aquatic Partial concerns. No Partial community. water quality (Cont'd) Meets objectives Extends life Provides for Supports of existing anticipated national CIDMMA facility development needs Potential solutions Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder community. Also, institutional No biota, hydrodynamics, and Yes . NORTH EXPANSION: Small northward expansion for CDF cell only Current State law prohibits a westward expansion of the CDMMA. Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder Yes aquatic biota, visual aesthetic, and recreational WEST EXPANSION: Large westward expansion for a CDF cell only Current State law prohibits a westward expansion of the CIDMMA. Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder aquatic biota, visual/aesthetic, and recreational Yes WEST EXPANSION: Medium westward expansion for a CDF cell only DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION i 1 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS (Cont'd) Extends life of existing CDMMA facility Meets objectives Provides for Supports anticipated national defense development needs future port Potential solutions Environmental considerations Determination Yes No Partial WEST EXPANSION: Small westward expansion for CDF cell only Water quality, aquatic biota, visual aesthetic, and recreational comer -cial water use Current State law prohibits a westward expansion of the CIDMMA. Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder community. Yes No Partial WEST EXPANSION: Modified (after hydrodynamic modeling) large westward expansion for a CDF cell only Water quality, aquatic biota, visual/aesthetic, and recreational/comer -cial water use Current State law prohibits a westward expansion of the CIDMMA. Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder community. Yes Yes Yes WEST EXPANSION: Large westward expansion for CDF cell & port development Water quality, aquatic biota, visual aesthetic, air quality, and recreational/comm er-cial water use Current State law prohibits a westward expansion of the CIMMA. Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder community. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page II-12 58-010 2 II EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Page II-13 4368-010 hydrodynamics Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS Water (Cont'd) No Meets objectives Partial Provides for Supports anticipated national community Environmental mercial water use defense Determination com- considerations needs recreational aesthetic, future port visual Water quality, Water quality, Yes Yes Yes Yes a air quality, and recreational/com- mercial water use development Extends life of existing CIDMMA facility Potential solutions Current State law prohibits a westward expansion of the CIDMMA. Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder community. Yes WEST EXPANSION: Medium westward expansion for CDF cell & port development aquatic biota, visual/aesthetic, Current State law prohibits a westward expansion of the CIDMMA. Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder community. Yes WEST EXPANSION: Small westward expansion for CDF cell & port development aquatic biota, air quality, and Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder quality, aquatic biota, and Yes EAST & NORTH EXPANSIONS: Various combinations of various sizes of eastward & northward expansions for CDF cells only DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION I EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS (Cont'd) Extends life of existing COMMA facility Meets objectives Provides for Supports anticipated national defense development needs future port Potential solutions Environmental considerations Determination Yes Yes Yes EAST & NORTH EXPANSIONS: Various combinations of eastward & northward expansions for CDF cells & port development Water quality, aquatic biota, hydrodynamics, and air quality Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder community. Yes No Partial EAST & WEST EXPANSIONS: Various combinations of various sizes of eastward & westward expansions for CDF cells only Water quality, aquatic biota, hydrodynamics, visuaVaesthetics, and recreational commercial water Current State law prohibits a westward expansion of the CDMMA. Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion from westward expansion cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder community. use Yes Yes Yes EAST & WEST EXPANSIONS: Various combinations of various sizes of eastward & westward expansions for CDF cells & port development Water quality, aquatic biota, hydrodynamics, visual aesthetics, air quality, and recreational/com -ercial water use Current State law prohibits a westward expansion of the CIDMMA. Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion from westward expansion cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder community. . DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page 11-14 58-010 . II Page II-15 4368-010 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES water use Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS , and recreational commercial (Cont'd) aesthetics Environmental visual defense port Determination Water quality, Yes needs considerations development Yes recreational commercial water use s, and aesthetic a visual Water Partial No Meets objectives Extends life Provides for Supports of existing anticipated national CDMMA future facility Potential solutions Current State law prohibits a westward expansion of the CIDMMA. Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion from westward and northward expansions cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder community. quality, aquatic biota, hydrodynamics, Yes NORTH & WEST EXPANSIONS: Various combinations of various sizes of northward & westward expansions for CDF cells only Current State law prohibits a westward expansion of the CIDMMA. Hydrodynamic impacts and larval dispersion from westward and northward expansions cause a non-workable solution among stakeholder community. Yes aquatic biota, hydrodynamics, NORTH & WEST EXPANSIONS: Various combinations of various sizes of northward & westward expansions for CDF cells & port development DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION | EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES III Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS (Cont'd) Meets objectives Provides for Supports anticipated national defense development needs Extends life of existing CDMMA facility future port Potential solutions Environmental considerations Determination Yes No No UPLAND PLACEMENT SITE: Southeastern Public Service Authority landfill site in Suffolk RETAIN Many environmental, real estate, engineering, and institutional concerns. Water quality, sanctuaries and refuges, protected species/critical habitat, visual aesthetics, and wetlands Possibly Yes Yes UPLAND PLACEMENT SITE: Upland site in Portsmouth between power generation plant and State Highway 164 Transportation, visual/aesthetics, wetlands, land use, and utilities RETAIN Conflict of land use with Maersk port development. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ze [I-16 68-010 1 上 ​II TIYES Page II-17 4368-010 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS (Cont'd) Extends life of existing CIDMMA facility Meets objectives Provides for Supports anticipated national defense development needs Environmental considerations Determination future port Potential solutions No No significant effects RETAIN An additional alternative site is needed to meet the port development objective. Also, placement site would require major modifications. Possibly No OCEAN PLACEMENT: Dam Neck ocean placement site NO No Possibly RETAIN Site cannot be rapidly filled. An additional alternative site is needed to meet the port development objective given that site is a State wildlife management refuge. Hydrodynamics, water quality, and protected species and critical habitat BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL SITE: Ragged Island site a Conflict of use, since it is a wildlife preserve Also, cannot be rapidly filled. No No No 웃 ​웃 ​BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL SITE: Hoffler Creek site Hydrodynamics, water quality, protected species and critical habitat, and aquatic biota DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS (Cont'd) Extends life of existing CIMMA facility Meets objectives Provides for Supports anticipated national defense development needs future port Environmental considerations Potential solutions Determination No No No 웃 ​BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL SITE: Lily Creek site Hydrodynamics, water quality, protected species and critical habitat, and aquatic biota Cannot be rapidly filled. Also, conflict of use since the land was recently developed as residential housing. Yes Possibly Possibly CREATION OF NEW ISLAND FACILITIES: Buckroe Beach/Horseshoe Flats Hydrodynamics, water quality, aquatic biota, and recreational/com- mercial water use Conflict of use since area is borrow site for Buckroe Beach Federal project. Also, this is a finfish migratory route and crab nursery. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page 11-18 368-010 I EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS (Cont'd) Extends life of existing CDMMA facility Meets objectives Provides for Supports anticipated national defense development needs future port Potential solutions Environmental considerations Determination Yes Possibly CREATION OF NEW ISLAND FACILITIES: Willoughby Bay Island Could conflict Hydrodynamics, Protected area for juvenile fish. Also, drainage water quality, of the Mason Creek area could be disrupted. aquatic biota, Also, strong recreational and military use of this and bay. recreational/com -mercial water use Yes Possibly Possibly CREATION OF NEW ISLAND FACILITIES: Ocean View offshore/ Chesapeake Bay Hydrodynamics, Heavy use of this site for fishing, and recreation water quality, would be lost and is, therefore, socially aquatic biota, unacceptable. Also, there are possible and incompatibilities with Norfolk Redevelopment recreational/com Plan. -mercial water use Yes Possibly Possibly CREATION OF NEW ISLAND FACILITIES: East of Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Hydrodynamics, Conflicts with Chesapeake Bay multi-agency water quality, goals. Also, site would likely need larger aquatic biota, capacity than other alternatives considered for and this report, since its location would be favorable recreational/com for projects not traditionally allowed to use -mercial water CIMMA. Also, beyond the scope of this study. use DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page II-19 4368-010 II II Page II-20 I'68-010 1 1 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS (Cont'd) Extends life of existing CIDMMA facility Meets objectives Provides for Supports anticipated national defense development needs future port Environmental considerations Potential solutions Determination Yes Possibly Possibly CREATION OF NEW ISLAND FACILITIES: Hampton Flats Would be detrimental to shellfish larvae and other marine organisms. Also, disruptive to hydrodynamics. Hydrodynamics, water quality, aquatic biota, and recreational/com mercial water use Possibly No DEEP HOLE SITE: Site in James River No Hydrodynamics, water quality, and aquatic biota RETAIN Dredged material nutrient release concerns. Also, scour concerns. An additional alternative site is needed to meet the port development and national defense objectives. Possibly No No DEEP HOLE SITE: Site near Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Hydrodynamics, water quality, and aquatic biota RETAIN Dredged material nutrient release concerns. Also, scour concerns. An additional alternative site is needed to meet the port development objective. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 1 II EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Page II-21 4368-010 development objective. Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS RETAIN (Cont'd) biota Meets objectives Hydrodynamic, Provides for Extends life anticipated Supports of existing future No national port No Minimally Environmental objectives. Determination needs t considerations RETAIN biota Hydrodynamics, 웃 ​RETAIN Hydrodynamics, No No No No defense objectives. use CIMMA developmen defense facility Potential solutions Possibly DEEP HOLE SITE: Site in southern Chesapeake Bay water quality, aquatic biota, and recreational/com- mercial water Dredged material nutrient release concerns. Also, scour concerns. An additional alternative site is needed to meet the port development and national Minimally COMBINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY: Offshore of River Shore neighborhood in Portsmouth water quality, and aquatic An additional alternative site is needed to meet the port development and national defense COMBINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY: Offshore of old Tidewater Community College campus in Suffolk water quality, and aquatic High commercial fishery value. An additional alternative site is needed to meet the port DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS (Cont'd) Meets objectives Extends life Provides for Supports of existing anticipated national CDMMA defense Environmental facility development needs considerations Determination future port Potential solutions Minimally No No COMBINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY: Mouth of Nansemond River Hydrodynamics, water quality, aquatic biota, and recreational/ commercial water RETAIN Environmental impacts to James and Nansemond Rivers. An additional alternative site is needed to meet the port development and national defense objectives. use Minimally No No . COMBINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY: James River between mouths of Nansemond River and Chuckatuck Creek Hydrodynamics, water quality, aquatic biota, and recreational commercial water RETAIN Disruptive of discharge from Nansemond River and Knotts Creek. An additional alternative site is needed to meet the port development and national defense objectives. use Minimally No No COMBINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY: Middle ground site west of Monitor Merrimac Bridge- Tunnel Hydrodynamics, water quality, aquatic biota, and recreational/ commercial water use RETAIN High commercial fishery value. An additional alternative site is needed to meet the port development and national defense objectives. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page IL-22 368-010 배 ​ II EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Page II-23 4368-010 critical to larval fisheries. Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS High (Cont'd) mercial water use, and SAV Meets objectives No Extends life Provides for Supports No Minimally anticipated national biota, and recreational/com- mercial water use Environmental defense Water future port disrupt navigation. needs Full time use as Determination No considerations No Minimally Hydrodynamics, High No Minimally concerns. No fisheries. Also, possible navigation vegetation (SAV) Hydrodynamics, water area. No No Minimally development of existing CDDMMA facility Potential solutions commercial fishery value. VMRC Clam brood stock COMBINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY: Middle ground site east of Monitor Merrimac Bridge- Tunnel water quality, aquatic biota, and recreational/com- mercial water use COMBINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY: Hampton Flats west side quality, aquatic biota, recreational/com- mercial water use, and submerged aquatic High commercial fishery value. Also, disruptive to "plunging front" hydrodynamics that are critical to larval COMBINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY: Channel to Newport News a placement site would quality, aquatic COMBINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY: Adjacent to Hampton Creek entrance Hydrodynamics, water quality, aquatic biota, recreational/com- commercial fishery value. Also, proximity to Hampton Flats and associated "plunging front" hydrodynamics that are DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS (Cont'd) Supports national defense needs Environmental considerations Determination Minimally No COMBINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY: Adjacent to Willoughby Federal navigation channel in Norfolk Possible conflicts with other military use Hydrodynamics, water quality, aquatic biota, and recreational/com- mercial water use High commercial fisheries value. Also, proximity to navigation channel is undesirable. Also, possible conflicts with Virginia Department of Transportation and/or Navy interests. Minimally No COMBINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY: North of Norfolk Naval Base carrier docks Conflicts with other military use Placement site option is incompatible with Navy's use of site. Water quality, aquatic biota, and recreational/com- mercial water use Minimally No No COMBINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY: Norfolk Harbor Water quality, aquatic biota, and recreational/com- mercial water use RETAIN An additional alternative site is needed to meet the port development objective. Minimally No No COMBINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY: Adjacent to Norfolk International Terminals North Aquatic biota and recreational/com- mercial water use Navigational issues. Conflicts with Virginia Pi Association and port facility interests. An addi alternative site is needed to meet the port development objective. | Meets objectives Extends life of Provides for existing anticipated CDMMA facility development future port Potential solutions DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page II-24 68-010 L II EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Page II-25 4368-010 and national defense objectives. Table II-1. RESULTS OF SCREENING OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS RETAIN (Cont'd) water use Meets objectives Aquatic biota and Extends life Provides for Supports 웃 ​No anticipated national No Environmental defense Minimally future questionable. An additional alternative site is needed to meet the port development and national defense objectives. port Conflict of use with borrow site for development needs Aquatic biota and Determination considerations recreational commercial water use No NO Minimally of existing COMMA facility Potential solutions COMBINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY: Adjacent to Norfolk International Terminals South oyster shell for oyster restoration programs. Borrow material quality is COMBINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITY: East side of existing CIDMMA recreational commercial An additional alternative site is needed to meet the port development DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ou EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II II Alternatives that, according to the modeling results, result in significant hydrodynamic impacts or are counter to current State laws specific to CIDMMA expansion were automatically eliminated. Sites that present a conflict with current Federal or State government use or U. S. military use, present navigational concerns, or are located in a defined fishery management area were also eliminated. SUSIL! The following tables provide a more detailed evaluation and comparison of potential environmental impacts that may result from implementation of various alternatives including the No Action Alternative. A brief description of the significance criteria for evaluating degrees of impacts to each resource is provided in Table II-2 and focuses on the resources that are most likely to be impacted by the alternatives. Table II-3 presents the relative degree of impact expected to occur in each resource category for each alternative. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page II-26 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 1 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II Table II-2. CRITERIA FOR RATING LEVEL OF IMPACTS Water Quality Wetlands and Submerged Hydrodynamics Vegetation (SAV) None No appreciable impact No appreciable impact No appreciable impact No appreciable impact No appreciable impact Impact localized and not Change in a population or Impact not perceptible Impact not detectable, no Impact barely perceptible and not detectable, or at lowest individuals of a species; and not measurable; not discernible effect on water measurable; confined to small areas levels of detection consequences to population not affecting surroundings quality/hydrodynamics. and would not fill or destroy wetland Negligible measurable or perceptible, or or SAV. other changes not measurable or perceptible Impact localized and slightly Change in a population or Impact perceptible but Impact slightly detectable Impact perceptible and measurable, but detectable but would not individuals of a species, if not measurable; would but would not affect would remain localized; affecting a Minor affect overall structure of measurable, would be small and remain localized. overall water wetland or SAV that is unavoidable, any natural community localized, or other changes quality/hydrodynamics. such as repairing a pipeline or burying would be slight but detectable an upgraded electrical line. Impact clearly detectable; Change in a population or Impact detectable and Impact clearly detectable Impact sufficient to change a wetland could affect individual individuals of a species possibly affecting and could have an or SAV but would not diminish species, communities, or measurable but localized integrity of appreciable effect on water resource's integrity enough to Moderate natural processes surroundings. Air quality/hydrodynamics. jeopardize its viability. appreciably required. Impact highly noticeable and change in a population or Impact would have a Impact would have a Substantial, highly noticeable change would substantially individuals of a species significant impact on substantial, highly in the wetland or SAV resulting in a influence natural resources, measurable and would result in surroundings. noticeable, potentially significant impact. Major e.g. individuals or groups of permanent consequence to the permanent effect on water species, communities, or population quality/hydrodynamics. natural processes 'Aquatic biological resources including finfish, shellfish, and other benthic populations. Short-term = Less than one year, normally during construction and recovery; Long-term = Longer than one year, normally from operations; Cumulative = Cumulative impacts to environmental resources result from incremental effects of proposed actions when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area. Impact Aquatic Biota' Threatened, Endangered, or Air Quality Level Candidate Species quality testing would be DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page II-27 4368-010 | 1 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II Table II-2. CRITERIA FOR RATING LEVEL OF IMPACTS (Cont'd) Impact Sanctuaries and Noise Human Effects Historical and Cultural Resources Executive Orders Level Refuges No appreciable impact No appreciable No appreciable impact No appreciable impact None No appreciable impact impact Impact barely perceptible Impact not Impact not perceptible Impact barely perceptible and not measurable; Impact localized and not and not measurable. detectable, no and not measurable; not confined to small areas or affecting a single detectable, or at lowest levels Negligible discernible effect affecting surroundings contributing element of a larger National of detection Register District with low data potential Impact perceptible and Impact slightly Impact perceptible but Impact perceptible and measurable, but would Impact localized and slightly measurable, but would detectable but would not measurable; would remain localized; affecting a single detectable but would not remain localized, not affect targets remain localized. contributing element of a larger National affect overall community. Minor affecting an area that is including residential Register District with low to moderate data unavoidable. dwellings. potential, or would not affect character- defining features of a National Register eligible or listed property Impact sufficient to Impact clearly Impact detectable and Impact sufficient to change a character- Impact clearly detectable; change resource area's detectable and could possibly affecting defining feature but would not diminish could affect community; features but with have an appreciable integrity of surrounding resource's integrity enough to jeopardize its implementable mitigation Moderate sufficient implementable effect on targets area. National Register eligibility, or it generally provided to avoid impacts mitigation that would not including residential would involve a single or small group of diminish the usefulness dwellings. contributing elements with moderate to high of the site(s). data potential Change in resource area impact would have a Impact would have a Substantial, highly noticeable change in Impact highly noticeable and that is measurable and substantial, highly significant affect on character-defining features would diminish would substantially influence would result in noticeable, and surrounding area. resource's integrity so much that it would no individuals/communities permanent consequence potentially longer be eligible for National Register listing, outside Fort Monroe. Major to the environment. permanent influence or it would involve a large group of on targets including contributing elements or individually residential significant properties with exceptional data dwellings. potential 2 - Includes transportation, utilities, waste management, land use, visual and aesthetic resources, recreational and commercial uses, economics, environmental justice, secondary growth, and public safety Short-term = Less than one year, normally during construction and recovery; Long-term - Longer than one year, normally from operations; Cumulative = Cumulative impacts to environmental resources result from incremental effects of proposed actions when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page Il-28 68-010 쇄 ​ II Page 11-29 4368-010 Secondary Growth 0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Table II-3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES Resource Impact Categories Hydrodynamics Water Quality Protected Species and Critical Habitat Sanctuaries and Refuges Visual and Aesthetic Resources Wetlands and SAV Historical and Archaeological Resources Recreational and Commercial Use of Waters Aquatic Biota Air Quality Waste Management Transportation Environmental Justice Utilities Land Use Economics Public Safety Noise Alternatives NO ACTION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 SA 120 0 0 621 02 21 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 ON SITE (CIDMMA) EAST EXPANSION CDF Cell Only CDF Cell and Port CDF Cell, Port and West Berm 1 1 1 2.1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2B 1 2 | 23:22 2222 1 2 2 | 2 | 2 22 23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 | 2 4 1 NORTH EXPANSION CDF Cell Only CDF Cell and Port CDF Cell, Port, and West Berm 2024 24 23 24 4 4 1 1 1 21 1 1 | 1 1 2 4 2 2 . 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2. 2 1 O=None; 1=Negligible; 2=Minor; 3=Moderate; 4=Major (see Table II-2) DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION II II 2. 8-010 -26 2. Page 11-30 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Alternatives (Continued) WEST EXPANSION CDF Cell Only - Small, Medium, Large CDF Cell and Port-Small, Medium, Large 1 1 1. 1 23:22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 12.2.221 - 1 EAST AND NORTH EXPANSION (CDF and Port) 4 24 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 | 2 EAST AND WEST EXPANSION CDF Cell Only CDF Cell and Port 2.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 23 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 NORTH AND WEST EXPANSION CDF Cell Only CDF Cell and Port 4 2 1 4 4 1 1 21 1 1 1 1 B 12.22 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 UPLAND PLACEMENT SPSA Landfill in Suffolk Portsmouth @ State Highway 164 12 1 1 2 24 4 4 52 2 2 1 2 22 2 22 2 2 2 221 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION SES 1 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Page II-31 4368-010 II 1 LA and Archaeological Resources Species and Critical Habitat 1 1 Water Quality and Aesthetic Resources of and Refuges 1 1 21 Hydrodynamics 1 1 Justice and SAV Management 1 1 21 Growth Sanctuaries Transportation Protected Recreational Biota 1 Environmental 1 Quality 1 Historical 1 Wetlands Visual 1 Safety 1 1 Economics Aquatic 1 Secondary 1 Use 1 1 Waste Utilities Air 1 1 1 1 2-42 Waters 322 Land 221 21 1 Public Noise 1 1 1 1 1 21 2 1 1 2 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 24 2.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2-31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 , 12:23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 4 24 2 BH 12 & 22 1 2 | 23:21 22 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 24 232082 4 21 24 1:21 1 1 2-2 229 249 92 2 2 2012 21 1 1 1 1 1 22 1 221 2 Resource Impact Categories and Commercial Use Alternatives (Continued) OCEAN PLACEMENT Dam Neck Site Norfolk Site BENEFICIAL USE SITES Ragged Island Hoffler Creek CREATION OF NEW ISLAND FACILITIES Hampton Flats Buckroe Beach/Horseshoe Flats Willoughby Bay Ocean View/Chesapeake Bay DEEP HOLE SITES James River Hampton Roads Bride Tunnel Southern Chesapeake Bay 2 B 4 3 12:24 4 22 34DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION II Page 11-32 4368-010 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 2 1 2 22 2 | 2 1 1. 1 1 1. 1 1 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --- 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 21 1 1 1 -- 1 21 1 2 21 1 21 1 22 2 4 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 Alternatives (Continued) COMINED AQUATIC DISPOSAL FACILITIES Offshore TCC in Suffolk Mouth of Nansemond River James River Between Nansemond River and Chuckatuck Creek Middle Ground West Of Monitor Merrimack Bridge-Tunnel Hampton Flats Hampton Creek Entrance Adjacent to Willoughby Federal Navigation Channel North of Norfolk Naval Base Carrier Docks Norfolk Harbor Adjacent to NIT North Adjacent to NIT South East of CIDMMA 1 1 1 1 4 3 2.22 22 2022 1 4 4 4. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | 261 2 1 22 20 21 1: 2 2.1 1 1 1 1 2.2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 1 1 1 2 | 22 | 2 2.1 221 2.2.2.2 1 1.2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --- 1 1 1 --- 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- 1 2 $21 1 2 1 1 2.1 1 2 21 1 1 1 1 1 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II 2.1.2 TERMINAL CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES Overview In addition to the dredge material management alternatives described previously in Part II, various sites throughout Hampton Roads were evaluated for the construction and operation of a marine terminal. Alternatives meeting the criteria for development of a marine terminal would be constructed in conjunction with alternatives that would satisfy the dredge material disposal objective. As discussed in Part I, Need for Port Facilities section, the container terminals operated by the VPA are nearing their capacity to handle cargo growth. In an attempt to meet forecasted cargo area demand at the Port of Hampton Roads, the VPA has chosen to increase the capacity at its existing cargo handling terminals (i.e., NIT, PMT, and NNMT). In addition to expanding the VPA terminals, Maersk Sealand is constructing a new 280-acre container terminal in Portsmouth that would increase The Port of Virginia's capability to handle containerized cargo. However, this terminal combined with increasing capacity at VPA's existing terminals will not meet the forecasted cargo demand. The VPA has determined that a new container terminal is needed to provide sufficient capacity to meet the containerized cargo forecast for Hampton Roads and continuing long-term cargo growth anticipated during the 2050 planning horizon. New Container Terminal Requirements Container vessels are growing in size to meet market demand. These newer vessels require larger cranes and deeper water, resulting in the need for dredging and for rehabilitating or renovation of existing wharf structures. These larger vessels will require loading and discharging a higher number of containers per vessel call without an increase in port time. Thus, state-of-the-art landside facilities and handling equipment will be required at new container terminal facilities. In summary, a feasible site to develop a new marine terminal requires: large tracts of waterfront land to develop port infrastructure, good road infrastructure, good rail infrastructure, and deep water access to Federal navigation channels. . Land Area As discussed in the Need for Port Facilities section, 850 acres of land is needed to meet the 2050 projected cargo volume. Transportation Corridors Successful port development is dependent upon proximity to major highways, railroads, and deep navigation channels. Roadways in the vicinity of the proposed port facility must be capable of accommodating the movement of freight into and out of the Hampton Roads region and providing trucks and worker vehicles with ready access to the port terminal. The internal height of tunnels and underpasses associated with the access roadways must be sufficient to accommodate all trucks (minimum of 14.6 feet). Existing freight rail networks are required in the vicinity of the port facility to provide direct links between the Hampton Roads area and major consumer centers throughout the United States. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 11-33 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II The port terminal must be close to one of the Hampton Roads commercial marine transportation channels, such as the Norfolk Harbor Channel, the Newport News Channel, the Thimble Shoal Channel, or other Hampton Roads ancillary channels. To support the newer container cargo vessels, navigation channels to the port facility must be at least 50 feet deep. Figure Il-2 identifies major roadways, rail corridors, and navigation channels in the Hampton Roads area, along with available mapping of current land use. Description of Potential Locations A search for large undeveloped sites in the Hampton Roads area was conducted using available digital land use mapping (digital mapping of current land use for Gloucester County, Poquoson, Suffolk, and Isle of Wight County was not available). Figure II-3 identifies all land classified as vacant or undeveloped in the Hampton Roads area (in red), based on the available information. No large undeveloped, waterfront sites were identified in Chesapeake, Newport News, Norfolk, or Virginia Beach. Craney Island Eastward Expansion The eastward expansion of CIDMMA would provide approximately 580 acres of waterfront property for container terminal development in the Hampton Roads area. The terminal would be close to deep navigation channels, rail corridors, and major highways. Access from the terminal to major transportation corridors would be provided by a connector highway from VA Route 164 to CIDMMA. The proposed Third Hampton Roads Crossing would function as a strategic complementary project but is not absolutely necessary for the success of the site of the east expansion of CIDMMA since the proposed connector road corridor could be completed without constructing the Third Crossing. Existing rail corridors would be accessed via new rail lines from the terminal. To the extent practicable, the new rail lines would be constructed within existing rail and road ROW's to minimize impacts. Vessel access to the terminal would occur via the existing Norfolk Harbor Reach and Craney Island Reach navigation channels. Dredging activities proposed for the Craney Island eastward expansion would provide adequate port access and 50-foot deep channels to accommodate deep draft ships. Expansion of the east side of the CIDMMA is limited to 580 acres as the area is bounded by the Federal navigation channel, the CIDMMA re-handling basin, and the hydrodynamic impacts associated with any subaqueous fill on the North side of the CIDMMA. Waterfront Sites in Hampton Three large undeveloped areas consisting of at least 400 acres were identified along the Chesapeake Bay frontage and Back River frontage of Hampton (see Figure II-3). The site fronting the Chesapeake Bay is bordered to the north by the Grandview Natural Preserve, which forms the northeast corner of the city of Hampton. Based on the city of Hampton Tidal Marsh Inventory (Barnard, 1975), approximately half of the site consists of tidal wetlands known as White Pond Swamp. This wetland system is noted as having high environmental values by providing flood attenuation, sediment retention, and habitat for Federal- and state-protected wildlife and waterfowl (Barnard, 1975). The other two Hampton sites front both Harris River and Back River, tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. According to the City of Hampton Tidal Marsh Inventory (Barnard, 1975) and the National Wetland Inventory Hampton quadrangle (USFWS, 1973), valuable tidal wetlands also constitute a substantial portion of these sites. These two sites also fall within the Accident Potential Zone of the Langley Air Force Base runways. Furthermore, all of the Hampton sites are surrounded by residential zoning areas. a DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 11-34 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II In addition to wetland impacts, access to these sites from existing commercial marine transportation channels would require substantial dredging. The existing transportation channels are located at least 5 miles offshore. Based on U.S. Geological Survey mapping, existing depths in the vicinity of these sites are less than 1 foot and remain less than 30 feet deep to the Chesapeake Bay Channel and less than 20 feet deep to Thimble Shoal in the vicinity of the Thimble Shoal Channel. Primary roadways and rail corridors are not readily accessible from these sites. Substantial road and rail corridor construction would be required to develop these sites as container cargo port facilities. Waterfront Site in York County One large undeveloped, waterfront site was identified on Crab neck in York County, as shown on Figure II-3. The site is located south of Goodwin Islands and fronts the Chesapeake Bay. Based on the York County and Town of Poquoson Tidal Marsh Inventory (Silberhorn, 1981), the site contains substantial acreages of tidal wetlands. This marsh system provides high values in productivity, wildlife and waterfowl habitat, fish spawning and nursery areas; is important to the shellfish industry; and provides shoreline stabilization (Silberhorn, 1981). This site is located over 5 miles from the York River Entrance Channel, and the existing depth in the vicinity of the site is less than 1 foot and remains less than 30 feet deep to the channel; therefore, extensive dredging would be required to provide access to large container cargo vessels. Disposal of the large amount of dredged material would provide further difficulties. Roadways in the vicinity of the site include U.S. 17, a major transportation corridor within the Hampton Roads region. However, U.S. 17 is already heavily congested due to commuter traffic between Gloucester County and the Lower Peninsula. This travel corridor is also heavily commercialized with numerous traffic lights, which would significantly delay truck traffic associated with a large cargo facility. Other Potential Sites in York and Gloucester Counties Although digital mapping of current land use was not available for Gloucester County, Figure II-3 does show that the Gloucester Point area fronting the York River and the Chesapeake Bay is either developed or contains substantial tidal wetland areas. Waterfront sites north of Gloucester Point may have adequate land area to support port development, but these rural areas lack major roads and rail corridors capable of supporting a large containerized cargo facility. As stated above, U.S. 17, the major roadway within a Gloucester County, is not capable of supporting heavy volumes of additional truck traffic and does not provide ready connections with other major U.S. highways. Large undeveloped areas may also exist upstream of the Coleman Bridge on the York River; however, frequent bridge openings would cause significant traffic problems between Gloucester and the Lower Peninsula. Dredging would also be required since the navigation channel upstream of the bridge is less than 45 feet deep and decreases in depth upstream of the Cheatham Annex. Maersk Sealand Property Another large area identified on Figure 11-3, which fronts the Elizabeth River, is the 500-acre Maersk Sealand property in Portsmouth. As described in the “Need for Proposed Port” section, Maersk Sealand is planning to develop a 280-acre container cargo facility on this property. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 11-35 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II Sites Fronting the James River No large undeveloped areas of waterfront property exist between the 1-664 Monitor-Merrimac Bridge Tunnel and the James River Bridge. Within this stretch of river, industrial development occupies the majority of waterfront property on the east bank of the river, as shown on Figure II-3. Residential development, golf courses, and wetlands occupy the majority of the waterfront property along the west bank of the James River and along the Nansemond River. Although large waterfront areas may be available upstream of the James River Bridge, the channel depth is less than 40 feet and less than 30 feet upstream of Fort Eustis. Substantial dredging would be required to deepen the navigation channel, to create an access channel to a new port facility, and to establish a deep draft anchorage. Port development upstream of the James River Bridge would also result in significant traffic impacts resulting from the high frequency of bridge lifts required to accommodate the large cargo vessels. In rural areas, existing rail and roadway infrastructure would not be capable of supporting a large containerized cargo port facility. Recently, a 620-acre site on the James River located just upstream of Fort Eustis in James City County was released for sale. The property provides valuable waterfront access and existing rail corridors; however, substantial dredging would be required to provide access for the large container cargo vessels. The site is located 18 miles upstream of the James River Bridge, and, as stated above, the channel depth upstream of the bridge is less than 40 feet. The navigation channel in the vicinity of the site, the Tribell Shoal Channel, is 1 mile west of the site, and the water depths decrease from 30 feet at the channel to less than 3 feet at the site. Port development on this site would also cause significant traffic impacts resulting from frequent James River Bridge lifts required to accommodate large cargo vessels. Sites Fronting the Elizabeth River There are no large undeveloped waterfront sites on the Elizabeth River. Although there are a few small, undeveloped waterfront sites along the Upper Reach of the Southern Branch that are near each other, they would have to be contiguous in order to allow the operational efficiency that is required of a container terminal. There are also traffic concerns related to sites in this area. Only limited road and rail corridors serve the immediate area, and there would be a negative impact on local traffic across the Jordan Bridge due to the multiple daily openings that would be required to allow passage for container ships arriving to and departing from the terminal. The size of the Upper Reach channel itself also raises concerns. It is only 35 feet deep and 500 feet wide, which is not deep or wide enough for deep-draft container ships. Even if the channel can be dredged deeper, a turning basin for a 1,100 feet ship is impossible. Comparison of Marine Terminal Alternatives Table II-4 compares the ability of the various potential locations to meet the container terminal requirements. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page II-36 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II Table II-4. CONTAINER TERMINAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL DREDGED MATERIAL STORAGE LOCATIONS Container Terminal Requirements Potential Locations Land Area Road and Rail (> 400 acres) Corridors Deep Water Channel Access CIDMMA Eastward Provides 580 acres of Close proximity to major Provides port access for deep draft Expansion container cargo area transportation corridors vessels; minimal dredging required to access Federal navigation channel relative to other options. Hampton Sites Substantial acreages of Not readily accessible Federal navigation channels at least 5 tidal wetlands miles from sites, extensive dredging required to access federal navigation channel. York County Site Substantial acreages of Not readily accessible Navigation channel at least 5 miles tidal wetlands from site, extensive dredging required to access federal navigation channel. Other Potential York No known undeveloped Frequent bridge Substantial dredging would be and Gloucester waterfront sites openings to allow required to deepen the navigation County Sites vessels upstream of the channel, to create an access channel Coleman Bridge would to a new port facility, and to establish result in significant a deep draft anchorage. traffic impacts; U.S. 17 not suitable to support additional heavy truck traffic; no major roads and rail corridors within rural areas Maersk Sealand Proposed 280 acres of Close proximity to major Provides port access for large Property container cargo area transportation corridors container cargo vessels. James River Sites No sites downstream of Significant traffic Substantial dredging would be the James River Bridge; impacts resulting from required to deepen the navigation one known site just frequent James River channel, to create an access channel upstream of Fort Eustis Bridge lifts to to a new port facility, and to establish accommodate vessels; no a deep draft anchorage. major roads and rail corridors within rural areas Elizabeth River Sites Multiple small sites, Traffic impacts resulting Substantial dredging would be questionable suitability from Jordan Bridge required to deepen the navigation since non-contiguous openings to channel; a turning basin is physically accommodate vessels; infeasible. limited major road and rail corridors in areas DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 11-37 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II Selected Port Alternative Based on the evaluation of these potential sites, it was determined that other than the CIDMMA eastward expansion alternative, no other sites in the Hampton Roads area could reasonably support the land capacity, navigational access, and transportation requirements of a major container handling facility. The proposed eastward expansion site is close to 50-foot deep navigation channels and major highway and railroad corridors. This eastward expansion is also the only proposed port location that is a dredge material disposal area alternative that remained after the initial screening. As a result, the eastward expansion alternatives that include port facility construction are the only alternatives that meet the requirements of the study authorization and are believed to have minimal hydrodynamic and navigation impacts relative to all possible alternatives, other than the "No Action" alternative. 3.0 ELIMINATION OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under a No Action scenario, CIDMMA would reach its capacity by 2025. The CIDMMA would close and a new disposal site would need to be constructed for material deemed unsuitable for ocean disposal. In addition, engineering constraints would prohibit a marine terminal from being constructed on the current site as the elevation of the site would be too high. The Port of Virginia would continue to operate, but its future capacity would be limited to the combined maximum capacity of existing port facilities and the new Maersk terminal that is under construction. The most noteworthy local effect of the No Action alternative would be the negative economic consequences to the Hampton Roads area. Direct economic benefits to the regional economy from construction and operation of the terminal site on the east expansion of CIDMMA in the short-term and long-term would not be realized. The anticipated shortfall in cargo handling capacity and potential delays in moving and handling cargo would likely result in a shift in vessel traffic and business to other East Coast ports. This scenario would, thus, have a negative impact on the local and regional economy. Long-term economic benefits from secondary growth would also be greatly reduced under the No Action alternative. Commercial and industrial development would be reduced since new businesses or expanded businesses would no longer be needed to serve the terminal site on the east expansion of CIDMMA. This, in turn, would reduce regional benefits from increased employment, the purchase of goods and services, and the tax revenues generated by secondary growth. These effects would be felt by the entire Commonwealth of Virginia. The most noteworthy national effect of the No Action alternative would be the economic consequences felt by the entire East Coast and Midwest markets. The trade growth experienced by Virginia is felt throughout the Nation, and most other ports are also experiencing capacity challenges. Therefore, one can not assume that cargo can simply be diverted to other East Coast ports with no additional costs being incurred. There are only a few ports that are expected to have available capacity, but there would be significant added inland transportation costs as a result of diverting cargo through the other ports. Two separate studies on the potential economic impacts of the proposed the terminal site on the east expansion of CIDMMA have been conducted. The first study, “Craney Island Eastward Expansion DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page II-38 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ។ EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II a Feasibility Study" (Benefits Analysis), is national in scope and is was conducted by David Miller & Associates for the USACE (David Miller & Associates, 2004). This study examines the national landside savings the proposed port expansion may deliver and provides a detailed explanation of how the No Action alternative has a negative impact on the national economy. The findings of the report detail the added landside transportation costs that would be incurred without the terminal site on the east expansion of CIDMMA and are as follows: If the terminal site on the east expansion of CIDMMA is not built, the Port of Virginia will not be able to meet its forecasted demand and cargo will have to be diverted to other ports (18 alternate ports were considered). 1 Diverted cargo incurs significant added landside transportation costs over a Norfolk routing. Over the 50-year study period (2010-2060), these added costs equal $5.9 billion. The second study, “Economic Impact Study: Craney Island Marine Container Terminal,” is regional in scope and is being conducted by Moffat & Nichol for the VPA (Moffat & Nichol, 2004). The draft Impact Study was commissioned to determine the state/regional economic impacts from the terminal site on the east expansion of CIDMMA construction and operation, as well as the nearby distribution center activity that would be generated. Direct, indirect, and induced activities were considered at the terminal and throughout the distribution, warehousing, and transportation sectors. The preliminary findings are as follows: Under the No Action alternative, there would be a $1.4 billion shortfall in benefits to Virginia's economy from terminal design and construction and an average annual unrealized gain of $2.5 billion from the operation of the terminal site on the east expansion of CIDMMA. There would also be an annual average of $2.7 billion in lost opportunities for economic activity from distribution center operations that would be generated from the new terminal as well. ] Absent a proposed eastward expansion with port facility construction, the Port of Virginia would be missing one of the keys to its successful and competitive future and CIDMMA would close. Negative economic consequences to the entire Hampton Roads region as well as the remainder of the Commonwealth and the entire Nation would be expected under the No Action alternative. As a result this alternative was eliminated since it did not meet the study objectives. 4.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS (STEP 4) At the end of this multi-objective screening process, two potential alternative solutions remained: (1) eastward expansion of the CIDMMA, and (2) eastward expansion of the CIDMMA with construction of a west berm. Additional navigation simulations and comprehensive hydrodynamic modeling were conducted on the alternatives. The results of these studies indicated that hydrodynamic and navigational impacts resulting from the construction of the alternative would be minimal. These reports may be found in the Feasibility Report, Appendix A, and are referenced in EIS Sections III and IV. Eastward Expansion Alternative The Eastward Expansion of the CIDMMA alternative includes the construction of an additional 580-acre disposal cell to the east of the existing CIDMMA. Perimeter dikes will be constructed around the area of DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page II-39 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II the new cell to contain dredged material. The western limit of the proposed cell will tie into the existing east dike of the CIDMMA. After filling, the new cell will be turned over to the local sponsor for the construction of a new marine terminal. The main dike will be approximately 8,500 feet in length and constructed to elevation +18 feet MLLW, with a 5H:1V side slope below elevation +5 feet and 2H:1V side slope above +5 feet. The remaining dikes, which run east-west, will be constructed with a 10H:1V side slope from the mudline to elevation +5 feet MLLW and an 8H:1V side slope from +5 feet to +18 feet. 1 Eastward Expansion with West Dike Strengthening Alternative The Eastward Expansion With West Dike alternative includes the construction of an additional 580-acre disposal cell to the east of the existing CIDMMA in conjunction with a strengthening of the western dike in 2028. Perimeter dikes will be constructed around the area of the new cell to contain dredged material. The western limit of the proposed cell will tie into the existing east dike of the CIDMMA. After filling, the new cell will be turned over to the local sponsor for the construction of a new marine terminal. The main dike will be approximately 8,500 feet in length and constructed to elevation +18 feet MLLW, with a 5H:1V side slope below elevation +5 feet and 2H:1V side slope above +5 feet. The remaining dikes, which run east-west, will be constructed with a 10H:1V side slope from the mudline to elevation +5 feet MLLW and an 8H:1V side slope from +5 feet to +18 feet. The strengthening of the western dike will be accomplished with the construction of a berm along the outside of the dike. It would consist of a 150-foot berm extending from the outside edge of the existing dike and would have to be constructed of suitable sandy material to elevation +8 feet MLLW. With the construction of the stability berm and building the dike exterior slopes on a 10H:1V side slopes, the west dike can be built to elevation +60 feet MLLW with adequate factors of safety. 5.0 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS (STEP 5) Economic benefits for the Eastward Expansion alternative and the Eastward Expansion with West Dike alternative plan were derived from the reduction in the systems dredging costs, the actual cost of dredging and disposing of material in Hampton Roads, and the reduction in transportation costs of containerized cargo traffic. Cost inputs included the following: 0 0 Expansion Costs Systems Dredging Costs O&M Costs Environmental Mitigation Costs Real Estate Costs Transportation Costs 1 . Expansion Costs Expansion costs are the initial costs necessary to construct a containment facility or port facility. The cost estimates require a feasibility level design of containment cell structures (including dikes, weirs, etc.) and port structures (including alternative construction techniques for bulkheads, foundation treatments, channel design, etc). DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 11-40 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II Systems Dredging Costs Systems dredging costs were developed to determine how much dredging in the local area would cost for each placement site alternative considered. A unit cost per cubic yard for placement of dredged material in each of the alternative placement cells was required. For this study, the systems dredging analysis included various cost variables. Among these variables are: consideration of dredging project magnitude, the distance of the user's dredging project site to the placement site alternative, a contractor's dredging plant and equipment required to perform the dredging, type of material dredged, fuel costs to operate the dredge and attendant plant, dredge hired labor costs, dredging plant availability and contractor competition, etc. a Operation and Maintenance The O&M cost component was forecasted to estimate long-term costs associated with expansion of the CIDMMA. Some considerations captured in the O&M cost component were historical O&M costs to establish a baseline. During the study, the prior years' funding levels were examined to determine how the Norfolk District's O&M funding baselines and capabilities may be changed as the result of CIDMMA expansion alternatives. For instance, the financial records have been detailed regarding how much funding has been used to maintain the CIDMMA containment dikes. Current funding levels and existing funding capability were reviewed. Analyses were performed to determine how future O&M funding needs would increase with expansion alternatives. Current Norfolk District policies regarding the operation of CIDMMA will likely change with different expansion alternatives. Current O&M practices have been reviewed and assumptions have been made as to how these practices must be modified with expansion alternatives. Some examples include: modifications to cell rotation cycles and dike maintenance schedules, as well as policies with customers regarding timing of dredged material placement into the CIDMMA. For all of the O&M analyses discussed in this section, the USACE ERDC filling and capacity studies were used to help predict future years' O&M funding requirements. Environmental Mitigation Costs Construction of any expansion at CIDMMA will adversely impact the environment with the filling of open water habitat. The proposed east expansion of CIDMMA would fill approximately 580 acres of open water. In order to offset these losses, mitigation measures include sediment remediation, wetlands restoration and conservation, oyster restoration, and a bird management plan. The mitigation plan was developed with stakeholder input using USACE guidelines and evaluation criteria. Real Estate Real Estate costs consisting of administration costs and a cost credit for the existing facility, as a government asset, are included in the optimization of alternative plans. Transportation Costs A basic assumption of this analysis is that excess TEU's will be handled at alternative ports in order to maintain the forecasted trade between commodity origins and destinations. These alternative ports would most likely be on the same or similar service strings that include Hampton Roads as a port-of-call, so insufficient capacity would not affect vessel deployment or waterborne transportation costs. The transportation costs calculated in this analysis are the landside costs of transit between the landside DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page II-41 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II 6.0 PLAN SELECTION (STEP) Table II-8 presents the net NED benefits of the two alternative plans. Although the plan including western dike strengthening has a higher AAEQ cost, it is the alternative that reasonably maximizes net economic benefits consistent with protecting the Nation's environment. Table II-8. AAEQ ALTERNATIVE PLAN NET BENEFITS (1) Net benefits Benefit-to- cost ratio Item Costs Benefits (2) Eastward expansion $73,726,000 $346,459,000 $272,733,000 4.70 Eastward expansion with western dike strengthening $75,093,000 $349,400,000 $274,346,000 4.65 (1) Discounted to base year 2010 at 5.375 percent. (2) Benefits include transportation cost savings and dredged material disposal cost savings. The previous table identifies the eastward expansion with strengthening of the western dikes in 2028 as the plan with the greatest net benefits that satisfies all the planning objectives and constraints that guided the planning process. However, the non-Federal partner, the VPA, who has collaborated in the detailed evaluation of the two alternative plans, prefers the less costly alternative plan, which excludes strengthening the western dikes. This preference is based on project cost savings and the uncertainty associated with making a decision today to strengthen the western dikes in 2028. A General Reevaluation Report and updated NEPA document would also likely be required prior to implementation in 2028. In addition, throughout the course of the study, there has been strong opposition from homeowners in the Rivershores community adjacent to the CIDMMA to any project located on the western side of the CIDMMA. The homeowners are also supported by the city of Portsmouth in their opposition. In view of these concerns, the local sponsor does not support including the western dike strengthening as a feature of the selected plan. Recommended Plan - Eastward Expansion of the CIDMMA Although the eastern expansion in combination with the western dike strengthening meets the planning objectives and maximizes beneficial contributions to the Nation, the plan is not supported by the local sponsor, as previously discussed. Of the two alternatives, only the Eastward Expansion is supported by the local sponsor and is therefore designated as the Recommended Plan. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 11-44 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II The Eastward Expansion also provides significant benefits to the Nation. Average annual benefits of $278 million, or over 99 percent of the benefits that would have resulted from construction of the eastward expansion west dike alternative, are expected to accrue as a result of the Recommended Plan (Table 11-8). In addition, average annual costs of the eastward Expansion are slightly less than the Eastward Expansion with West Dike annual costs. The Recommended Plan ensures an extension of the useful life of CIDMMA by an additional 3 years and provides for anticipated future port development and related national defense needs. The Eastward Expansion also results in the least environmental impact of the expansion alternatives evaluated. For these reasons, it is believed that implementation of the Recommended Plan is warranted and in the best interest of the study area, the region, and the Nation. 7.0 DESCRIPTION OF EASTWARD CIDMMA EXPANSION The Recommended Plan includes construction of a 580-acre cell to the east of the existing CIDMMA. After construction and filling the new cell will become the location for a new terminal facility. The following construction methods, assumptions, and figures are used to describe the construction as it is envisioned at this time. Construction would take place over a period of 5 years. A general layout of the expansion is shown in Figure II-4. 2 Pre-dredging along the main dike is anticipated to be completed by a combination of bucket and pipeline cutter-head dredges. Ten percent of the pre-dredge foundation and access channel dredging material is assumed to go into the existing CIDMMA via a pipeline dredge. The remaining 90 percent, anticipated to be dredged by a combination of hydraulic and/or mechanical dredges, would be disposed of in the Norfolk offshore placement site. Figure II-5 shows the limits of pre-dredging. The access channel dredging is defined as the area between the Federal navigation channel (Norfolk Harbor and Craney Island Reaches) and the new wharf. The Access Channel is generally 500 feet in width and will be flared at both ends where it adjoins the Federal channel. The dredging depth will be 50 feet MLLW with 2 feet advance maintenance dredging. Maintenance material within the existing channel template was not included in the estimated quantities. Figure II-5 shows the limits of the Access Channel while Table II-9 shows the estimated quantities to be dredged. Table 11-9. ESTIMATED QUANTITIES TO BE DREDGED FROM DIKE FOUNDATIONS AND ACCESS CHANNEL Area Pre-Dredge Foundation to -60' Access Channel to -52' (50' +2' Advance Maintenance) Estimated Quantity (CY) 15,400,000 3,700,000 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page 11-45 4368-010 1 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II G The predominately clayey material to be dredged in both locations is likely undisturbed, with contamination transport through layers unlikely. However it is assumed that by placing the upper few feet of material in CIDMMA, all remaining material will be suitable for ocean disposal. The upper several feet will be defined as 10 percent of material dredged. At this time it is not known exactly what percent of material going into CIDMMA is unsuitable for ocean placement; however, 10 percent is thought to capture a conservative upper limit. Environmental testing to verify this assumption is anticipated to be completed during PED. The 10 percent (estimated to be up to 1.8 mcy) could be placed into CIDMMA without impacting operations. In order to construct the dikes, sand will most likely be dredged from offshore channel areas by hopper dredge. Once transported to the eastward expansion site the material will be offloaded using a self- contained offshore transfer station buoy ("SCOTS buoy"). The Atlantic Ocean Channel is designated as the primary source of material for dike construction, with Thimble Shoal and Cape Henry Channels as secondary sources. Figure II-6 shows dike layout while Figures Il-7 and II-8 show dike geometry. The total amount of required sand fill is estimated to be 19.5 mcy (in-place at dikes), dis-aggregated as shown in Table IL-10: Table II-10. REQUIRED SAND FILL FOR CIDMMA EXPANSION DIKE CONSTRUCTION - С Phase 1 - 220-acre cell Main Dike (3,000 linear feet (LF)) 5.3 million CY South Dike (2,800 LF) 1.5 million CY Division Dike (2,800 LF) 1.5 million CY Phase 2 to 4 - completes remaining 380-acre cell Continue Main Dike (5,500 LF) 9.7 million CY North Dike (2,800 LF) 1.5 million CY Total 19.5 million CY Note: A single hopper dredge is capable of 10,000 cy/day. To provide protection to the dikes from erosion, slopes will be protected with riprap. As the dikes are constructed, the slopes along the exterior of the dike along the wharf will be protected from +8 feet to -3 feet MLLW. The riprap section for this reach will consist of a 4-foot thick layer of VDOT Class III riprap underlain by a 1.5-foot thick layer of VDOT No. 1 stone, underlain by geotextile. The interior slopes of the dikes in the northern cell, including the division dike, will also be protected. Interior slope riprap will consist of a 2.8-foot thick layer of VDOT Class II riprap underlain by a l-foot thick layer VDOT No. 1 stone, underlain by geotextile. The riprap will be placed on the exterior of the slopes from elevation +8 feet to -3 feet. USACE modeling estimated that it will take 12 months to rapidly fill the southem part of the cell to elevation +15 feet MLLW. Surcharge and ground improvements will begin approximately 3 to 6 months DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page II-46 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION . EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II after this rapid filling. After that time, a surface crust will form allowing the surcharge and strip drains to be installed. Construction of the wharf will start concurrent with filling of the cell, as it is envisioned that shaping the main dike and beginning installation of wick drains would begin soon after the dike has be constructed. Access to Eastward Expansion and Proposed Craney Island Marine Terminal Vessel access to the proposed Eastward Expansion and proposed Craney Island Marine Terminal would be provided via the existing Norfolk Harbor Reach and Craney Island Reach navigation channels (see Figure 11-2). As part of the proposed CIDMMA eastward expansion and other proposed harbor channel improvements, all dredging activities needed for port development and operation would be completed. These dredging activities, including the area between the navigation channel and proposed wharf, would be completed regardless of port development and will provide a minimum of 50-foot deep inbound and outbound channels to accommodate deep draft ships. Although not specifically required for the port development, the proposed VDOT Hampton Roads Third Harbor Crossing would facilitate truck and auto access to the proposed port (see Figure II-9). Access points to the port facility would connect with VDOT's proposed roadway crossing of CIDMMA, located along the eastern edge of the current limits of CIDMMA. The Third Harbor Crossing is currently unfunded and will take years to complete. In the event the Third Crossing is not completed within the next 10 years, a connector highway and rail corridor would be constructed from the southern end of CIDMMA to the existing VA Route 164 freeway, from which the existing interstate highway and rail systems can be accessed. Rail access to the Eastward Expansion and proposed Craney Island Marine Terminal would be accomplished through a VDOT rail corridor development project that would connect the port facility to both the Norfolk Southern and CSX railways in the vicinity of the Hampton Roads Airport in Suffolk. It is currently envisioned that, to the maximum extent practicable, the rail corridor would be located within the cleared ROW of VDOT's connector highway from CDMMA to VA Route 164, and within the ROW's of existing highways VA Route 164 and 1-664. This new rail corridor would provide rail access to port facilities proposed in Portsmouth by VPA and Maersk Sealand, as well as to the Craney Island Fuel Depot and businesses that may have need of the rail access (see Figure II-10). It should be noted that when I-664 and Route 164 were built, the bridges and medians were designed to accommodate dual track for double-stack trains. Currently VPA and Norfolk Southern are working with state and Federal representatives to identify funding for this rail improvement, which is part of the Heartland Corridor Initiative. The Heartland Corridor would significantly increase intermodal freight mobility as it improved rail for containerized cargo from Portsmouth, VA, to Columbus, OH. Phased Development of Craney Island Marine Terminal The VPA 2040 Master Plan identifies projects to renovate and expand the existing marine terminals; however, even with the build-out of the existing terminals, VPA is projected to run out of capacity by 2007. The construction of the Maersk facility will provide additional capacity to 2015. After 2015, VPA will require a new container terminal to meet long-term needs. Figure Il-10 illustrates the port capacity challenges and how the new port construction will meet the long-term needs. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 11-47 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES II 1 As shown in Figure II-11, the proposed port facility is anticipated to be constructed in four phases. Phased construction will allow the forecasted business needs to meet with the financial ability of the VPA. The initial Phase I will cover approximately 220 acres. Figure II-12 illustrates the Phase I conceptual plan of the Craney Island Marine Terminal, and Figure II-13 shows the full build-out condition. Table II-11 lists key components envisioned for each of the four phases of the proposed CDDMMA port development. Table II-11. CRANEY ISLAND PORT DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS BY PHASE COMPONENTS Cranes Wharf (it) Strad Storage PHASE I 8 @ 100 ft 3,000 5,376 TGS (10,752 TEU @ 2 high) (16,128 TEU @ 3 high) PHASE II 12 @ 100 ft 4,800 9,984 TGS (19,968 TEU @ 2 high) (29,952 TEU @ 3 high) PHASE III 16 @ 100 ft 6,600 15,744 TGS (31,488 TEU @ 2 high) (47,232 TEU @ 3 high) PHASE IV 20 @ 100 ft 8,400 19,584 TGS (39,168 TEU @ 2 high) (58,752 TEU @ 3 high) Grounded Reefer Storage 232 TGS 324 TGS (464 40ft cont. @ 2 high) (648 40ft cont. @2 high) (696 40ft cont. @ 3 high) (972 40ft cont. @ 3 high) 349 TGS 575 TGS (698 40A cont. @ 2 high) (1,150 40ft cont. @ 2 high) (1,047 40ft cont. @ 3 high) (1,725 40ft cont. @ 3 high) Transfer Zone Slots Empty Storage 46 0 61 2,800 TGS (11,200 TEU @4 high) (16,800 TEU @ 6 high) 96 2,800 TGS (11,200 TEU @4 high) (16,800 TEU @6 high) 144 2,800 TGS (11,200 TEU @ 4 high) (16,800 TEU @ 6 high) 2,329 26 Wheeled Slots Inbound Lanes Outbound Lanes Loading/Unloading Track (it) Runaround Track (ft) Storage Track (it) 722 13 722 13 1,841 13 6 10,900 6 16,160 6 16,160 12 16,160 5,400 22,800 10,690 37,830 10,690 37,830 16,160 37,830 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 11-48 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Figures 1 no Figure II-1 Thesapeake Bay Bernard NORFOLK SITE olumns Rien CRANEY ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AREA Norfolk Atlantic Uca Virginia Beach Study Alternatives Upland Sites Ocean Placement Beneficial Use Sites Building New Islands Deep Hale Sites Expansions Source: - USACE, 2005 DREDGED MATERIALS PLACEMENT STUDY ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED G 1 mur 1258 ALS 64 13 Thimble Shoals Channel 17 Norfolk Harbor Reach Norfolk Harbor Reach Newport News Channel 8.41 NS 664 มน , SKT Legend C Proposed East Expansion Major Highways Major Railroads Shipping Channels (164) h 17 R 58 CSXT 464 264 164 777 so 4. 460 소 ​8 .. CSXT 0 1 2 4 Miles MAJOR HIGHWAYS, RAILROADS, AND CHANNELS Figure II-2 1 5556 036 097228 N 3. Figures A Environmental 13 Legend Major Highways Shipping Channels Major Railroads Land Use Open Water Developed, Open Space Developed, Low Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity Developed, High Intensity Barren Land Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Pasture/Hay Cultivated Crops Wood Wetlands Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 0 1 2 4 2 Affanbad Figure II-3 . 1 3. Figures N Proposed Thirdöggsm North Dike Alt 3 Access Channel A Envirnnmental Main Dike M&N Alt Division Dike Alt. 3 Main Dike Phase! M&N Alt. 1 South Dike Alt. 3 Source: Moffatt & chol, 2004 2 Afanded LAYOUT OF NEW CELL Figure II-4 5556 036 097228 ACCESS CHANNEL (-50'+2") 3. Figures EDGE OF EXIST CHANNEL m NIT PIER 2 4. Environmental NIT PER 1 500 H I J & H 2 1 7 OF PRE- GE TO -60° RI VE chol, 2004 VECES CINEZ 1200 2400 CESS CHANNEL & RE-DREDGE LIMITS CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION SCALE: l' = 1200 2 Affondad ACCESS CHANNEL AND PRE-DREDGE LIMITS Figure 11-5 2.5 5556 036 097228 APPROX. CHANNELWARD- LIMIT OF NEW WHARF ACCESS CHANNEL (-50'+2') 3. Figures EDGE OF EXIST CHANNEL m -CIDMMA NORTH CELL 4. Environmental MIT PIER 2 NIT PIER 1 500 L.I Z A B E T H AREA OF PRE- DREDGE TO -60' R I V E 022N Source: - Moffatt & Nichol, 2004 KES CHAME? 얻 ​1200 2400 ACCESS CHANNEL & PRE-DREDGE LIMITS CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION SCALE: 1' = 1200 - 2 Affanbad ACCESS CHANNEL AND PRE-DREDGE LIMITS Figure II-5 -- APPROX. CHANNELWARD LIMIT OF NEW WHARF NORTH DIKE +/- 2,800LF (ALT. 3) EDGE OF EXIST. CHANNEL m MAIN DIKE +/- 8,500LF (M&N ALT.) E L I Z A B m DIVISION DIKE +/- 2,800LF (ALT. 3) E T H I SOUTH DIKE +/- 2,800LF (ALT. 3) R I V E A Source: Moffatt & Nichol, 2004 일 ​DIKE LAYOUT CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 1200' 2400' SCALE: 1' = 1200 DIKE LAYOUT Figure II-6 J | Figure II-7 sən!: 'E -AREA TO BE PRE-DREDGED (-60') EDGE OF EXIST. CH. W.S.O0' MLLW -APPROX. EXIST MUDLINE INTERIOR SLOPE NORTH CELL ONLY EXTERIOR SLOPE PLACE RIPRAP -W.9.00' MLLW TOP OF RIPRAP +8' -3': TOP OF RIPRAP +8° -3' DATE: 11/2004 MOFFATT & NICHOL DIKE ALTERNATIVE CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION SKETCH 3 Source: · Moffatt & Nichol, 2004 . DIKE ALTERNATIVE 1 PRE-DREDGE DIKE FOUNDATION TO -60 & ACCESS CHANNEL TO -52' 1:6 TYP 786' -ACCESS CHANNEL (-52') NOTE: PRE-DREDGE = +/-1.810 CY/FT ACCESS CHANNEL - +/- 3.7 MCY PLACE SAND FILL NOTE: SAND = +/- 1.260 CY/LF 1:2 TYP -30' CROWN WIDTH ® +18° - +12' SAND FILL - W.S.O0' MLLW 1:5 TYP -10' DISPLACEMENT LIMITS OF PRE-DREDGING 2.8' VOOT CLASS | RIPRAP OVER 1' OF VDOT NO. 1, UNDERLAIN BY GEOTEXTILE (17 TON/LF) 4' VDOT CLASS III RIPRAP OVER 1.5' OF VOOT NO. 1, UNDERLAIN BY GEOTEXTILE (24 TON/LF) roquum V jejuəwuoj!MUS't 1 W.S.OO' MLLW sən!: 'E 1:10 TYP. (+5 TO MUDLINE) Figure II-8 -TOP OF RIPRAP +B' CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION -1:10 TYP. EL. -3 INSTALL HIGH-STRENGTH GEOTEXTILE -HIGH-STRENGTH GEOTEXTILE NOTES: 1. ASSUME 550' OF GEOTEXTILE -30' CROWN WIDTH @ +18' -1:8 TYP. (+18 TO +5) 25 -+5' NOTES: 1. SAND = +/- 270 CY/LF, AS SHOWN 2. ASSUMED DISPLACEMENTS NOT SHOWN INTERIOR SLOPES NORTH CELL ONLY DIKE ALTERNATIVE 3 DIKE ALTERNATIVE 2 APPROX. EXIST MUDLINE (-10%) 528 SKETCH 1 SCALE: 1° - 60' PLACE SAND FILL SAND FILL -W.S.@O' MLLW -APPROX. EXIST MUDLINE (-10) SCALE: 1" 60' PLACE RIPRAP EXTERIOR SLOPES 2.8' VDOT CLASS II RIPRAP OVER 1' OF VDOT NO. 1, UNDERLAIN BY GEOTEXTILE (32.5 TON/F/SIDE) SCALE: 1" - 60' DATE: 11/2004 Source: - Moffatt & Nichol, 2004 SKETCH 4 roquu#VE lejuəwuoj!Aug 't 1 . 1 Newport News Marine Terminal Hampton Roads Third Crossing Monitor Merrimac Bridge Tunnel Craney Island 1564 Connector Future C.I. Terminal Norfolk International Terminals Future Maersk Terminal Rail Corridor Lamberts Point (Coal Piers) Pinners Point Interchange Portsmouth Marine Terminal PROPOSED VDOT TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN CRANEY ISLAND VICINITY Figure II-9 Figure II-10 6,000,000 Craney Island Marine Terminal Phases I, II, III & IV 5,000,000 4,000,000 TEUs per year Maersk Phases I & II 3,000,000 2,000,000 Planned Regional- Capacity 1,000,000 Containerized Cargo-Demand (4.1% Growth}" 2001 2004 2013 2016 2025 2028 2010 2007 2019 2022 2031 * Forecast Source, Global Insight, 1999 2040 2037 2034 VPA 2040 MASTER PLAN CONTAINER FORECAST VS. PLANNED PORT CAPACITY 1 Figure 11-11 To To Newport News 584 FUTURE SAD CROSSING JANES RIVER biti NIT. FUTURE CRANEX ISLANO TERMINAL TIIV 664 MONITOR-HERRIMAC LAFAYETTE RIVER CRANEY 7SLAND Phase I Terminal Development ELIZABETH RIVER Western Freeway Connector NORFOLK DAT PORTSNOVI OUTH 184 CANBERTS POINT Maersk Property Rail Access Corridor in 1-664 & Rte 164 Median (Red Line) USCS CRANEY ISLAND PORT DEVELOPMENT AND SURROUNDING AREAS 1 ! ! . CRANEY ISLAND PHASE I PORT DEVELOPMENT Figure II-12 1 CRANEY ISLAND BUILD OUT PORT DEVELOPMENT Figure II-13 Affected Environment ! 重 ​1 PART II AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 1.0 COMBINED CIDMMA EXPANSION AND PROPOSED PORT DEVELOPMENT This section presents baseline information for an understanding of the affected environment within the geographic area of the proposed CIDMMA expansion and terminal development. For each of 18 technical and scientific categories, baseline information is presented for the study area, which generally includes all land and water area within at least a 1-mile radius of the proposed site of CIDMMA expansion and terminal development. Information is presented in technical and scientific categories with respect to the existing physical, biological, and human environments that may be affected by the proposed alternative and No Action Alternative. 1.1 WATER QUALITY 1.1.1 General Condition Due to a long history of industrial pollution and urbanization, the Elizabeth River is considered one of the most impacted regions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed in terms of water quality and bottom sediment composition. The river receives a wide variety of point and non-point source loadings from its 300- square-mile drainage area, where approximately one-half million people reside (Cerco and Kuo, 1981). Impacts from point and non-point source loadings are exacerbated by the relatively poor flushing characteristics caused by low freshwater input and relatively weak tidal currents (USACE, 2000). Any freshwater entering the system is a result of stormwater runoff and Dismal Swamp drainage. This poor flushing tends to increase the amount of sediment and associated pollutants that are trapped within the river system (Neilson and Fang, 1975). The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) has developed a water quality status and trends report to monitor the overall health of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The Chesapeake Bay Program rates the Elizabeth River as poor for habitat for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), poor for suspended solids, poor for chlorophyll a, and poor for water clarity. However, improving scores are noted for bottom DO, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen. Total nitrogen and phosphorus levels have been decreasing over the last five years (CBP Current Trends database, 2002). Water quality in the vicinity of CIDMMA is considered poor but improving as nutrient levels decrease in the water column. Nitrogen and phosphorus levels are elevated, but lower than they have been measured over the last 5-year period. Total suspended solids levels are high, also indicating that water clarity is poor. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-1 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III No potable water supplies, Outstanding State Resource Waters, or Wild and Scenic Rivers are located in the vicinity of the project (VDOT FEIS, 2001). Additionally, no designated sole source aquifers or wellhead protection areas are present in the project area (VDOT FEIS, 2001). Virginia Water Quality Standards The VDEQ classifies the Elizabeth River as Class Il(a) waters, meaning estuarine waters that support shellfish beds. According to Virginia's most recent 303(d) List of Impaired Waters released in 1998, the Elizabeth River does not meet Class II(a) water quality standards. Specifically, this segment is listed as impaired for tributyltin (TBT), an anti-foulant used in paints for ship hulls. Most shellfish beds in the area have been condemned for harvesting due to fecal coliform contamination and contaminated bottom sediments. The USEPA also required that Virginia list the entire Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries (including the Norfolk Harbor) as impaired by nutrient enrichment. The Elizabeth River is not listed as impaired for DO or toxic pollutants other than TBT, despite elevated concentrations of metals and organic chemicals in bottom sediments. 1.1.2 Metals "Point source contributions of metals have been estimated to constitute only 12 percent of the total metals load to the Elizabeth River. The highest point source loadings occur in river segments SBO, SBI, SB2, and EL4. Loadings from stormwater runoff account for 88 percent of the total metals entering the Elizabeth River watershed. The highest metal loadings from stormwater runoff occur in river segments EB2, EB3, and SB6. The main stem, the Southern Branch and parts of the Eastern Branch receive the highest combined metals loads. The combined load of heavy metals to the Elizabeth River watershed from point sources and stormwater runoff is estimated to exceed 100,000 lbs/year” (Technical Assessments in Support of the Elizabeth River Regional Action Plan Development - April 1996, pgs. 3-10 and 3-11). For the Elizabeth River State of the River 2003 (Elizabeth River Project (ERP) and VDEQ) investigation, results were based on monitoring at 14 stations during 8 sampling events during 2000-2001. Dissolved metals samples were collected and analyzed by the Commonwealth's Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services. The results indicated that: There were no exceedences of the proposed VDEQ water quality standards for any of the nine metals evaluated (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc). Copper showed elevated levels in the Southern Branch but did not exceed any proposed VDEQ water quality standards. The Western Branch had elevated zinc values with respect to the other branches; however these were well below the chronic standard. A site specific chronic criteria for copper of 10.5 micrograms per liter (ug/1) as well as a revised statewide chronic copper criteria of 6.0 ug/1 are in the water quality standards regulation amendments recently proposed by VDEQ. These criteria are based on recent scientific data. There were no exceedances of either of these proposed chronic copper criteria. O Page III-2 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III a Tributyltin, or TBT, in the Elizabeth River TBT is a biocide that has been popular in marine paints for its effectiveness in deterring the growth of barnacles, algae and other organisms on the hulls of boats and ships. TBT can be extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life at very low concentrations, however, and proves to be the No. 1 problem in the water column of the Elizabeth River. For the Elizabeth River State of the River 2003 (ERP and VDEQ) investigation, conclusions were based on three years of monitoring TBT by VIMS in the water column at 18 river stations. Stations were sampled six times a year and average concentrations were calculated for each location over the twelve- month period. The results indicated that: . All monitoring stations had average yearly TBT concentrations that exceeded the Virginia Water Quality Criteria for TBT (1.0 ng/L) which placed them at least in the "Problem” category. Near the confluence of the Eastern and Southern branches, average concentrations at multiple stations were greater than 10 ng/L. This placed these branches into the “Severe Problem" category. Typically, TBT concentrations in the Elizabeth River showed a gradient with the highest levels near the confluence of the Eastern and Southern Branches. The highest measured concentrations, to date, occurred on September 20, 2001 with several stations near the confluence of the Eastern and Southern Branches exceeding 20 ng/L and the highest measured concentration was greater than 70/ng/L at a station in the Southern Branch. 9 1.1.3 Hydrocarbons "Point sources are expected to contribute less than 1 percent of the total PAH load to the Elizabeth River watershed. The total estimated PAH load to the Elizabeth River watershed is more than ten times greater than the total estimated metals load. Essentially all of the PAH load can be attributed to stormwater runoff. Since fifteen of the top twenty contaminants of concern are PAH's, measures should be implemented to control stormwater runoff. The combined PAH load to the Elizabeth River watershed from point sources and stormwater runoff is estimated to exceed 1.1 million lbs/year.” (Technical Assessments in Support of the Elizabeth River Regional Action Plan Development - April 1996, pgs. 3-10 and 3-11). 1.1.4 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) DO is considered one of the most important and commonly employed indicators of a water body's ability to support healthy aquatic life. Adequate concentrations of DO are necessary for fish and other aquatic life. For the Elizabeth River State of the River 2003 (ERP and VDEQ) investigation, DO levels were measured at 14 stations in the summers of 2000-2001 and were evaluated using the CBP's draft DO criteria for open water, deep water, and deep channel habitat. Key Points of the Investigation • DO concentrations show an improving trend in the Elizabeth River over the last decade. Page III-3 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA 4368-010 1 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III The Southern Branch is classified as "Severe Problem" because 31 percent of the DO values were lower than the CBP's draft 30-day average criterion in the upper part of the water column. The daily minimum criterion for this part of the water column was consistently met both in the Southern Branch and the rest of the river. Nonetheless, aquatic life may be affected by low DO levels due to observed values in a number of stations well below (often 1 milligrams per liter (mg/l) or more below) proposed criteria. Low DO occurs seasonally in several small coves and creeks in the Lafayette River and may be related to natural effects, climactic conditions, and/or storm events. DO values are influenced by weather conditions. The data set used in the analysis (2000-2001) represented a period of dry weather and generally good DO conditions, while in other years under different weather conditions, lower minimum DO values were observed. The Elizabeth River consistently met the draft DO criteria for deep water and channel habitat. This result is significant because the deep water category provides the largest habitat by volume. Exceedences are based on the proposed open water habitat criteria. Qualifications Analysis was limited to summer critical period (June 1 to September 30. The CBP's draft criteria for DO are: o Open Water: 5.0 mg/l 30-day average, 3.0 mg/1 minimum o Deep Water: 3.0 mg/l 30-day average, 1.7 mg/1 minimum o Deep Channel: 1.0 mg/l minimum Deep water depth: 30 feet and below. O O O 1.1.5 Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) The following initiatives of the multi-state CBP are relevant to water quality in the Elizabeth River/Norfolk Harbor: CBP has identified the Elizabeth River as one of three "Regions of Concern” for toxic pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In 2000, the Chesapeake Executive Council signed the Toxics 2000 Strategy to restore these regions, which includes goals of a 30-percent reduction in nonpoint source pollution and 15-percent reduction in pollutant loads from industrial sources by 2010. In accordance with the 1992 amendments to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Virginia developed the James River Tributary Strategy in 2000. Among other goals, this document recommends that nutrient loads to the James River be capped at 1996 levels and that sediment loads be reduced by 9 percent. The Chesapeake Bay Agreement 2000 called for complete restoration of water quality and sediment-related problems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by 2010. The Agreement requires that the James River Tributary Strategy be revised to reflect new water quality standards (currently in development) and associated loading reductions. 0 1.1.6 Elizabeth River Project (ERP)/Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) The ERP is a non-profit organization that establishes community involvement in efforts to improve the health of the Elizabeth River, in partnership with VDEQ, municipalities, industries, and citizens. ERP's DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-4 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III - Watershed Action Plan contains several goals related to reduction of sediment and toxic pollution of the river. ERP's State of River Report 2000 included the following conclusions: At only 3 of 21 stations monitored by VDEQ could concentrations of heavy metals in the river sediments (copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc, etc.) be classified as "not a problem.” Toxic effects from river sediments were found at 21 of 23 stations monitored. No toxic effects from the water column have been determined to date at any of 11 stations monitored. With respect to dissolved metals in water, only copper exceeded the Virginia's chronic water quality criterion at any stations. Out of 50 sediment samples from throughout the main stem and Southern Branches, 94 percent could be classified as a “borderline to severe problem” for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s). DO and nutrients showed an improving trend. ERP's "State of the River 2003" indicates similar trends including: The Elizabeth River consistently met the draft DO criteria for deep water and channel habitat. This result is significant because the deep water category provides the largest habitat by volume. There were no exceedences of the acute water quality standards (Virginia Water Quality Standards – 9 VAC 25-260) for any of the 9 metals evaluated (arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc). With respect to dissolved metals in water, only copper exceeded the Virginia's chronic water quality criterion a total of three times. All monitoring stations had average yearly TBT concentrations that exceeded the Virginia Water Quality Criteria for TBT (1 ng/L). . . Note: A synopsis of Elizabeth River Monitoring can be accessed through the query form found at http://gisweb.deq.virginia.gov/monapp/mon_query_form.cfm TE 1.1.7 Hydrodynamics Nichols and Howard-Strobel (1991) estimated that 24 percent of the tidal prism of the Elizabeth River has been lost as a result of filling and that tidal currents at the mouth of the river have been reduced by 17 percent. Salinity values have likely increased from historic levels. These changes have contributed to the low flushing rates in the Elizabeth. While such changes have exacerbated the poor water quality of the Southern Branch, they have also acted to contain the high loading of contaminants within the Southern Branch. Fang (1975) stated that hydrodynamic studies between the 1950's and 1960's show an increase from 24 to 36 percent in the volume of flow in the natural channel to the south of the Newport News Middle Ground and a decrease from 27 to 18 percent in the volume of flow over the shallows in the area. Fang attributed this change to the initial construction of the CIDMMA in 1958, which shifted flows northward into Hampton Roads. Three-dimensional numerical modeling efforts have assessed the impact of various expansion alternatives of CIDMMA on the circulation and sedimentation patterns of Hampton Roads and the Elizabeth River DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-5 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III and vicinity. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) hydrodynamic modeling results are discussed later in this document. Alterations to circulation patterns and current velocities are of primary concern, because such processes transport organisms, sediments, and contaminants. Of particular importance is the effect of circulation on the distribution of larval forms that are not free-swimming and, thus, depend solely upon currents for their transport to suitable habitat. The USFWS citing several modeling studies, including Fang (1975), Chen (1978), Byme et al. (1987), and Heltzel and Granat (1988), concluded that the general circulation pattern for Hampton Roads is well known. On a flood tide, water from the Chesapeake Bay generally enters Hampton Roads across Hampton Flats and through Newport News Channel into the James River, with a lesser amount flowing into the Elizabeth River. On an ebb tide, water generally flows out of the James River through both the Newport News Channel and the area to the south of the Newport News Middle Ground, joining with the water flowing out of the Elizabeth River along the Norfolk Reach Channel. The geometry of Hampton Roads results in tidal phasing that set up circulation cells and a strong frontal system off of Newport News Point. Based on the work of Byrne et al. (1987) it is believed that this frontal system is critical to the maintenance of planktonic oyster larvae within Hampton Roads and the lower James River estuary. Salinity is also a major factor in these circulation patterns since higher salinities are found at depth, which sets up strong density gradients. These gradients were not evaluated in previous USACE two-dimensional models. 1.1.8 VIMS Hydrodynamic Study The purpose of the hydrodynamic study was to determine the nature and extent of the physical changes that may occur in the estuarine environment of Hampton Roads, including the waters of the lower James River and a major tributary, the Elizabeth River, due to the implementation of a given CIDMMA expansion design. The physical changes that were evaluated included: 1) tidal range and phase; 2) strength and direction of tidal and tidally-averaged currents; 3) salinity or salinity structure; 4) circulation and flushing ability; and 5) sedimentation potential. > Sedimentation potential (Boon et al., 1999) is a modeled parameter computed as the percent of total time that the predicted bottom shear stress falls below a critical value permitting deposition. In addition to the general physical characteristics listed above, specific features observed in the local estuarine environment during previous studies were examined. These features included a tidal front system that regularly appeared in the lower James River near Newport News Point (Kuo et al., 1988; 1990) and a non-tidal eddy system observed during the time of neap tides at the Elizabeth River entrance near CIDMMA (Boon et al., 1999). The model simulation techniques described below were used to assess potential change in these features. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-6 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Another feature of key importance is the tidal prism or volume of water that enters and leaves the Elizabeth River during a tidal cycle. The magnitude of the tidal prism is an indicator of the flushing ability of the Elizabeth River Basin (Figure III-1), a system that includes not only the tidal waterways of the river stem and its four main branches but the adjacent watershed areas that deliver land-based runoff to the system as well. One of the main purposes of the study was to determine whether any of the expansion designs would impact the tidal prism, and in turn the flushing ability of the Elizabeth River Basin. In addition to the general physical characteristics listed above, certain noted features of the local estuarine environment were examined using model simulation techniques. These features include a tidal front system that regularly appears in the lower James River near Newport News Point and a non-tidal eddy system observed during the time of neap tides at the Elizabeth River entrance near CIDMMA. It should also be noted that hydrodynamic modeling was performed by VIMS for VDOT for the proposed Third Crossing project (Boon, et al., 1999). The effects of a third crossing were included in the modeling effort for CIDMMA expansion. 1.1.9 Groundwater The groundwater system in southeastern Virginia consists of one water table aquifer and seven confined aquifers. The aquifers are, in descending order: the Columbia Aquifer (commonly referred to as the water table); the Yorktown-Eastover Aquifer; the Chickahominy-Piney Point Aquifer; the Aquia Aquifer; the Virginia Beach Aquifer, the Upper Potomac Aquifer; the Middle Potomac Aquifer; and the Lower Potomac Aquifer. The upper two aquifers serve as the principal sources of recharge to the region's deeper aquifers and are the primary sources of discharge to surface waters. The water quality of these aquifers is considered good, although they may have elevated levels of chloride, sodium, iron, and acidity from natural resources (Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission (SDWA), 1990). There are no designated sole-source aquifers in the study area regulated by Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended in 1986 (SDWA) (VDEQ, 1995). In addition, there are no wellhead protection areas in the study area regulated by Section 1428 of the SDWA (VDEQ, 1995). 1.2 AIR QUALITY 1.2.1 Air Quality Regulations and Standards In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and as amended, USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants. The primary objective of the NAARS is to protect public health, and a secondary goal is to protect public welfare. Consequently, USEPA has set primary NAARS for the protection of public health and secondary NAAQS to address public welfare. The criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and lead. The NAAQS and applicable averaging periods for each criteria pollutant are presented in the following table. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 111-7 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Table III-1. NATIONAL AMBIENT AR QUALITY STANDARDS none 3 NAARS (1) (Og/m) Pollutant Averaging time Primary Secondary Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 10,000 1-hour 40,000 Lead Calendar quarter 1.5 (same as primary) Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual 100 (same as primary) Ozone (3) 1-hour (2) 235 (same as primary) PM10 Annual 50 (same as primary) 24-hour 150 Annual 80 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 24-hour 365 3-hour 1,300 (1) National standards, other than those based on annual averages or annual geometric means, are not to be exceeded more than once per year (except where noted). (2) The ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year in which the maximum hourly average concentration is above the standard is equal to or less than one. (3) New standards for ozone (8-hour) and particulate matter (PM2.5) are pending. Source: 40 CFR Part 50.4-50.12. none none none In addition to setting the NAARS for each criteria pollutant, USEPA also has the responsibility of designating the compliance status of all areas within the U.S. with respect to the NAAQS. Areas are designated in one of three general categories. Areas currently in compliance with the NAAQS are classified as attainment areas, areas not meeting the NAAQS are designated non-attainment areas, and areas currently meeting the NAAQS but that had been previously exceeding the NAAQS are classified as maintenance areas. To determine ambient air quality conditions within a regional area, a network of air quality monitors is operated under the National Air Monitoring System and the State and Local Air Monitoring System. Ambient air quality data collected from the network are evaluated by USEPA for purposes of assigning NAAQS attainment designations. Plans describing how attainment with the NAAQS will be achieved are required for non-attainment areas. Similarly, plans for maintaining compliance with the NAAQS are required for maintenance areas. These attainment/maintenance plans are incorporated into a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for submittal to USEPA. As required under the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, USEPA has promulgated regulations to ensure that Federal actions conform and do not interfere with approved SIP's. These regulations include rules addressing transportation and general conformity, and they apply in both non-attainment and maintenance areas. Transportation conformity requirements are applicable to Federal Highway Administration (FHA) and Federal Transit Authority projects, and the General Conformity regulations DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 111-8 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III apply to non-transportation Federal actions. Virginia's Transportation Conformity and General Conformity Rules are codified as 9 VAC 5-150 and 9 VAC 5-160, respectively. 1.2.2 Regional Conditions CIDMMA and vicinity are within the Hampton Roads Air Quality Control Region. As shown in Figure III-2, this region encompasses the cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg, as well as James City and York Counties. Ambient air quality in the Hampton Roads region is monitored at a network of stations maintained by VDEQ. Criteria pollutant ambient concentrations are measured at these monitoring stations. Based on ambient data collected by the monitors, the Hampton Roads region is presently in compliance with the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. However, from 1991 to 1997 the Hampton Roads region was designated as a marginal non-attainment area with respect to the 1-hour ozone standard. In June 1997, USEPA redesignated the Hampton Roads region to attainment status and approved the maintenance SIP developed for the area. Consequently, the Hampton Roads area is currently designated a maintenance area under the one-hour ozone standard and an attainment area for all other criteria pollutants. In 1997, USEPA enacted new and more stringent standards for ozone (8-hour basis) and particulate matter. These standards have been vigorously opposed by industry groups and have led to court cases reaching the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals. The high court rulings to date have supported USEPA's authority to establish the new standards. USEPA's plan to implement the new standards and subsequent state compliance plans are now pending. Based on historical monitoring data, the Hampton Roads area was designated as a non-attainment area with respect to the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2004. Federal projects located in the Hampton Roads ozone non-attainment area are subject to conformity requirements. Since the development of the planned terminal facility constitutes a non-transportation action involving Federal funding, the project is subject to the General Conformity Regulation. In accordance with the General Conformity Regulation, a conformity determination is required if project- related emissions of ozone precursor pollutants, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and/or volatile organic compounds (VOC's), are above prescribed thresholds. The threshold applicable to the Hampton Roads ozone non-attainment area for an individual project is 100 tons per year for both NO, and VOC's. 1.2.2.1 Projected Regional Emissions Inventory As part of the approved SIP for the Hampton Roads ozone maintenance area, a projected inventory of VOC and NOx emissions has been completed for the year 2008. The projected emissions inventory, as summarized in the following table, includes contributions from point sources, area/non-road activities, and mobile sources. Regional SIP emissions projections for Hampton Roads are not available beyond 2008. 1 . DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-9 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Table III-2. 2008 PROJECTED EMISSION INVENTORY FOR HAMPTON ROADS VOC (tons/day) NO, (tons/day) 30.0 Source category Point sources Area/non-road Mobile Total Source: VDEQ, March 2002. 136.6 41.9 208.5 81.1 78.1 68.1 227.2 1.3 PROTECTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT 1.3.1 State and Federal Regulations The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543) regulates activities affecting plants and animals classified as endangered or threatened, as well as the designated critical habitat of such species. Federal agencies are required to provide for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and are prohibited from carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listed species or destroy or alter its critical habitat. Reauthorized in 1988, the provisions of the ESA apply only to those species listed in the Federal Register as endangered or threatened. An “Endangered Species” is any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened species are defined as those species that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Excluded are species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man. The term "species” includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species or vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature. Actions affecting species proposed for listing would require the same coordination with state and Federal agencies as actions affecting listed species. USFWS and the NMFS are the Federal agencies responsible for ESA compliance. Overall, USFWS is responsible for terrestrial and freshwater species and migratory birds, and NMFS protects marine species and anadromous fish. The Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service oversees listed terrestrial plants. a The Commonwealth of Virginia also provides protection to animal species deemed Threatened or Endangered within the state (Virginia Code $29.1-230 et seq.). The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) is responsible for compliance with the state program. The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) Division of Natural Heritage maintains a database of sensitive species in the state. The Commonwealth of Virginia also provides protection to plant and insect species deemed Threatened or Endangered within the state (Virginia Code $3.1-1020 et seq.). The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) oversees the program for plant and insect species. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page JII-10 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III In addition to the species listed as Threatened and Endangered, Federally-listed candidate species and state-listed special concern species were identified. The Candidate and special concern species are not legally-protected under endangered species legislation, but these species should be considered in the planning process. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) provides Federal protection for migratory species by prohibiting the taking, killing, possessing, transporting, and importing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nest, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. Although some marine mammals are protected under the ESA, all marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972. The Act establishes a Federal responsibility to conserve marine mammals, with management vested in the Department of Commerce for cetaceans and pinnipeds other than walrus. The Department of the Interior is responsible for all other marine mammals. The nature of the concerns regarding potential impacts to marine mammals is similar for both Acts. Thus, marine mammals that are known to frequent the study area are addressed in this section. 1.3.2 Species and Habitat Known or potential populations of threatened or endangered species and species of special concern within the area surrounding the proposed project were identified through coordination with VDGIF and VDCR (see the following table). During the early planning stages of the study, special species inquiries were sent to VDGIF, VDCR, VDACS, NMFS and USFWS. Information provided is refelected in this section. USFWS also provided information on special species in their Planning Aid Report (EIS, Appendix A). To date, project review coordination with VDCR and VDGIF and review of the VDGIF's Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service at: http://vafwis.org/WIS/ASP/default.asp, has resulted in identification of one Federally-threatened species, the piping plover (Charadrius melodus), which has been documented in the proposed project vicinity (VDCR, March 2002) and (VDGIF, March 2002). The VDCR and VDGIF have also documented several other species of potential concern that are listed in Table III-3 and individually discussed below. Piping Plover The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is Federally-listed as threatened along the Atlantic Coast and is state-listed as threatened by VDGIF. This species is also protected under MBTA. Piping plovers nest in sparsely- to moderately-vegetated coastal beaches above the high tide line or in other sandy areas. In Virginia, plovers are found from mid-March to late July, after which they migrate south. As proposed, the port facility would adjoin and be located along the eastern shoreline of CIDMMA. Piping plovers nest on CIDMMA from mid-March to late July. The Hampton Roads Crossing (HRC) Study, FEIS, March 2001 states "Piping plovers were first noted on Craney Island in 1989 and have been observed there for 10 of the 24 years of observation (Beck, personal communication, 1999). Observations of breeding pairs in 1994 and 1995 found that nests were placed mostly on the island's western side (5 nests) with one nest on the northern shore and one on the eastern side of the island on the eastern side of the center cell (USFWS, field notes). The maximum number of breeding pairs of piping plovers observed since 1989 was five pairs in 1994 (Hester, personal communication, 2000). According DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-11 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III to Hecht (personal communication, 2000), no piping plovers were seen on Craney Island in 1998 or 1999 and none have been observed so far this year (Held, 2000 personal communication). These findings appear to be consistent with the observations reported by Cairns and McLaren (1980) that piping plovers are uncommon breeders on the west side of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay.” Figure III-3 shows the approximate locations of piping plover nests observed on CIDMMA in 1994 and 1995. No piping plovers nested on CIDMMA during 2000, and in 2001, piping plovers were noted on CIDMMA only during the migration period. No birds were observed nesting during 2000 or 2001 (Beck, 2002). Threats to piping plover populations include loss of nesting and feeding habitat due to commercial, recreational, and residential development. Human development also causes an increase in the number of predators that may be attracted to the area. Potential nest predators on CIDMMA include red fox and raccoon. Disturbances, including foot and vehicular traffic, often impact breeding success by causing the parents to desert the nest. Exposure during storms has also been identified as an impact. Studies have suggested that piping plovers may habituate to continuous human presence as long as no direct impacts to nesting or feeding areas occur. No studies have reported directly on the effects of noise or light to piping plover nesting habits or breeding success. Least Tern The least tern (Sterna antillarum) breeds commonly around the Chesapeake Bay and along the coast. In Virginia, the least tern population is declining. Coordination with the VDCR has indicated that the least tern is a species of special concern listed by VDGIF. The least tern is also protected under MBTA. The three primary colonies of the least tern in Virginia are located on the barrier islands of the Eastern Shore, at Grandview Beach in the city of Hampton, and on CIDMMA in the city of Portsmouth. Least terns nest on wide beaches with little vegetation and feed in saltwater near the shore. Threats to this species include loss of nesting habitat due to development, disturbance of breeding colonies by human activities, and susceptibility to predators. Least terns nest on CIDMMA and are known to nest on the east side of the island (USFWS, 1994, 1995). Least terns were observed nesting on CIDMMA during 2001 (Beck, 2002). Figure III-3 shows the approximate locations of least tern nests observed on CIDMMA in 1994 and 1995. VDGIF recommends project coordination with the state and the USFWS to avoid impacts to the least tern. Black-necked Stilt Black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) habitat includes primarily grassy marshes, wet savannahs, mud flats, shallow ponds, flooded fields, and the borders of salt ponds. They nest along the shallow water of ponds, lakes, swamps, or lagoons and may nest on the ground or in the shallow water on a plant tussock. Black-necked stilts feed on insects, crustaceans, and small fish, as well as the seeds of aquatic plants. Black-necked stilts nested on CIDMMA during 2001 (Beck, 2002). The Black-necked stilt is protected under MBTA. VDGIF recommends project coordination with the state and the USFWS to avoid impacts to the Black-necked stilt. ! DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-12 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Table III-3. SPECIES OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IDENTIFIED THROUGH COORDINATION WITH AGENCIES Common Name Scientific Name Status Piping plover Charadrius melodus melodus FT Least tern Sterna antillarum SS Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus NS Wilson's Plover Charadrius wilsonia wilsonia SE Yellow-crowned night- Nyctanassa violacea violacea SS heron Great blue heron Ardea antillarum NS Green heron Butorides virescens NS Northern diamond-backed Malaclemys terrapin terrapin FS terrapin Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxrhynchus SS Loggerhead sea turtle (1) (Caretta caretta) FT, SE Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) FE, SE (1) Bald eagle (1) Haliaeetus leucocephalus FT, SE Peregrine falcon (1) Falco peregrinus SE Atlantic bottlenose Tursipos truncates Depleted dolphin (1) FE= Federally endangered FT= Federally-threatened FS= Federal Species of Concern SE= state-endangered ST= state-threatened SS= state special concern NS= no status (1) These species have been identified in the literature as occurring or having potential to occur in the project vicinity. Wilson's Plover Wilson's plover (Charadrius wilsonia wilsonia) breeds along the barrier islands and is a rare transient and summer visitor along the lower Chesapeake Bay. The Virginia barrier islands support 99 percent of the state population of Wilson's plovers during the nesting season. They are abundant breeders elsewhere in their range, although not common breeders anywhere on the U.S. Atlantic Coast. Wilson's plover is listed as state-endangered and has been identified by VDGIF as having potential to occur at or within the project vicinity. This species also receives protection under MBTA. Wilson's plovers feed in oceanfront DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-13 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III intertidal zones, salt marsh edges, and on mud flats. Their diet consists mostly of crustaceans, as suggested by their thick bill, including fiddler and mole crabs. The population is threatened due to loss of nesting habitat as a result of development. VDGIF recommends project coordination with the state and the USFWS to avoid impacts to Wilson's plover. Yellow-crowned Night Heron The yellow-crowned night heron (Nyctanassa violacea violacea) breeds commonly along the coast. Declines in urban areas of the Tidewater region have been attributed to loss of foraging habitat and intentional disruption of nesting pairs, as well as loss of wetlands. This species was listed as State Special Concern on January 1, 1992 and is protected under MBTA. Threats include relocation and abandonment of nest sites resulting from intentional or unintentional human disturbance. VDGIF recommends project coordination with the state and the USFWS to avoid impacts to the yellow-crowned night heron. Great Blue Heron The great blue heron (Ardea herodias herodias) is a permanent resident of the coastal plain. Although the great blue heron does not receive protection under the ESA, the heron is protected under MBTA. Draining, filling, and dredging of wetlands have resulted in loss of habitat and a subsequent reduction in numbers. Great blue herons feed on fish, frogs, snakes, insects, and other aquatic animals. VDGIF recommends project coordination with the state and the USFWS to avoid impacts to the great blue heron. Green Heron The green heron (Nyctanassa violacea) breeds throughout Virginia. It is a common transient and summer resident but is a rare winter visitor statewide. The green heron is a migratory species and is protected a under MBTA. Green herons are susceptible to human disturbance and loss of wetland habitat. They feed on fish, crustaceans, mollusks, insects, reptiles, amphibians, spiders, and leeches. VDGIF recommends project coordination with the state and the USFWS to avoid impacts to the green heron. Northern Diamond-backed Terrapin The northern diamond-backed terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin terrapin) is a Federal species of concern. Northern diamond-backed terrapins are the only truly estuarine turtle. It is usually found in coastal, brackish marshes and their tributaries, bays, inlets, and tidal portions of coastal rivers. It can also be found rarely in the Atlantic Ocean. It is mostly on the ocean side of the Eastern Shore, and comparatively fewer are seen in the Chesapeake Bay. Trapping for the restaurant market and incidental capture and drowning in crab pots have most likely reduced Virginia's population. Raccoons often prey upon adults and eggs. Raccoons, skunks, and possibly foxes also prey upon nests. This species feeds mainly on snails, worms, crabs, and clams. The classification "Federal species of concern” is not a legal designation; therefore, further coordination regarding this species is not required. Atlantic Sturgeon The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) is fully-protected in Virginia by laws pertaining to Fisheries of Tidal Waters. The Atlantic sturgeon was designated a State Special Concern species on January 1, 1992 and is covered by the marine fishing ban on taking of sturgeons in Virginia. Atlantic DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-14 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III sturgeon are anadromous, ascending large rivers to spawn in April and May in the Chesapeake Bay. Juveniles may spend several years continuously in fresh water of some large rivers; in others they may move downstream to brackish water when temperature drops in the fall. This species is also migratory. Atlantic sturgeon are opportunistic benthic feeders. They take worms, crustaceans, aquatic insects, snails, and sand lances. Populations are threatened by over-fishing, pollution, and dam construction. The maximum age reported is 60 years. No impacts to the Atlantic sturgeon are expected as a result of port development or operation. Sea Turtles and Turtle Migration Of the seven sea turtle species found throughout the world, five appear seasonally in the lower Chesapeake Bay. All five are Federally-listed species. The most common is the Federally-threatened loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). Loggerheads account for close to 90 percent of the summer sea turtle population. VIMS has estimated that between 2,000 and 10,000 young loggerheads use the Chesapeake Bay each summer as foraging areas. A significant number of Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) also summer in the Chesapeake. The other marine turtles that may be found in the region include the endangered leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), Atlantic hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), and the Atlantic Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas). These three species are found only rarely in the Chesapeake Bay area. The Loggerhead sea turtle is Federally-listed as threatened and state-listed as endangered. It is a common visitor to the Chesapeake Bay and its estuarine tributaries during the spring, summer, and fall. Hampton Roads is considered an estuarine tributary to the Chesapeake Bay. The loggerheads' diet consists of benthic crustaceans (primarily horseshoe crabs), bivalves, jellyfish, sponges, crabs, shrimp, barnacles, fish, and sea grasses. Nesting has been reported on the barrier islands and in Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Juveniles become residents for the summer and occupy channel edges, foraging back and forth along the bottom within a home range of 10 to 80 square kilometers. a The Kemp's ridley is the second most abundant sea turtle in the Chesapeake Bay and is Federally- and state-listed as endangered. The only known nesting ground of Kemp's ridley is a single location along the Gulf of Mexico. Young Kemp's ridley turtles feed on sargassum weed and associated species. Adult Kemp's ridley turtles feed primarily on shelled benthic invertebrates including blue crabs. Research suggests that these turtles rely heavily upon the Chesapeake Bay during juvenile stages. Based on information from VIMS, turtles are present within the Chesapeake Bay each year from May to November when temperatures are from 16 to 18 degrees Celsius (°C). The peak migration into the Chesapeake Bay occurs during late May and early June. Virginia coastal water temperatures drop to 1 to 4 °C during most winters prompting turtle migration out of the Chesapeake Bay to warmer waters during October and November. Bald Eagle On February 2, 1978, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was listed as an endangered species in many parts of the U.S. and as a threatened species in the rest of the U.S. The Chesapeake Bay bald eagle DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-15 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III population was designated as endangered. The major limiting factor for the Chesapeake Bay Region (CBR) bald eagle population was lowered reproductive capacity as a result of DDT and other contaminants. Other factors limiting population growth were shooting, disturbance, and habitat destruction. Since the late 1970's, the CBR bald eagle population has grown substantially, as a result of the reduced usage and presence in the environment of persistent pesticides like DDT, and has demonstrated some tolerance and adaptability to disturbance or loss of habitat (USFWS, 1990). On August 11, 1995, the bald eagle was reclassified from endangered to threatened on the Federal list. In July 1999, the USFWS recommended that the bald eagle be removed from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife; however, at this time the species is still listed as threatened, pending further action. The bald eagle remains a state-listed endangered species in Virginia. In addition to receiving protection under ESA and MBTA, the bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which prohibits, except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possessing, transporting, exporting or importing, bartering, or offering to sell, purchase, or barter a bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or eagle egg. Ideal bald eagle habitat consists of mature shoreline forests with scattered opening and little human use, adjacent to water with abundant fish and waterfowl. Such habitat must contain adequate nesting, roosting, and perching sites (Fraser et al., 1991). Bald eagles frequent estuaries, large lakes, reservoirs, major rivers, and some seacoast habitats. However, such areas must have an adequate food base, perching areas, and nesting sites meeting certain requirements to support bald eagles. Major threats include habitat loss, disturbance by humans, biocide contamination, and decreasing food supply. One bald eagle nest was identified in 2002 approximately 2.5 miles east-southeast of the proposed port facility within Hoffler Creek Wildlife Preserve, a 142-acre wilderness area located in the Churchland area of Portsmouth. At least one eaglet was identified in the nest (Hoffler Creek Wildlife Foundation, 2002). However, the nest was destroyed during Hurricane Isabel in September 2003 and, while still occasionally seen in the area, the eagles have not returned to nest. Peregrine Falcon The peregrine falcon (Peregrinus falco), a state-listed endangered species, was de-listed from Federal protection on August 25, 1999, based on data indicating the species has recovered following restrictions on DDT, and following the implementation of successful management strategies. Although the species is no longer protected by the ESA, protection is provided by MBTA. Peregrine falcons live mostly along mountain ranges, river valleys, and coastlines. The peregrine falcon has been identified nesting on bridges and other elevated structures throughout the Hampton Roads area (VDOT, 2001). This species feeds primarily on other birds, such as songbirds, shorebirds, ducks, and in rural areas, starlings and pigeons. Threats to the species are human-induced disturbances and include the use of pesticides and the reduction of nesting habitat (Byrd, 1991). Although DDT has been banned in the U.S. since 1972, DDT continues to be used in many Latin American countries where some peregrines and prey spend the winter. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-16 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Marine Mammals The Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) is a species protected by the MMPA of 1972. This species is not listed as threatened or endangered but is listed as “depleted” under the MMPA. Bottlenose dolphins are seen in Virginia's waters and in Hampton Roads from May through October, with limited sightings in spring and winter. The harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) is a Federal candidate species and is a marine mammal protected by the MMPA. Harbor porpoises have been documented in Virginia's coastal waters from January through March and have been found stranded along the coast from March through May. Harbor porpoises are not commonly found in the Hampton Roads harbor. The Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) is a species protected by the MMPA of 1972. This species is listed as Endangered. Their north-south migration movement off the Virginia coast takes place in the months of November through April. Right whales have been observed in Virginia waters near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. Right whales are not commonly found in the Hampton Roads harbor. Critical Habitat “Critical habitat” is a specific geographic area(s) that is essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection (USFWS, April 2002). Critical habitat areas are determined based on the availability of physical and biological features required to support the species (shelter, food, breeding areas, and protection). Critical habitat areas have been designated for the Federally-threatened piping plover; however, no critical habitat has been identified within the project area or within the state (USFWS, April 2002). Critical habitat has not been designated for any of the other species discussed above. 1.4 AQUATIC BIOTA a 1.4.1 Finfisb The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries sustain a wide diversity of species and have for centuries provided fishing grounds for commercial and recreational purposes. More than 295 species of fish are known to occur in the CBR. Of these fish species, only 32 species are year-round residents of the Chesapeake Bay. The remaining species enter the Chesapeake Bay either from freshwater streams or the Atlantic Ocean to feed, reproduce and find shelter. The fish in the CBR fall into two categories: resident and migratory. Resident fish tend to be smaller than migratory species and often occur in shallow waters, where they feed on a variety of invertebrates. Migratory fish fall into two categories: catadromous or anadromous. Catadromous fish live in freshwater but travel to the high-salinity ocean waters to spawn. Anadromous fish, such as the American shad and the blueback herring, travel from the high salinity waters of the lower bay or Atlantic Ocean to spawn in the Chesapeake Bay watershed's freshwater rivers and streams. A listing of fish species that occur in the study area is provided in the USFWS Planning Aid Report, Appendix A. Common anadromous species found in the Hampton Roads and other estuarine waters in DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 111-17 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III i the study area include: alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), shad (Alosa sapidissima and A. mediocris), striped bass (Morone saxitilis), and white perch (Morone americana). The alewife, blueback herring, and shad species have spawning and nursery areas upstream in the James River and other coastal tributaries and use the Hampton Roads for passage between upstream and coastal habitats (Klauda et al., 1991a, 1991b). The onset of alewife spawning migrations is typically from early to mid- March through April. The primary spawning runs of blueback herring begin in early April about three to four weeks after the peak alewife runs (Klauda et al., 1991a). Spawning runs for American shad typically begin in mid-February to early March, peak during April, and are over by early June. Hickory shad spawning runs may precede American shad runs and typically begin during March and April. Peak spawning activity occurs between late April and early June (Klauda et al., 1991b). Striped bass and white perch also have spawning and nursery areas upstream in the James River and other coastal tributaries (Setzler-Hamilton, 1991a, 1991b). Striped bass and white perch typically are found in Hampton Roads only during March and April (Land et al, 1995). The Elizabeth River is an important nursery for many commercial and recreational species including spot, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, weakfish, striped bass, black seabass, and summer flounder. The river is also important as feeding area for adult bluefish, weakfish, spot, and Atlantic croaker. Anadromous fish such as the American shad, alewife, and the blueback herring travel from the high salinity waters of the lower bay or Atlantic Ocean into the Elizabeth River for spawning. The most intensive use for spawning is by forage fish, including the bay anchovy and Atlantic silverside (Priest, 1981). According to data obtained from the VMRC for 1994 and 1995, major commercial fisheries on the Elizabeth River, based on estimated harvest, include blue crab, Atlantic croaker, and American eel. Other commercial fisheries of much less significance in the harvest include such species as striped bass, bluefish, and grey sea trout. Gear used for this harvest include pots, gill nets, and haul seines. It is believed that striped bass, American shad, and river herring run up the Elizabeth River in the spring after storm events that provide sufficient freshwater flow in the watershed. No major spawning of anadromous fishes occurs in the river. If any spawning does take place, eggs likely do not hatch due to the presence of brackish water. Hedgepeth et al. (in Priest, 1981) concluded that temperature is the major factor determining the winter distribution of fishes, while food availability is the major factor controlling the summer distribution of fishes. They concluded that three major finfish uses of the Elizabeth River and lower James River are: 1) nursery grounds for juvenile spot, Atlantic croaker, alewife, blueback herring, American shad, striped bass, and weakfish; 2) adult feeding grounds for spot, Atlantic croaker, weakfish, summer flounder; and 3) spawning grounds for important forage species such as bay anchovy and Atlantic silverside. Birdsong et al. (1984) investigated finfish seasonality and utilization of Hampton Roads and the Norfolk Harbor entrance channel, with an additional discussion of fishes of the Elizabeth River. Through trawl surveys at eight stations, along with a gillnet station off Ocean View and a pound net station east of DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-18 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Lynnhaven, the researchers identified 104 species of fishes. Stations 5 (east of CIDMMA, west of the ship channel in the mouth of the Elizabeth River) and 6 (Mainstem Elizabeth River off Lamberts Point, west of the ship channel) were located in the present study area. Based on results from the trawl surveys, the top five dominants for Station 5 included, in order, bay anchovy, spot, weakfish, menhaden, and spotted hake. For Station 6, top five dominant included, in order, bay anchovy, spot, Atlantic croaker, spotted hake, and hogchoker. As part of an evaluation of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the proposed Pinners Point Connector, VDOT contracted with VIMS to conduct sampling of the Elizabeth River approximately 1 mile southwest of Craney Island. The sampling started in November 1999 and was performed approximately every 6 weeks until May 2000. In order to evaluate the summer months, data from the VIMS trawl survey (1979 to 1985) were utilized. All stations were located within a 1.5-mile radius of the mouth of the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River (Figure III-4). A total of 91 trawls were made in the assessment area (35 present and 51 historic). The EFH species of concern made up a very small fraction of the total fish caught (>0.01 percent). The area is typically inhabited by sciaenids, such as spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulates), and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis). Other species that comprised over 1 percent of the total catch include: hogchoker (Trinectes maculates), spotted hake (Urophycis regia), and Atlantic silverside (Menida menida). However, the most abundant species at over 50 percent of the total catch were bay anchovies (Anchoa mitchilli). Geer et al. (2000) and Lowery (2000), based on results from trawl surveys from 1978 to 2000, found the top five dominants in the vicinity of CIDMMA included, in order, bay anchovy, spot, Atlantic croaker, hogchoker, and weakfish. These 5 species accounted for approximately 93 percent of catch. Blue crabs accounted for 0.28 percent of the total catch in this area of the Elizabeth River or about 184 crabs caught in 91 trawls (35 present trawls – Year 2000, and 51 historic trawls - Years 1979 to 1985). 1.4.2 Essential Fish Habitat The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (MSFCMA) established 8 Regional Fishery Management Councils (FMC's) responsible for the protection of marine fisheries. A 1996 amendment to the Act instituted a new mandate to identify and provide protection to important marine and anadromous fisheries habitat EFH. FMC's, with assistance from NMFS, are required to delineate EFH in fisheries management plans for all Federally-managed fisheries in order to conserve and enhance those habitats. EFH may be applied to individual fish species or to an assemblage of species. EFH is defined in the MSFCMA as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” “Fish” is defined as finfish, crabs, shrimp, and lobsters in the Gulf of Mexico. The MSFCMA specifies that each Federal agency shall consult with NMFS when proposing any activity that may have adverse impacts on designated EFH. Most of the lower Chesapeake Bay and CIDMMA vicinity contains EFH for eggs, larvae, juveniles, and/or adult life stages of various species, including windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus aquosus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), summer flounder (Paralicthys dentatus), black sea bass (Centropristus striata), DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-19 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla), Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus), cobia (Rachycentron canadum), red drum (Sciaenops occelatus), dusky shark (Charcharinus obscurus), and sandbar shark (Charcharinus plumbeus). The proposed project area is part of a 10' x 10' square of latitude and longitude that includes the waters of the lower Chesapeake Bay that support the following species with a Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) Of the 11 species identified, commercial fisheries harvest data for the Elizabeth River indicates that 3 of the list species; red drum, bluefish, and Spanish mackerel are harvested in this waterway (VMRC, 1993). Table III-4. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT Eggs Larvae | Juveniles Adults X X X X X Х x X X х n/ X х Species windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus aquosus) bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) summer flounder (Paralicthys dentatus) black sea bass (Centropristus striata) king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) cobia (Rachycentron canadum) red drum (Sciaenops occelatus) dusky shark (Charcharinus obscurus) sandbar shark (Charcharinus plumbeus) sandbar shark (Charcharinus plumbeus) n/a x x X X X X х X X X X X X X X x X X X X HAPC HAPC HAPC The NMFS designated a "habitat area of particular concern” (HAPC) for the sandbar shark, but not for any other Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) due to a general lack of scientific information detailing HMS-habitat associations. The larger area within which the project site is located has been identified as one of these areas; however, there are no management or fisheries restrictions in place in or around the project area at this time. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-20 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III The lower James River is included within an area of the lower Chesapeake Bay that is designated as a HAPC for the sandbar shark. This designation denotes EFH that is particularly important to the long-term productivity of the species and/or is particularly vulnerable to degradation. The intent of the designation is to focus greater attention on conservation efforts. Females move into the lower bay during the summer (Springer, 1960). They typically bear 8 to 12 young and depart the bay shortly thereafter apparently without feeding. The young average approximately 24 inches at birth. They feed on a variety of fish and crustaceans, but blue crabs are a particularly important food item (Medved and Marshall, 1981). They remain in the bay until the onset of winter, when they migrate to warmer waters off the coast and/or southward. They may return to estuary mouths and coastal bays in the mid-Atlantic region the next year in late spring. The sandbar shark uses the lower Chesapeake Bay as a “pupping ground,” where females give birth to live young. The lower James River and nearby areas near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay cover approximately 29,500 acres of open water, and the total HAPC for the sandbar shark in the lower Chesapeake Bay is approximately 89,000 acres of open water. 1.4.3 Crabs Crab populations within the Chesapeake Bay vary in life stage and gender as a function of habitat and season. Females typically spawn in the spring in the southern portion of the Chesapeake Bay. Larvae are carried offshore by the currents, where they develop during the summer. Post-larval stages and juveniles that remained offshore from previous years return to the Chesapeake Bay in late summer and fall. Juveniles and adults that overwintered in the Chesapeake Bay disperse upstream into tidal rivers and the northern part of the Chesapeake Bay. In the fall, most crabs move into the southern part of the Chesapeake Bay, where they hibernate on the bottom during the winter. Some number of individuals do not move as far south as the majority and hibernate within Hampton Roads. In particular, low densities of male blue crabs overwinter in Hampton Roads and the lower James River (Van Heukelem, 1991). High densities of both male and female crabs are reported for the waters surrounding CIDMMA during the summer. .. Trawl surveys by Land et al. (1995) in the Hampton Roads, Chesapeake Bay, and James River showed that low densities of overwintering male blue crabs in Hampton Roads and the James River during January and February. Beginning in March, blue crabs of both genders can be found in Hampton Roads and by April are abundant in the James River (Land et al., 1995). Overwintering blue crabs, predominantly mature females, are found in the lower bay in basins generally deeper than 30 feet (9 meters) (Van Heukelem, 1991). Mature and nearly-mature females also may be found in the deep waters of rivers. However, Marshall (1974) is cited as reporting juvenile blue crabs using the shallow waters around CIDMMA in the colder months and larval forms in summer and fall. Through VAC 20-752-10 et seq., as amended, VMRC established the Hampton Roads Blue Crab Sanctuary and Virginia Blue Crab Sanctuary. The Hampton Roads Blue Crab Sanctuary is an area in Hampton Roads consisting of all tidal waters inshore and upstream of a line drawn between the extreme south and north ends of the westbound span of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel (Figure III-5). In May 2002, after a lengthy public hearing and discussion, VMRC voted to expand the existing deep-water blue crab sanctuary in the Chesapeake Bay from 661 square miles to more than 900 square miles. Dredging for crabs is not permitted at any time within these areas, and it is unlawful to conduct commercial or DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-21 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III recreational crabbing within the Virginia Blue Crab Sanctuary from June 1 through September 15. The purpose of the regulation is to protect female crabs in response to reduced abundance in the blue crab stock and increased fishing pressure on this resource. This action offered protection to about 70 percent of the egg-bearing female crabs during the annual spawning season and brings Virginia to more than the 15 percent harvest reduction quota requested by the Bi-State Blue Crab Advisory Commission. The 15 percent harvest reduction goal was to be in place by 2003. 1.4.4 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) SAV refers to vascular plants that live and grow below the water surface. There are approximately 23 species of SAV found in Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Species distributions are mainly determined by their salinity tolerance. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is found in salinities of 10-35 parts per thousand (ppt). Eelgrass is the only species of SAV species found in Hampton Roads. Eelgrass, unlike other Chesapeake Bay SAV, is a true "seagrass” and is found in salinities of 10 to 35 ppt (Hurley, 1990). According to the 2004 Aerial Flight update (Orth, 2004), the nearest beds to CIDMMA are found along the north shore of Hampton Roads Harbor between Newport News Creek and Salter Creek, approximately 4 nautical miles (northeast) from the existing CIDMMA (Figures III-6 and III-7). Year 2004 area estimates for those beds were approximately 15.3 acres. A SAV Distribution Map was not produced for the study site due to the absence of SAV beds within the Norfolk North USGS Quadrangle (Orth, 2004). 1.4.5 Benthos Numerous studies of the noncommercial and commercial benthic community have been conducted within the vicinity of CIDMMA over the past several decades. Three commercially-important benthic species are found within the lower James and Elizabeth River project area, the hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), and the oyster (Crassostrea virginica). Boesch (1971) concluded that the dominant macrobenthic species of the Hampton Roads area were generally similar to those found in the lower Chesapeake Bay but that the overall benthic associations were different from those found outside the CBR. Commercial and non-commercial benthos near CIDMMA were quantified by Dauer and Ewing in August, October, and November 1985 (Dauer and Ewing, 1986). A companion study to determine distribution of sediment types was conducted in August 1985. Two broad strata were defined – a near shore silty sand habitat and an offshore mud habitat (high silt-clay content). The silty sand habitat was restricted primarily to within 50 yards of the shoreline of CIDMMA. ! For the non-commercial benthic sampling effort, six stations were allocated within the near shore stratum and six within the offshore stratum. Two stations within each stratum were placed on the east, north, and west sides of CIDMMA. All non-commercial benthos sampled were sieved on a 0.5 millimeters screen and were sorted, identified, and enumerated. For the commercial benthos, 5 clam dredge hauls of 5 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-22 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III minutes were collected on August 25, 1985 and on October 25, 1985. Total individuals collected in 5- minute tows with a commercial dredge are shown in the following table. All commercial species were identified and counted, and the maximum length of each individual measured and recorded (see the following table). The data acquired by Dauer and Ewing (1986) were compared to Site Group 4 of the Norfolk Harbor and Channels Deepening impact study conducted by Dauer and documented in "Macrobenthic communities of the lower Chesapeake Bay, DACW65-81-C-0051, Work Order No. 51, October 1984.” Site Group 4 was geographically closest to CIDMMA. Statistically, there were no major differences between the near shore and offshore samples of CIDMMA, and, therefore, for the rank analysis comparison, all stations were combined. The similarity of the ranked dominants of the two studies indicates that both studies sampled the same general benthic community. The top 5 dominants in both studies were the same and a rank correlation analysis of the dominant species resulted in an r value of 0.751 (t-value = 7.218, p value less than 0.001). Both studies were dominated by species that are usually characterized as ubiquitous in all types of sediments (i.e., the polychaete (Paraprionospio pinnata], the cumacean (Acteocina canaliculata]) or as euryhaline opportunists (i.e., the polychaetes Glycinde solitaria, Nereis succinea, Streblospio benedicti). Dauer and Ewing (1986) also demonstrated a similarity between the communities in two studies using a Principal Components Analysis Model. Table III-5. SUMMARY OF DREDGES FOR COMMERCIAL BENTHIC SPECIES STATION SPECIES Oyster Blue Crab Hard Shell Clam A.' - - - I-West Side CIDMMA 0 0 0 II - Northwest Side CIDMMA 1 (7.2) 7(8.3) 0 III – North Side CIDMMA 14 (7.3) 1 (9.7) 0 IV - Northeast Side CDMMA 2 (6.6) 0 0 V - East Side CIDMMA e 1 (7.4) 18 (6.9) 0 B.? I-West Side CIDMMA 2 (10.3) 0 1 (12.5) II – Northwest Side CIDMMA 0 0 1 (14.0) III - North Side CDMMA 7 (7.7) 0 1 (12.5) IV - Northeast Side CDMMA 6 (7.6) 0 1 (12.0) V- East Side CIDMMA 2 (7.8) 0 0 (1) Samples collected on 8 August 1985 (2) Samples collected on 25 October 1985 Shown above are the Total Individuals Collected in 5 Minute Tows with a Commercial Dredge. In Parentheses is the Average Size in centimeters (cm). (Dauer and Ewing, 1986) DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-23 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III VIMS conducted a sediment profile sampling at 24 stations in the James River along the north and west perimeter of CDMMA in November 1988 (Gapcynski and Diaz, as cited in Appendix E, Environmental Information Report, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, Long-term Disposal (Inner Harbor]). The 24-station grid was divided into 7 transects of 3 to 4 stations each, arrayed north and west from the existing dike to evaluate potential north and west expansion alternatives. Benthic profile photographs were analyzed for depth of penetration, apparent redox-potential discontinuity (RPD), sediment type, and evidence of biological activity. The depth of the RPD can be used as an indication of the extent of oxygenation of the sediments. Most biological activity occurs above the RPD layer by surface dwelling organisms. Fewer organisms are found in the deoxygenated sediments where tubes extending to surface provide oxygen requirements. Results of the sediment profiling investigations showed that the inshore station (Group 1) sediments consisted of very soft muds and clays that had an appearance similar to dredged material. These stations were closest to the existing CIDMMA dikes. Sediments from the middle stations, located between Group 1 stations and the proposed expansion boundary, represented a transition zone to more natural conditions, with more natural sands and silts. Sediments from the offshore stations (beyond the proposed expansion boundary) reflected natural sand and silt conditions typical for this part of the James River. Evidence of biological activity showed some interesting trends, as activity seemed to increase with distance from the existing CIDMMA. The average RPD depths increased with distance from the existing dikes: for Station 1 (inshore station closest to existing dikes) RPD depth averaged 1.0 cm +/- 0.1, for Station 2 (middle stations, located between Group I and the proposed expansion boundary) RPD depth averaged 2.1cm +/- 1.4, and for Station 3 (off shore stations located outside the proposed north/west expansion boundary RPD depth averaged 3.1 cm +/- 1.8). Gapcynski and Diaz (1988) concluded that the bottom sediments immediately adjacent to the dike seem to have been modified by the operation of CIDMMA. Sediments outside of the proposed extension seem to be unaffected and are typical for this area of the James River. Sediments in Group 2 seem to be transitional; with some appearing to have been impacted while others appear natural, as in Group 3. An eastward expansion was not included in this study, although one might expect similar results. The zone of influence from the operations of CIDMMA operations may extend beyond areas sampled during this investigation. Benthic communities depend, to a large extent, upon sediment type. Byrne et al. (1982) conducted a study of the sediment types in the Hampton Roads area. Their study indicated that sandy substrates dominate the area known as Hampton Flats and the area along the Riverview shoreline west of CIDMMA. Muddy or mixed substrates dominate the areas to the west, north, and east of CIDMMA. Dauer and Ewing (1986) and Gapcynski and Diaz (1989) conducted benthic surveys in the immediate vicinity of CIDMMA. Dauer and Ewing identified a near shore (within 150 feet) silty sand habitat and an offshore mud habitat with a high silt-clay content. Their stations extended a maximum of 2,000 feet from CIDMMA. Gapcynski and Diaz, whose sample sites extended up to 8,200 feet from CIDMMA, described 3 bottom types. They identified an inshore zone with very soft muds and clays, a middle zone of muds and silts, and an offshore zone of sand and silt. These studies, conducted within 3 years of each other, yielded different descriptions of sediment texture adjacent to CIDMMA and can be attributed to DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-24 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III construction activity described below. According to Appendix E, Environmental Information Report, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, Long-term Disposal (Inner Harbor), the three sediment studies (Byrne et al., 1982; Dauer and Ewing, 1986; and Gapcynski and Diaz, 1989) found similar distribution of sediment types in the vicinity of CIDMMA, with near shore areas dominated by finer materials and offshore areas having higher percentages of coarse materials (i.e., sand). The Dauer and Ewing study found a near shore silty sand habitat that corresponded with the highest densities of benthic organisms, while the Gapcynski and Diaz study identified an inshore zone of very soft mud and clay that transitioned to muds and silts and finally to sand and silt offshore. In the Gapcynski and Diaz study, biological activity increased with greater distance from CIDMMA. Essentially, the differences between the two studies can be attributed to the placement of dredged material from the Newport News navigation channel over an area approximately 1,000 feet wide around the north and west sides of CIDMMA, which occurred in 1988/1989. This dredged material disposal, undertaken to stabilize the dikes at CIDMMA, probably changed the bottom topography and sediment type of the area. According to the USFWS planning aid report (1989), since benthic organisms usually recolonize disturbed areas within a year, it is anticipated that the area around CIDMMA would have regained its normal benthic community. No additional benthic studies have been identified in the literature covering the period since the Gapcynski and Diaz study to validate this hypothesis. Other areas have been studied following disturbance, i.e., sand mining at Thimble Shoal, demonstrating that the benthic community can rebound in a matter of months. The results of the commercial clam dredge survey (Dauer and Ewing, 1986) showed the greatest concentrations of hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) on the north to northeast side of CIDMMA (see the previous table). There were also some patchy areas with oyster clumps. Data from this study are very similar to previous results (Dauer, 1984). The Chesapeake Bay Long-Term Benthic Monitoring Program began evaluating benthic community health bay-wide in 1984. Monitoring efforts measure water quality, sediment texture, and the abundance and richness of benthic invertebrate communities. The program has been supported by a partnership among Maryland's Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR), VDEQ, and the USEPA CBP. Forty- eight sites are monitored annually by the Benthic Monitoring Program in areas targeted for pollution abatement and other management actions to assess whether the benthic community condition is changing. The Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) is used by the Chesapeake Bay Benthic Monitoring Program, which is conducted by the MD DNR and by VDEQ. The program contains two primary elements: (1) a fixed site monitoring effort directed at identifying trends in benthic community condition, and (2) a probability-based sampling effort intended to estimate the area of the Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries with benthic communities meeting the CBP Benthic Community Restoration Goals (Ranasinghe et al., 1994). Further information about the benthic monitoring program can be found on the World Wide Web at www.baybenthos.versar.com. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page II1-25 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III 1 The Chesapeake Bay B-IBI is calculated by scoring each of several attributes of benthic community structure and function (abundance, biomass, Shannon diversity, etc.) according to thresholds established from reference data distributions. The scores (on a 1 to 5 scale) are then averaged across attributes to form the index. Samples with index values of 3.0 or more are considered to have good benthic communities indicative of good habitat quality. A study by Dauer (2000; 2001; and 2002) of the macrobenthic communities of the Elizabeth River watershed was initiated in summer 1999 and continued through a third year of sampling in 2001. The three objectives of the Benthic Biological Monitoring Program of the Elizabeth River watershed include the following: (1) To characterize the health of the tidal waters of the Elizabeth River watershed as indicated by the structure of the benthic communities; (2) To conduct trend analyses on long-term data at 14 fixed-point stations to relate temporal trends in the benthic communities to changes in water and/or sediment quality, and trend analyses will be updated annually as new data are available; and (3) To produce a historical database that will allow annual evaluations of biotic impacts by comparing trends in status within probability-based strata and trends at fixed-point stations to changes in water and/or sediment quality. In the 1999 Elizabeth River survey, five primary strata were characterized, including: the Mainstem of the Elizabeth River, the Southern Branch, Western Branch, and Eastern Branch, as well as the Lafayette River. In 2000 a single stratum, the entire Elizabeth River watershed was sampled with 25 random samples. The condition of each stratum was compared to the results for all Virginia tidal waters for 1999, based upon the random sampling of 100 sites as part of the on-going Virginia Benthic Monitoring Program. In 1999, tidal waters in Virginia averaged 30 percent degraded benthic bottom. All 5 strata for the Elizabeth River were higher than this value: 52 percent for the Mainstem of the river, 64 percent for the Eastern Branch, 72 percent for the Western Branch, 92 percent for the Southern Branch, and 64 percent for the Lafayette River. In general, for all Elizabeth River strata, species diversity and biomass were below reference condition levels while abundance values were within reference condition levels. Community composition was unbalanced with levels of pollution indicative species above, and levels of pollution sensitive species below reference conditions. In 2000, the estimate of benthic bottom not meeting the benthic restoration goals was 72 percent, and in 1999, it was 64 percent (Dauer, 2000, 2001). Comparison of the results for the Elizabeth River watershed to the Chesapeake Bay Benthic Restoration Goals shows that the macrobenthic communities of the Elizabeth River can be characterized as having lower than expected species diversity and biomass. Although abundance levels were generally higher than the Chesapeake Bay reference conditions, the species composition included pollution indicative species higher than reference conditions, while pollution sensitive species levels were lower than reference conditions (Dauer, 2000). The following table presents B-IBI information for stations located within the footprint of the proposed eastward expansion of CIDMMA. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-26 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Table 111-6. B-IBI STATIONS LOCATED EAST OF CDMMA (WITHIN FOOTPRINT OF PROPOSED EAST EXPANSION) Station 2 BIBI Score : MACHO Year 1999 HORECA Z02 3.33 204 2.33 Z05 4.0 Z06 3.0 207 2.0 Z08 2.0 Z10 2.33 Uniung Ye 200110 200 08701 2.7 08Z03 3.3 08730 3.3 Site Degraded = B-IBI score less than 3.0. Site meets Goals = B-IBI score greater than or equal to 3.0. S The USACE, Norfolk District, funded VIMS to conduct a study of the impact of the eastward expansion of the CIDMMA on the abundance, biomass, and diversity of benthic species (Seitz and Lipcius, 2002). Sampling was accomplished at 41 deep sites (greater than 4 feet deep) in the CIDMMA area, 40 other deep sites (deep zones) in the general area of the CIDMMA and Lafayette River system, and 40 shallow (less than 4 feet deep) subtidal sites (shallow zone) in the area. Based on these data, the overall abundance and standing stock, respectively, for each of those habitats was generated, and then the potential loss of biomass due to the eastward expansion of the CIMMA was estimated as a percentage of the abundance and biomass of the entire CIDMMA-Lafayette River system. From the abundance and biomass loss estimates, estimates for mitigation options were developed (Seitz and Lipcius, 2002). The following conclusions were generated from this VIMS study (Seitz and Lipcius, 2002): The area of the CIDMMA eastward expansion had significantly lower bivalve density, diversity, and abundance than the adjacent deep-water habitats or shallow-water habitats in the Craney Island-Lafayette River (CI-LR) system. Bivalve density was significantly lower in the 'Craney Island' and 'Deep' zones than in the 'Shallow zone. Bivalve density in shallow-water habitats was nearly 10-fold higher than that in the area to the east of the CIDMMA. Diversity in terms of species richness was lowest in the “Craney Island” zone, which was significantly lower than that in 'Deep' habitats. Only four species of bivalves were collected in the "Craney Island” zone, whereas seven species were collected in the adjacent deep habitats, and nine species were in the shallow zones. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-27 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III . The CIDMMA eastward expansion zone also had significantly lower mean bivalve biomass than the shallow-water habitats in the CI-LR system. Biomass in the 'Deep' zone was lower than in the shallow-water habitats and higher but not significantly different from that in the ‘Craney Island' zone. Since bivalve density in shallow-water habitats was nearly 10-fold higher than that in the CIDMMA expansion area, and the mean bivalve size was larger, the resultant biomass was much greater. The clams that comprised the biomass in the shallow zone were typically large individuals of Macoma balthica and Tagelus plebeius. Although some Tagelus and Mercenaria were present in the 'Craney Island' zone, they were usually smaller individuals (juveniles) with low biomass. Within the CI-LR system, it was estimated that there were approximately 445 million bivalves. Of these, only about 5 percent (19 of 445 million) resided within the CIDMMA eastward expansion area. Bivalve biomass within the expansion area also constituted a small fraction of the biomass within the general area. Within the CI-LR system, it was estimated that total bivalve biomass was approximately 37,986 kg ash free dry weight. Of the total biomass, only about 0.56 percent (215 of 37,986 kg) was represented in the CIDMMA expansion area. Because of this extremely low bivalve biomass and because the bivalves were very small juveniles, the CIDMMA expansion area is not likely to be a significant feeding ground for the blue crab or demersal fish. 1.4.6 Clams Mann (2002) sampled 24 stations (28 attempted) within a 452-acre area directly adjacent to the east side of CIDMMA as part of a field estimate of clam standing stock in Hampton Roads in 2001 (Figure III-8, Table III-7). Each station was sampled with a hydraulic patent tong with coverage of 1 square meter. The entire tong contents for each station were retrieved and returned to the cull board of the vessel, as this often is in excess of 50 kilograms (kg) of material, including substrate. After preliminary sorting, all molluscs were separated by species, counted, and measured. In addition to hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), data were also collected on distribution and demographics of the razor clam (Tagelus plebeius and Ensis directus), the angel wing clam (Cyrtopleura costata), and the soft shell clams (Mya arenaria). The only invertebrate found in 24 stations was a single hard clam (R. Mann and J. Harding, 2002). These findings are consistent with the Dauer and Ewing studies mentioned previously, where the plots to the north of CIDMMA show greater concentrations of clams (USACE, 1990). As discussed in the VDOT Third Crossing Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), hard clams constitute a major fishery in Hampton Roads during the summer (VMRC, 1985). Clams are capable of living in a variety of sediment types; however, higher abundances are found in coarse-grained sediments. VMRC's Jim Wesson is cited for providing low abundance figures for CIDMMA/mouth of the Elizabeth River in the VDOT Third Crossing DEIS. The DEIS states that “...Hard clams constitute a major fishery in Hampton Roads during the summer (VMRC, 1995). Clams are capable of living in a variety of sediment types, but higher abundances are found in coarse-grained sediments. Mean population densities of hard clam vary throughout Hampton Roads (Figure III-9). The highest density area is located within and on the sides of the shipping channel. This area contains 32,000 to 37,000 clams per hectare (13,000 to 15,000 clams per DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-28 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSJON AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III acre). The lowest density area is around CDMMA and the mouth of the Elizabeth River. This area contains 0 to 1,200 clams per hectare (0 to 500 clams per acre) (Wesson, 1995)." 1.4.7 Oysters The oyster population and associated industry has been declining in the project areas due to the presence of two organisms, Perkinsus marinus (Dermo) and Haplosporidium nelsoni (MSX). Both are found in areas of fairly high salinity (over 15 ppt) and in warm waters. Additionally, Hampton Roads is a shellfish condemnation area, where shellfish must first be relayed to approved waters for depuration (purging) for 15 days before marketing. Relaying is only allowed when the water temperature is above 10 °C (50 degrees Fahrenheit (°F]). Harvesting of shellfish is prohibited in both the Elizabeth and Lafayette Rivers (VDEQ, 1994). The James River once was an important seed source for oysters that were distributed throughout the lower bay tributaries. These populations have also suffered significant declines in recent years. The oyster is generally found in relatively shallow areas that have adequate substrate for attachment. Although once were an important commercial fishery, harvestable oyster populations have dropped to their lowest level in history. The only harvestable oyster population left in the study area is located upstream of the James River Bridge (Mann, 1996). Since 1999, 20 acres of oyster reefs and grounds have been restored throughout the Elizabeth River (Figure III-9), where no productive reefs have existed for decades. The oyster population and associated industry have been declining in the project areas due to the presence of two organisms, Perkinsus marinus (Dermo) and Haplosporidium nelsoni (MSX). Both are found in areas of fairly high salinity (over 15 ppt) and in warm waters. Additionally, Hampton Roads is a shellfish condemnation area, where shellfish may be relayed elsewhere for depuration prior to marketing. Harvesting of shellfish is prohibited in both the Elizabeth and Lafayette Rivers (VDEQ, 1994). The James River remains an important seed source for oysters and currently amounts to about 90 percent of the state total (USACE Inner Harbor, 1990). DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page II)-29 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III ! Table III-7. VIMS HARD CLAM STOCK ASSESSMENT (Mann, 2002) Basin Area Year sampled Acreage Number of Number of Number of patent tong live hard hard clam grabs clams boxes Number of Estimated live hard number of clams per live clams in area sq. m James River 1 2001 894.5 113 14 0 0.12 448501 2 2001 925.4 116 21 0 0.18 677991 3 2001 790.2 50 0 0 0 0 4 2001 1159.4 143 34 0 0.37 1747400 5 2001 1200.3 150 229 30 1.53 7417193 6 2001 1926.8 242 76 9 0.31 2448883 7 2001 1098.9 69 0 0 0 0 8 2001 749.5 47 4 0 0.09 238147 9 2001 632.8 79 71 9 0.9 2301606 10 2001 805.5 50 8 0 0.16 521577 11 2001 644.2 80 74 0 0.93 2411547 12 2001 844.3 53 35 3 0.66 2256432 13 2001 895.8 112 58 3 0.52 1877389 14 2001 725.6 91 45 0 0.49 1452117 15 2001 397.2 74 13 3 0.18 424585 16 2001 1126.4 141 149 5 1.06 4817181 17 2001 102.7 13 15 0 1.15 479570 18 2001 1248.7 78 0 0 0 0 19 2001 681.8 85 712 4 8.38 23112731 20 2001 902.7 57 17 0 0.3 1089559 21 2001 1118.9 70 20 1 0.29 1293768 22 2001 731.3 92 241 3 2.62 7752790 23 2001 986.5 123 358 0 2.91 11620056 24 2001 722.6 45 70 1 1.56 4549008 25 2001 1253.4 157 469 3 2.99 13152911 26 2001 741.5 47 46 0 0.98 2937003 27 2001 1567.5 196 442 2 2.26 14305629 ! 28 2001 711.7 45 27 0 0.6 1728150 29 2001 344 34 9 0 0.26 582763 30 2001 452.3 28 1 0 0.04 65374 31 2001 649.5 46 29 0 0.63 1637115 32 2001 1209.7 41 0 0 0 0 33 2001 466.4 58 33 0 0.57 1073934 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 111-30 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Table III-7. VIMS HARD CLAM STOCK ASSESSMENT (Mann, 2002) (Cont'd) Basin Area Year sampled Number of Number of Number of Acreage patent tong live hard hard clam grabs clams boxes Number of Estimated live hard number of clams per live clams in arca 0.48 1257208 sq. m 34 2001 645.2 81 39 0 James River (continued) 35 1280.2 123 99 8 0.8 4170055 36 70 45 2 0.64 2115664 2002 2002 2002 2002 37 813.2 717.31 727.72 70 98 4 1.4 4064118 38 67 81 0 1.21 3360459 39 2001 112.2 16 12 0 0.75 340555 40 2001 74.99 9 17 0 1.89 573249 41 2001 672.99 40 21 0 0.53 1429885 42 362.7 41 14 0 0.34 501216 43 2001 2001 2001 367.7 38 9 0 0.24 352440 44 38.1 7 1 0 0.14 22027 | 34920.31 3389 3776 90 134847788 TOTAL MEAN 0.94 77488.55 7473 4715 146.36 183396816 GRAND TOTAL GRAND MEAN 0.56 Public oyster grounds (Baylor grounds) are present within the vicinity of CIDMMA, namely Public Oyster Ground Number 1 (Norfolk County), which surrounds the existing CIDMMA on the west, north, and east sides. Public Oyster Grounds Numbers 2 and 3 are found in the mouth of the Elizabeth River near CIDMMA. These oyster grounds are depicted on project map shown in Figure II-10. The presence of MSX has effectively eliminated oysters from these public grounds. Since 1999, in cooperative efforts between VMRC, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and other local sponsors, approximately 20 acres of oyster reefs and grounds have been restored throughout the Elizabeth River, where no productive reefs have existed for decades (Figure Il-11). 1.4.8 Non-Native Invasive Species An exotic species of mollusk recently introduced in Hampton Roads is the rapa whelk. VIMS is currently studying the biology and distribution of this non-native species. The following information is quoted from the VIMS web site at http://www.vims.edu/mollusc/research/merapven.htm. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINJA Page 111-31 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III “Rapa whelks (Rapana venosa) are predatory snails that eat a variety of molluscs. They often attack bivalves (oysters, clams, mussels) by rasping around the region where the two valves meet, rather than boring a distinct hole. The related species Rapana bezoar, is also a generalist predator on molluscs, attacks other shallow burrowing molluscs by boring the edge of the shell. This is a characteristic that has been noted in collections of clam shells from Hampton Roads. "Since the initial report of rapa whelks in Hampton Roads following collection of a specimen by members of the VIMS Trawl Survey Group, information has been distributed through the news media and by personal communication with a number of people in the fishing industry and academia. These activities have resulted in a number of calls to VIMS to report records of observation or collection and thereby increased our knowledge of the distribution of Rapana venosa in the lower Chesapeake Bay. Adult specimens as well as egg cases continue to be reported from locations in the lower Chesapeake Bay. Rapa whelk egg masses or groups of egg cases resemble small mats of yellow shag carpet and are quite distinctive and noticeably different from the egg cases of native snails." 1.4.9 Other Flora and Fauna As a tidal estuary, the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries support many phytoplankton and zooplankton varieties. Micro and macro-organisms in the planktonic community are numerous and include diatoms, dinoflagellates, forminifera, other plants, and algae. These organisms form the base of the food chain. Zooplankton refers to the community of floating, often microscopic, animals. Zooplankton includes copepods, larval marine worms, and larval barnacles. 1.5 WETLANDS AND UPLANDS Wetlands are defined as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Where wetlands are adjacent to open water, they generally constitute the transition to upland (40 CFR § 230.41). Mud flats are broad, flat areas along the coast, in coastal rivers to the head of tidal influence, and in inland lakes, ponds, and riverine systems. Tidal mud flats are typically exposed at low tides and inundated at high tides with water at or near the surface or substrate (40 CFR $ 230.42). 1.5.1 Wetlands The largest tidal wetland complex in the city of Portsmouth is a 97.5-acre marsh associated with Hoffler Creek, which is located to the southwest of CIDMMA. This marsh is dominated by saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), which is considered to be one of the most important species in coastal wetlands, contributing greatly to the estuarine food web. Craney Island Creek also supports a significant amount of marsh, totaling approximately 67 acres. Saltmarsh cordgrass is a dominant species of this system as well, although nearly a third of the marsh area is vegetated by reed grass (Phragmites australis), an aggressive, less desirable species that typically invades disturbed marshes (Silberhorn and Dewing, 1989). There are numerous ditches and ponds within the study area. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-32 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III ! The most recent National Wetlands Inventory map of CIMMA is a draft (Figure III-12). Aerial photography is dated 1990, and the wetlands mapping is dated 1993. According to these maps, CIDMMA appears to be bounded primarily by upland (the dikes), yet a narrow zone of emergent, intertidal wetland is present to the interior of the eastern and the northeastern perimeter dikes, totaling approximately 74 acres. The interiors of the three partitions (cells) are mapped as areas of lacustrine, littoral, unconsolidated shore, seasonally flooded, diked/impounded, spoil. Several palustrine wetlands are mapped interior of the eastern dike, the largest single one encompassing approximately 20 acres. A palustrine emergent/scrub shrub wetland is present along the southern boundary, totaling approximately 20 acres. Observations of the vascular plant community made during the 1987 perimeter dike stabilization of CIDMMA reveal a relatively uniform species composition, which is also described in Laist (1974). Salicornia virginica and Chenopodium album were the only species able to establish themselves on the fine sediments of the major portion of the mudplain. These plants, both halophytes in the family Chenopodiaceae, are extremely salt tolerant. The other dominants on the disposal area are grasses, particularly Phragmites australis and certain members of the family Asteraceae (USACE, 1987). In the 12 years since this survey was conducted, Phragmites, an aggressively invasive, species, has continued to spread. 1.5.2 Uplands Vegetative communities that occur in the immediate area are upland woodland, scrubland, low grassland, tall grassland and mixed weeds, reed thickets, hydric ditch habitat, disturbed areas, as well as active fill and construction sites. Low grassland constitutes the most common vegetation type, and these communities are comprised mainly of commercial blends of grasses, such as bermuda, fescue, rye, etc. Other grasses are present, including goosegrass, crabgrass, sweet clover, curly dock, evening primrose, and poor man's pepper. Tall grassland communities include species, such as horseweed, ragweed, cocklebur, clover, and alfalfa. Several areas contain mostly pure tall stands of monotypic grasses. Blackberry is common along the fencerows and in disturbed areas, as are elderberry and hackweed. Upland woodland species include a variety of arboreal species, such as hackberry, black cherry, loblolly pine, sassafras, red cedar, chinaberry, and mimosa. Disturbed lands typically support large stands of reed grass, saltbush, cocklebur, jimpson weed, and bitter-weed. а 1.6 SANCTUARIES AND REFUGES Sanctuaries and refuges are defined as areas designated under Federal, state, or local authority to managed principally for the preservation and use of fish and wildlife resources. This definition is consistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines that address potential impacts on sanctuaries and refuges (40 CFR § 230.40). The following table identifies Federally-designated wildlife refuges in the project vicinity, state- designated wildlife management areas and natural area preserves, and local preserves. The table also provides the locality and approximate distance from the proposed port facility. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-33 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Table III-8. SANCTUARIES AND REFUGES Refuge/Preserve Locality Distance from Proposed Project (miles) City of Chesapeake City of Poquoson City of Virginia Beach Northampton County 15 18 30 35 National Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge Plum Tree Island National Wildlife Refuge Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge Fisherman Island Wildlife Refuge State Ragged Island Wildlife Management Area North Landing River Natural Area Preserve Northwest River Natural Area Preserve Princess Anne Wildlife Management Area Hog Island Wildlife Management Area Local Hoffler Creek Wildlife Preserve Grandview Nature Preserve Isle of Wight County City of Virginia Beach City of Chesapeake City of Virginia Beach Surry County 10 20 30 35 36 City of Portsmouth City of Hampton 2.5 16 1.7 TRANSPORTATION 1.7.1 Transportation Impact Study Area The Transportation Impact Study Area (TISA) is composed of the roadways that would likely be impacted by vehicular traffic generated by the project. The TISA for this study was defined as those regionally-significant roadway segments that presently accommodate the movement of freight into and out of the Hampton Roads region and would provide trucks and worker vehicles with access to the CIDMMA terminal (Figure III-13). 1.7.2 Highways Interstate 64 (1-64) - The I-64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel currently carries two travel lanes in each directional tube. The westbound tunnel has an internal height of 13.6 feet, which poses some restriction on trucks using the tunnel. The eastbound tunnel has an internal height of 14.6 feet, allowing unrestricted use by trucks. On the Peninsula, 1-64 west of the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel is currently under construction and will eventually carry three lanes in each direction to VA Route 143 (Jefferson Avenue). Beyond VA Route 143 to the west, 1-64 carries two lanes of traffic in each direction. A major investment study of 1-64 along the 75-mile corridor from Richmond to Hampton and Newport News was conducted. The Locally DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-34 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Preferred Alternative for 1-64 includes three lanes and one concurrent High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction from 1-664 to Route 199 near Grove (Exit 242). On the Southside, 1-64 carries two lanes of traffic in each direction to the 1-564 interchange; from there it carries three lanes in each direction as well as two HOV lanes. Near Battlefield Boulevard in Chesapeake, the highway narrows to two lanes in each direction. 1 Interstate 664 (1-664) - The 1-664 Monitor Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel contains two travel lanes within each directional tube (total of four travel lanes). The internal height of the tunnels is 14.6 feet, which is sufficient to accommodate all trucks. 1-664 carries three lanes in each direction north of the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel to its intersection with 1-64. South of the Bridge-Tunnel, l- 664 carries two lanes in each direction to its terminus with 1-264 and 1-64 in Chesapeake. U.S. 13 - U.S. 13, also known as Carolina Road, in Suffolk is primarily a four-lane highway providing access to and from the Hampton Roads area and North Carolina. South of Whaleyville Boulevard, the highway narrows to two lanes. Existing average daily total (ADT) ranges from approximately 3,300 vehicles near the North Carolina border to 16,700 vehicles south of Route 58. U.S. Route 17 - U.S. Route 17, also known as George Washington Highway, in Chesapeake County is a two-lane road south of Willowood and then widens to four lanes to the Military Highway. Existing ADT levels range from 14,500 vehicles at Portsmouth Boulevard to 30,660 vehicles at the Chesapeake line. From the Portsmouth city line southward, ADT levels decline to 8,525 vehicles at the North Carolina line. The FY 2001-2004 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) includes a project to widen the segment of U.S. Route 17 south of Dominion Boulevard from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. U.S. Route 58 - Route 58, also known as Holland Road, is a 4-lane highway providing access to the Hampton Roads region from areas southwest of Portsmouth. Existing ADT levels range from 19,000 to 24,000 vehicles. There are no known improvements planned for this roadway. U.S. Route 460 - U.S. Route 460, also known as Pruden Boulevard, is a 4-lane roadway providing access to the Hampton Roads region from locations to the west. The 2021 Regional Transportation Plan recommends widening the section of the roadway west of the Suffolk Bypass to 6 lanes. Existing ADT levels range from 12,000 to 18,350 vehicles. VA Route 168 – Part of VA Route 168 includes the Chesapeake Expressway, which is a new 4-lane facility that was opened in May 2000. The southern portion of the alignment follows the route of the Centerville Turnpike. The 2001-2004 TIP and 2021 Long Range Plan include programmed and planned improvements to widen Route 168 leading to 1-64. 1.7.3 Planned and Programmed Improvements Improvements are currently underway along 1-64 on the Peninsula. They include the construction of one concurrent HOV lane in each direction from the Hampton Roads Center Parkway Interchange (Exit 261) DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-35 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT to the 1-664 Interchange (Exit 264), which is scheduled to be completed by the summer of 2004 (VDOT, 2002). The Hampton Roads Transportation Improvement Program (FY 2001-2004) and the Hampton Roads 2021 Regional Transportation Plan outline a number of programmed and proposed roadway capacity improvements. Several of these improvements will relieve congestion along routes that are presently used by trucks transporting goods into and out of the region. The following table lists improvements to these routes and others. 1.7.4 Railroads The port is served by four freight railroads – CSX Transportation, the Norfolk Southern Railway, the Norfolk and Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad, and the Eastern Shore Railroad. CSX serves Portsmouth, and Norfolk Southern serves the lower Hampton Roads area, including the U.S. Naval Base and Lambert's Point in Norfolk. Norfolk Southern provides direct links between the Southside and major consumer centers throughout the U.S. It has direct connections with the Eastern Shore Railroad and the Norfolk and Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad. Intermodal service includes a double-stack service six days a week. General cargo facilities at Norfolk Southern are concentrated in the Lambert's Point area. Norfolk Southern also provides direct rail service on containers to NIT for international containerized shipments. Container-on-flat-car and trailer-on-flat-car facilities are designated as ramp points at NIT. Double stack rail cars are also handled by the facility. а DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-36 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Table II-9. PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS Route Segment Existing Future lanes Timeframe lanes Peninsula 1-64 Jefferson Ave. to James Co. Line 4 6 2021 Plan 1-64 1-664 to VA 199 0 2-lane HOV FY 2001 - 2004 U.S. Route 17 Rt. 614 to SE York River 4 6 FY 2001 - 2004 Gloucester Co. U.S. Route 17 SE York River to Rt. 314 4 6 2021 Plan Gloucester Co. Southside U.S. 13 Virginia Beach 4 4 U.S. Route 58 Holland Road 4 4 U.S. Route 460 Suffolk line to Suffolk Bypass 4 6 2021 Plan Isle of Wight Co. U.S. 13 Suffolk 4 4 U.S. Route 17 Dominion Blvd. NC State Line 2 4 FY 2001 - 2006? VA Route 168 Chesapeake Expressway (new) 0 2001 Third Crossing Suffolk CL to Norfolk CL 0 4 2014 CIDMMA Third Crossing to Westerno 4 2014 Connector Freeway CL=city line. Sources: Hampton Roads Regional Transportation Improvement Program FY 2001-2004. Hampton Roads 2021 Regional Transportation Plan, 2001. ܩܠܐܘ - 4 AID The Norfolk and Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad connects with all rail lines entering Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake. The Belt Line serves a large number of manufacturing industries located beyond the waterfront; it does most of the interchange switching between Norfolk Southern, CSX, and the Eastern Shore Railroad. Norfolk is the southern rail terminal of the Eastern Shore Railroad. Freight cars are transported across the Chesapeake Bay on two-car floats of 25 and 17 car capacity 24 hours a day between Cape Charles and Norfolk, enroute to and from most of the U.S. and Canada. At Norfolk, the Little Creek Yard classifies rail cars for daily delivery to Norfolk Southern, CSX, and Norfolk and Portsmouth Belt Line railroads. The Little Creek rail yard also expedites the handling of north-south bridge traffic originating or terminating in the Port of Norfolk and the Norfolk switching district (Hampton Roads Maritime Association (HRMA), 2001). The existing rail network in the study area is shown on Figure III-14. There is an existing rail connection between the CSX Railroad and the U.S. Navy's Craney Island Fuel Depot, which is located on the southern end of CIDMMA, near the Brandon Square area of Portsmouth. The rail line runs in an east- DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-37 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III west direction paralleling VA Route 164 from Lovett Point to Cedar Lane, where it then turns southwest toward Suffolk. 1.7.5 Federal Navigation Channels and Anchorages Access to and from the Hampton Roads area and the Atlantic Ocean is provided via the Atlantic Ocean Channel, which connects deep water in the Chesapeake Bay to deep water in the Atlantic Ocean (a distance of about 10 miles, Figure II-2). The channel is not currently maintenance dredged for navigation, as water depths are apparently sufficient for existing vessel traffic (USACE, April 2002). The inbound channel is slated for improvements in January 2006, and it is authorized to a depth of 60 feet and 1,300 feet wide. The Norfolk Harbor Channel and Newport News Channel are the focal points for commercial marine transportation in the Hampton Roads system. Both of these channels are accessed from the Chesapeake Bay via the Thimble Shoal Channel and from Hampton Roads through ancillary channels. The Thimble Shoal Channel is 1,000 feet wide and approximately 13 miles long. The channel is maintained to a depth of 50 feet deep. Authorized improvements for Thimble Shoal Channel provide for deepening to 55 feet (HRMA, 2001). Norfolk Harbor Channel extends from Hampton Roads into the Southside cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake via the Elizabeth River. Between deep water in Hampton Roads and Lambert's Point, the channel is 800 feet to 1,250 feet wide and 50 feet deep. Authorized improvements provided for deepening the Norfolk Channel to 55 feet in depth between Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel and Lambert's Point. A channel 40 feet in depth extends from the coal piers to the Norfolk Southern Railway Bridge on the Southern Branch (HRMA, 2001). The Newport News Channel extends about 7 miles from Hampton Roads to Newport News. The channel is 50 feet deep and over 800 feet wide. Authorized improvements for the Channel provide for deepening it to 55 feet. There are several deep draft anchorages in Hampton Roads. Two of the anchorages are at Sewell's Point, and both have an authorized depth of 45 feet. Two more anchorages, located at Newport News, are both 45 feet in depth. Additional anchorages exist in the protected water of the Chesapeake Bay at Cape Charles and Lynnhaven. These two anchorages, which are situated near the entrance to the Hampton Roads Harbor, range up to 47 feet in depth; they can accommodate approximately 120 vessels. Additionally, the inner harbor anchorages, which are lower in depth, can accommodate up to 40 vessels. A deep draft anchorage with an authorized depth of 55 feet has also recently been completed opposite the city of Hampton. Areas adjacent to the Norfolk Harbor Channel are important commercial transportation destinations. Barges (or tows) and oceangoing vessels, including container ships, general cargo ships, dry and liquid DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-38 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III bulk ships, and workboats carry cargo through the Hampton Roads system to cargo terminals and other marine facilities. 1.7.6 Public and Private Terminals The Port of Hampton Roads includes numerous public and private port facilities that are grouped in five major areas: Newport News, Norfolk, southwest Norfolk, the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River, and the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. Shipping, freight rail, and trucking are all integral parts of the port economy. Port-related facilities include container terminals, coal terminals, grain handling terminals, oil handling facilities, and storage warehouses. Public terminals owned by VPA include the NNMT, NIT, and PMT. NIT is the largest container terminal in the port with over 5,000 feet of container berths. All terminals are served by one or more freight rail lines (HRMA, 2001). The Port of Hampton Roads is the second largest on the east coast in total tonnage of international waterborne commerce, with over 38 million short tons of cargo being handled in Hampton Roads in the year 2000. 1.7.7 Traffic Trucking - With the exception of imported coal, most domestic freight is moved into and out of Hampton Roads via truck. The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) Intermodal Management System Regional Freight Movement report noted that the major roadways used by trucks traveling to and from the region are 1-64 in James City County; U.S. Route 17 in Gloucester County; U.S. Route 13 in Virginia Beach on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel; U.S. Route 460 in Isle of Wight County; U.S. Route 58 and U.S. Route 13 in Suffolk; and U.S. Route 17 and VA Route 168 in Chesapeake (HRPDC, 1998). Data from 1995 presented in the report and reproduced in Table III-10 reveal that 80 percent of the truck traffic entering and leaving the region travels along 1-64, U.S. Route 460, and VA Route 168. The data also show that U.S. Route 460 had a higher percentage of trucks to daily traffic than 1-64 (16 percent vs. 8.8 percent, respectively), but I-64 carried a much higher total number of trucks into and out of the region than U.S. Route 460 or any other route. Finally, roadways connecting Hampton Roads to North Carolina, which include U.S. Route 13, U.S. Route 17, and VA Route 168, are estimated to account for more than 23 percent of all freight transported by truck into and out of the region (HRPDC, 1998). Rail Traffic - Data compiled by the HRPDC in 1995 indicate that 27.7 percent of freight (excluding coal) imported by Hampton Roads and 18.8 percent of freight (excluding coal) exported by Hampton Roads was transported by rail. Vessel Traffic - The current number of commercial vessel calls at the port is shown in Table III-11. As shown, vessel calls at Hampton Roads have fluctuated from 2,589 in 1993 to a high of 2,781 in 1995, followed by a decrease to 2,545 in 1999. Container traffic during the period 1993 to 2001, however, has steadily increased from 1,151 in 1993 to 1,729 in 2001, which translates to a 50-percent increase in overall container vessel traffic (HRMA, 2002). Total one-way vessel traffic from commercial, military, DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-39 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III commercial fishing, and tugs at Hampton Roads is estimated at 6,000 trips per year (HRMA, 2002). A review of the commercial vessel traffic data shows that container traffic comprised approximately 70 percent of the total cargo vessel traffic in the year 2001. By comparison, in 1993 container vessel traffic made up about 45 percent of total commercial traffic calling on Hampton Roads. Table III-10. ESTIMATED YEAR 2018 NO ACTION TRUCK TRAFFIC Estimated daily truck Truck percentage (2) count Estimated share of truck traffic at the gateways Roadway Daily traffic (1) 1-64 in Newport News 98,000 8.8 8,600 45.1 U.S. Route 17 from 46,200 2.4 1,100 3.7 Gloucester U.S. Route 11,500 12.6 1,450 5.2 13/Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel U.S. Route 460 in Suffolk 32,400 16.0 5,200 17.5 U.S. Route 58 in Suffolk 28,000 12.0 3,400 5.4 U.S. Route 13 from North 14,900 16.0 2,400 4.0 Carolina U.S. Route 17 from North 15,875 8.5 1,350 3.6 Carolina VA Route 168 from 26,900 10.7 2,900 15.4 North Carolina 26,400 Estimated Total Daily Truck Traffic at the Regional Gateways (1) Daily traffic extrapolated from 1995 Freight Movement report using growth between 2006 and 2021 ADT reported in the 2021 Congestion Management System (CMS) report. (2) Truck percentage from 1995 Freight Movement report by HRPDC. Sources: Regional Freight Movement report, HRPDC, 1998 CMS for Hampton Roads, Virginia 2001, Technical Appendix, HRPDC, June 2001 1 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-40 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Table VII-11. VESSEL CALLS AT HAMPTON ROADS 1993 - 2001 1996 128 1,431 1995 132 1,454 1994 164 1,257 1993 209 1,151 10 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 General cargo 86 101 64 107 142 Container/ 1,729 1,867 1,548 1,588 1,446 RORO Lash 0 0 0 0 0 Coal 259 298 454 469 500 Bulk 122 129 141 145 193 101 133 156 160 168 Passenger 6 5 6 2 4 Tanker 146 151 142 119 144 All other 27 15 34 25 35 Total 2,476 2,699 2,545 2,565 Note: RORO = roll-on-roll-off. Source: The Port of Hampton Roads Annual, 2002 (HRMA). 1 540 205 120 485 281 197 24 423 255 156 Combo cargo 29 446 235 216 10 167 126 2,589 4 9 3 142 102 138 80 2,781 170 130 2,588 2,632 2,669 1.8 UTILITIES The proposed container terminal will require utility services for water, wastewater disposal, power, and telecommunications. This section characterizes each of these needs and the ability of local utilities to meet them based on existing and planned infrastructure. In general, existing utilities are expected to be able to meet the projected requirements. Little utility infrastructure currently exists on CIDMMA, so it will be necessary to add additional infrastructure to extend utilities (power lines, phone/cable lines, water mains, sanitary sewer lines, etc.) from the part of the city of Portsmouth south of CIDMMA to the vicinity of the proposed project. 1.8.1 Water Supply At full build out, water supply requirements for the proposed container terminal are estimated to be about 70,000 gallons per day (gpd), based on usage at the comparably-sized NIT. The demand will consist of standard commercial/office uses, irrigation for landscaping, and washing of vehicles and equipment. A minimum fireflow of 4,550 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual would also be required. The city of Portsmouth is the primary water supplier for the area of the proposed project. The city has stated that the Lake Kilby Water Treatment Facility has adequate treatment capacity to provide the projected water demand (City of Portsmouth, April 2002). The city also stated that the existing water distribution system is "unlikely" to meet fire flow and pressure requirements, although a hydraulic modeling analysis would be necessary to make this determination. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-41 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III 1.8.2 Wastewater At full build out, wastewater treatment requirements for the proposed container terminal are estimated to be about 18,000 gpd, based on usage at the comparably-sized NIT. This will mostly consist of domestic- type wastewater from sinks and toilets, as well as wash water from wash racks. No other industrial wastewater will be generated at the terminal, and the facility will not accept wastewater discharges from ships. The Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) is the utility that provides wastewater treatment services in the region of the proposed project and currently treats wastewater from existing VPA container terminals. 1.8.3 Energy Power requirements for Phase 1 of the CIDMMA container terminal are estimated to be about 400 kilowatts, whereas power requirements at full build-out are estimated to be about 35 megawatts. Much of this power demand will be for operation of cranes and for lighting. Dominion Virginia Power is the primary provider of electric service in the region and has provided a written statement that electrical service is available to the project location (Dominion Virginia Power, April 2002). The existing Craney Island Substation can provide power to meet the requirements of Phase 1, although some upgrades (i.e., a new transformer) will likely be required to meet the electricity demand at full build-out. The terminal is likely to have backup electric generators for emergency use. Virginia Natural Gas provides natural gas services in the region. Additional infrastructure would be required to extend gas lines from the city of Portsmouth to the CIDMMA container terminal. Gas requirements for the terminal and secondary development are likely to be relatively small. 1.8.4 Telecommunications Telecommunication services in the region are provided by several companies, including Verizon and Cox Digital Telephone. Cable and internet services are provided by Cox Digital Cable. As with other utilities, the new container terminal would require new cable lines and possibly radio/microwave relay towers. Telecommunications companies could provide services with no adverse impacts on the existing system. 1.9 WASTE MANAGEMENT 1.9.1 Solid Waste Disposal The active solid waste and recycling efforts utilized in the project area are summarized in this section. The summary includes items such as public and private landfills and waste facilities, facility capacity, potential facility closure dates, and recycling services. The purpose is to describe anticipated solid waste and recycling services to be utilized upon the development of the proposed site. The Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA) serves several regions within Hampton Roads, VA, including Portsmouth. SPSA is the main waste handler for the city of Portsmouth. Currently, the Regional Landfill, located in Suffolk, handles solid waste for SPSA. In addition, SPSA maintains a Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Plant, which is responsible for converting waste to energy. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 111-42 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III The regional landfill facility (Permit No. 417) is maintained by SPSA, and it provides service for Portsmouth, as well as other Hampton Roads areas. The Regional Landfill receives approximately 1,500 tons of solid waste per day. SPSA handled 1,098,322 tons of solid waste during FY 2000/2001, and of that total, 589,335 tons were disposed at the Regional Landfill. Currently, the Regional Landfill disposes of solid waste into Cell V, which is expected to have 8 to 10 years of remaining disposal capacity, with an anticipated closure date of 2008 or 2010. In addition, SPSA will develop a sixth cell at the landfill that is anticipated to provide an additional 8- to 10-year disposal capacity. The RDF Plant (Permit No. 455) is maintained by SPSA, which provides service for Portsmouth, as well as other South Hampton Roads areas. The RDF Plant is a recovery facility that converts waste into energy. This facility processes approximately 57 percent of the SPSA waste. Approximately 2,000 tons per day of waste is converted into steam or electricity. The city of Portsmouth delivers most of its waste directly to this facility. SPSA also provides Portsmouth's recycling services. SPSA collects recyclables in two streams: Paper Items Co-mingled Items During its last fiscal year, SPSA collected 201,405 tons of recyclable materials. In addition, SPSA maintains a waste tire recycling facility. Tire shred is recycled for such uses as tire derived fuel and alternative daily cover. 1.9.2 Hazardous Waste and Materials Hazardous materials are typically transported as cargo through marine terminals, including the three VPA Hampton Roads terminals. Hazardous materials, as defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), include any material that is “capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, or property when transported in commerce.” USDOT establishes hazardous material guidelines regarding the handling and transportation of materials for cargo terminals, and USDOT guidelines are issued under Title 49 CFR. These guidelines include such items as the identification and classification of hazardous materials; the types and quantities of shipments allowed; and the appropriate labeling and handling of hazardous materials transported. According to the Virginia International Terminals, approximately 3 percent per year of container cargo classified as hazardous materials is anticipated to pass through the terminal. Typically 9,000,000 tons per year of cargo pass though the port; therefore, approximately 270,000 tons of the cargo are hazardous. These materials may include any of the following, as classified by USDOT: - Hazard Class 1 - Explosives Hazard Class 2 - Compressed gases Hazard Class 3 - Flammable liquids Hazard Class 4 - Flammable solids Hazard Class 5-Oxidizers - - . DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-43 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III 1 Hazard Class 6-Poisons Hazard Class 7 - Radioactive materials Hazard Class 8 - Corrosive Liquids Hazard Class 9 - Miscellaneous - 1.9.3 Generation, Storage, and Disposal of Hazardous and Petroleum Wastes Hazardous wastes, classified by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), are materials that may pose a potential hazard to human health or the environment due to quantity, concentration, chemical characteristics, or physical characteristics. This applies to discarded or spent materials that are listed in 40 CFR 261.31-.34 and/or that exhibit one of the following characteristics: ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. Typically, the hazardous wastes generated at the cargo facilities reflect the daily operations conducted at the site, i.e., normal maintenance activities and custodial activities. Generally, used oils are contained in 55-gallon drums and recycled. In addition, fumigants utilized on site are returned to the suppliers. The typical areas where hazardous wastes may be generated or stored are shown in the following table. The three VPA Hampton Roads terminals are classified by RCRA as "conditionally exempt small quantity generators” of hazardous waste. The CIDMMA terminal will also be classified as a conditionally-exempt small quantity generator. This classification is defined as a facility that generates no more than 100 kg of non-acute hazardous waste in a month, no more than 1 kg of acute hazardous waste per month, and no more than 100 kg of residue from cleaning up spills of acute hazardous waste per month. As shown in the following table, the anticipated waste materials generated or stored at the port facility include used oil, oil filters, absorbent materials, hydraulic fluids, or spent cleaning materials utilized for port-related equipment and vehicles. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 111-44 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Table III-12. POSSIBLE AREAS CONTAINING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR WASTE AREA FUNCTION OF AREA Maintaining and repairing port- related equipment and vehicles Maintenance facility MATERIALI ACTIVITY Lubricating oils, waste oils, petroleum-based materials AST/UST's containing waste oil, diesel, or gasoline Fuel storage for refueling port- related equipment and vehicles Fueling facility Drums containing used oil, recovered fuel, or Drum storage area Staging area for waste spent absorbent materials Refueling and maintenance materials Staging area for required for equipment General yard area loading/unloading cargo and vehicles Refueling and maintenance materials Crane operations and required for equipment Straddle Carrier Area Area for loading/unloading ships and vehicles AST/ UST's = above ground storage tanks/underground storage tanks. Accidental spills of petroleum products associated with the daily operations, as mentioned above, may occur at the terminal facility. Typically, one to two incidents per month are anticipated. These incidents generally involve small to moderate quantities (1-50 gallons) of diesel fuel, motor oil, or hydraulic fluid. Effective cleanups including proper containment, recovery, and disposal occur immediately following the release. = 1.9.4 CIDMMA A records review was conducted to evaluate the past and present environmental condition of the CIDMMA expansion site and its surroundings. A listing of Federal and state environmental databases identifying sites located in the vicinity of the project area was obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), a private database management firm. The databases include files on former and current facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous materials and other regulated substances. a Thirty-two Federal, state, and local databases were searched for facilities that are known to contain potential environmental conditions, and a total of 71 records were identified. All databases were searched in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials standards; however, due to the location of the target site from neighboring facilities, an additional 2 miles beyond the standard radius was searched for each database. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-45 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Due to the absence of an exact address for the proposed CIDMMA terminal, the database search included the Craney Island Fuel Depot and its associated facilities as a part of the target site.” Therefore, the target site is inadvertently listed on the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS), Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST), and Leaking Petroleum Storage Tanks (LTANKS) databases. The following summarizes the findings of the EDR database review. The summary information is relative to facilities that are located within 2 miles of the subject property. However, the facilities located within one-quarter of a mile from the subject property would be expected to have the highest potential for impact. The EDR database review indicates that no past or present facilities that use hazardous materials or other regulated substances exist on the target site. However, the Craney Island Fuel Depot and its associated facilities, located south and southwest of the site, were listed in several databases. Within a 1/2-mile radius from the site, 20 LUST and LTANKS cases and 25 ERNS cases were identified. Sixteen of the LUST and LTANKS cases listed were reported as closed cases and do not appear to be significant sources of environmental impact. However, 32 ERNS cases were identified, but no information was given regarding the date and nature of the releases. Depending on the severity and the containment measures taken, the releases may pose a potential concern for the site. However, the VDEQ Tidewater Region was contacted for more information regarding the ERNS cases at CIDMMA. Although two cases were reported recently (2001), both releases were reported to be minor, including a spill at a pump station and a break in the oil/water separator decant line. Most cases occurring at the CIDMMA facility were reportedly minor releases involving piping problems. ..) Several sites, located between 1/2 mile and 1 mile were also reported on the ERNS database. The facilities listed are also Craney Island Depot sites. As described above, the releases occurring on the Craney Island Depot facilities were reported to be minor cases. The Naval Station FISC Fuel Depot was reported in the Resource Conservation Recovery Information System - Small Quantity Generator (RCRIS-SQG) and Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) databases. No violations were reported on the RCRIS-SQG database. . The CERCLIS database notes that a preliminary assessment was completed for the facility in 1991. This facility is currently not on the National Priority List; however, potential environmental impact could result from this facility. Numerous facilities located greater than 1 mile from the subject site were noted in the ERNS, LUST, LTANKS, Underground Storage Tank, Aboveground Storage Tank, RCRIS-SQG, RCIRS-Large Quantity Generator, and CERCLIS-No Further Remedial Action Planned databases. However, these sites are not located in close proximity and are not expected to pose significant environmental impact to the subject site. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-46 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III 1.10 LAND USE Areas for the existing land uses discussion as part of the CIDMMA study area include the nearby areas of Portsmouth, as well as portions of Chesapeake and Suffolk in which the proposed VDOT rail corridor would be located. For this land use evaluation, the primary CIDMMA study area has been defined by the Elizabeth River to the east, the VA Route 164 corridor to the south, the city of Portsmouth westerly border to the west, and Hampton Roads Harbor to the north. Existing land use in the study area was derived from 2001 land use mapping presented in the Multi- Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (EPA 2001) and is shown on Figure III-15. Land uses in the CDMMA study area are described below. 1.10.1 Residential Uses Residential uses include low- and medium-density single-family residential development and multi- family residential areas. These areas include Brandon Square, Windmill Shores, Southampton, Edgefield, Merrifields, Twin Pines, Peachtree, Churchland West, Edgewood Park, Castle Heights, and River Point in the city of Portsmouth. Residential areas in the city of Chesapeake include Dunedin, Wellington, Clover Meadows, Cricket Hollow, Hunters Cove at New Boone Farm, and Taylorwood Estates along the 1-664 corridor. Residential uses in the city of Portsmouth are concentrated in the area southwest of CIDMMA, north of VA Route 164, as well as on either side of Cedar Lane, south of VA Route 164. Multi-family residential uses are found immediately adjacent to CIDMMA and the Twin Pines Road/VA Route 164 interchange. Residential uses in the northern area of the city of Chesapeake include single-family residential neighborhoods at varying densities in the area to the south of U.S. Route 17 and east of 1-664. 1.10.2 Commercial Uses Commercial uses in the study area include a variety of commercial and office buildings along Churchland Boulevard (U.S. Route 17), Towne Point Road, and VA Route 164, adjacent the city of Suffolk line. One commercial use is the Churchland Shopping Center along U.S. Route 17 in the Churchland section of Portsmouth, and another commercial use includes the Churchland Square Shopping Center along the south side of U.S. Route 17 in the city of Chesapeake. 1.10.3 Industrial and Institutional Uses Industrial uses are located along the Route 58 and VA Route 164 corridors in areas zoned M-1 and M-2. A variety of public schools are situated within the study area, including Churchland Academy Elementary School, Churchland Middle School, and Churchland High School, located to the east and west of Cedar Land south of CIDMMA. Other institutional uses include the existing CIDMMA and operations of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and U.S. Navy to the south of CIDMMA. 1.10.4 Open Space and Conservation Areas Open space in the study area includes Churchland Park in the city of Portsmouth along Cedar Lane at the intersection with River Shore Road to the south of CIDMMA. Other open spaces in the study area DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-47 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III include Dunedin Park, located about 1 mile southeast of the 1-664NA Route 164 interchange in the city of Chesapeake. а 1.10.5 Zoning CIDMMA is located in a U.S. Government (USG) zoning district. The USG is a district exclusively for military installations owned by the USG (City of Portsmouth, 2002). The area to the south of CIDMMA, between the USCG and Western Freeway (VA Route 164), is designated primarily as M-2 Heavy Manufacturing and M-1 Light Manufacturing. The M-2 is primarily a district for manufacturing, assembling, and fabricating activities, including large scale or specialized industrial operations. A variety of commercial and industrial uses are permitted in the M-2 district. The M-1 district is primarily a district for wholesale activities, warehouses, and light industrial operations that are not obnoxious or offensive by virtue of dust, odor, smoke, fumes, or noise. The area to the southwest of CIDMMA, west of Cedar Lane, is designated for residential use. Most of the area is situated in districts that are primarily intended for single-family detached dwellings on lots of varying sizes. The residential area immediately adjacent the southwest corner of CIDMMA is RM-75, which is primarily a district for multifamily structures but allows single-family and two-family dwellings. A relatively small area bordering the Norfolk Road interchange on VA Route 164 is vacant and designated M-1 and Planned Office Park (POP), which borders residential districts primarily designated for single-family and multifamily residential uses. The POP district is primarily intended for well- planned and tightly-controlled office park development, at a scale compatible with residential development. The POP district also allows other uses that include transportation of freight. 1.10.6 Local Plans The city of Portsmouth General Land Use Plan provides no designation for the future use of CIDMMA. The USACE 50-year plan is to continue to use the current limits of CIDMMA for dredged material management. Moreover, the eastward expansion of CIDMMA, which would be the site of the proposed terminal facility, is not designated for any land use, since this area is presently under water. The city's Vision 2005 plan, however, designates CIDMMA and areas bordering the Elizabeth River near it as the “Working Waterfront.” The vision for this area is to maintain an active "working waterfront” and encourage development of vacant tracts and redevelopment. This vision is intended to guide Portsmouth's comprehensive planning process for this area. The area immediately south of the active CIDMMA is designated for public/quasi-public land use. The western portion of this area is presently the site of the U.S. Navy's fuel depot operations. Two areas one bordering Craney Island Creek and a second, which is the site of Churchland Park, are designated for "parks & open space.” The area south of Craney Island Creek that is bordered by VA Route 164 and the Elizabeth River is designated for industrial uses. The Windmill Shores area of Portsmouth is designated for Medium Density Residential (up to 16 units/acre net) uses, while the much larger area encompassing Southampton and areas to the south and west are designated for single-family residential uses. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-48 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III 1.11 NOISE When an object vibrates, it releases energy and creates sound waves, which produces noise. The energy or sound wave moves through media, such as air at various frequencies until it reaches the eardrum and sound is heard. The higher the energy is, the stronger the sound wave is, and the louder the sound is. Sound is reduced by various factors, such as absorption by the air, absorption by various ground cover types, absorption by trees, and reflection by buildings and walls. Noise measurements are expressed by sound pressure level (SPL), which is the logarithmic ratio of the sound pressure to a reference pressure. SPL is expressed as a dimensionless unit of power, the decibel (dB). The human ear has a limited detection of sound and does not respond uniformly to all frequencies. Therefore, in most noise analysis, the SPL is weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjustment is known as the A-weighted decibel (dBA). Sound level meters, such as the one used in this study, have A-weighted scales and measure the sound levels that correspond to human hearing (Canter, 1977). The ability to perceive an increase in noise level is variable as presented in the following table. Table III-13. DECIBEL CHANGES AND LOUDNESS Change (dBA) Relative loudness 0 Reference 3 Barely perceptible change 5 Readily perceptible change 10 Half or twice as loud 20 1/4 or 4 times as loud 30 1/8 or 8 times as loud Source: Based on Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement – Policy and Guidance. (FHA, June 1995.) There are many different noise monitoring statistics that can be used to describe "community noise" levels. The noise levels within a community fluctuate over time, primarily due to variations and intensity of the noise sources. A single measurement of sound level is not a sufficient descriptor, as it will miss peaks and may provide a misrepresentation of noise levels over time. Several statistical measurements are used to describe the temporal characteristics of the acoustical environment. One such measurement is the Day-Night average, which averages noise levels over the daytime hours (7 a.m.-10 p.m.) and nighttime hours (10 p.m.-7 a.m.), with a 10-dB penalty added to the nighttime noise levels. This statistic was considered in this study; however, it was not used, as it would provide a skewed average, since the heavy truck traffic would end before 7 p.m. When averaged, the quieter nighttime would mask the louder truck traffic during the day. Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) is a measurement of the average sound level over a given period of time. The measurement chosen as the best descriptor for this study was the DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-49 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III maximum 1-hour equivalent sound level (Leq[1]). Other statistical sound level measurements, such as L10 and L90, are sometimes used to indicate noise levels that are exceeded by 10 and 90 percent of the sample interval, respectively (Thumann and Miller, 1990). 1.11.1 Ambient Noise Monitoring Noise monitoring for existing conditions at CIDMMA and the surrounding communities was conducted during March 2002. Data were collected from 7 monitoring points on CIDMMA on March 6, 10, 25, and 26. Three additional monitoring locations were selected off of CIDMMA, in the surrounding Edgefield and Merrifields residential communities of Portsmouth to determine current ambient noise levels in potentially affected areas. The noise monitoring data were collected from the residential communities on March 20 and 27. All of the monitoring locations are shown in Figure III-16. Existing ambient noise levels were monitored at all 10 locations using a Bruel & Kjaer 2236/2238 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter. The meter was calibrated at the beginning of each day using a Bruel and Kjaer Sound Level Calibrator Type 4231 prior to monitoring. The meter measured background noise in dBA using the noise descriptors: Leq, L10, L90, Min (L), and Max (L). The meter was also set to measure the instantaneous SPL every second during the sampling period. At each monitoring location, the sound level meter was mounted to a tripod positioned 3 feet above grade and at least 10 feet from any reflective surface. Noise monitoring occurred for 24 hours in separate 12-hour sampling sessions. Monitoring occurred between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m., as well as 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., respectively. Data were collected in 15 minutes intervals each hour to obtain a representative background noise level for the represented hour. Data recorded from the meter included: start/end time, sampling range, Min (L), Max (L), L10, L90, Leq, and additional comments. > The following table presents noise levels, in Leq, monitored on CIDMMA between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. The data show that noise levels are affected during daytime hours by grade/fill operations associated with dredging activities on CIDMMA. Dredging activities began on CIDMMA at approximately 8 a.m. Operations were busiest between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., with a short break around the hour of 12 p.m., when workers would stop for lunch. During these operational hours, noise levels ranged from 43 dBA to 68 dBA. When dredging activities ceased for the day, at about 6 p.m., noise levels dropped to a range of 35 dBA to 60 dBA during the evening and early morning. Table III-14 presents noise levels monitored during evening and early morning hours. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-50 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Table III-14. DAYTIME AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING ADRE :) و هم در Referatul fra 56.7 59.5 56.6 53.2 50.7 61.0 11 43.7 46.3 60.1 62.5 43.3 47.6 49.3 49.3 62.4 54.7 52.0 0800 50.4 57.6 0900 53.8 58.4 1000 55.4 61.7 1100 54.7 60.1 1200 50.0 54.0 1300 58.9 61.3 1400 62.3 61.0 1500 60.9 55.9 1600 59.6 61.9 1700 52.2 51.0 1800 50.7 53.7 1900 51.3 49.3 2000 46.8 45.8 Notes: -- Rain delay, no data. 50.4 49.1 50.6 51.2 57.4 54.1 47.8 52.4 47.2 56.3 54.3 55.0 49.2 50.9 51.5 57.1 49.4 52.8 54.1 66.7 52.1 57.8 60.3 51.3 54.2 49.4 56.1 49.2 50.7 48.3 64.2 54.7 50.9 51.8 64.2 45.9 46.8 51.4 47.6 48.4 48.9 49.1 48.6 60.4 45.2 45.5 42.2 46.3 54.8 46.2 51.9 47.9 51.6 51.0 51.1 50.5 59.1 62.6 55.0 62.6 49.7 53.2 54.5 50.7 48.1 47.6 46.4 53.1 49.7 48.9 50.9 50.9 48.3 54.2 55.1 54.3 53.4 52.7 52.5 Residences, apartment complexes, townhouses, parks, recreation areas, playgrounds, schools, and churches dominate the communities that border CIDMMA to the southwest. FHA categorizes these land use types as “Activity Category B,” according to its noise abatement criteria presented in the following table. Table IN-14 also presents noise levels, in Leq, monitored throughout the residential communities surrounding CIDMMA between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. The data show that noise levels are affected by routine traffic during daytime hours. The noise monitoring was performed within the communities on March 27, 2002. On this particular day, students had a half-day and left school property around noon. It is expected that, on a normal school day, results would be slightly different. The data also show that noise levels peaked when school traffic was heavy. As shown in Table III-14, noise levels peaked between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. and between noon and 1 p.m., when students and teachers arrived and departed school property. It should be noted that, on a normal school day, traffic would be heavy when school ends at about 3 p.m. Noise levels ranged from 45 dBA to 65 dBA during school hours. Once school was out, and the parking lots were empty, noise levels dropped to a range of 40 dBA to 59 dBA during the evening and early morning (see Table III-14). DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-51 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III 1.11.2 Noise Regulations Currently, there are no Commonwealth of Virginia noise limits or regulations. The city of Portsmouth does not have a noise ordinance to guide in the evaluation of the acceptability of noise levels on various receiving land use categories. The first comprehensive Federal legislation for abating noise emissions from a broad range of sources was the Noise Control Act of 1972 and its amendment in 1978. The general objective of these laws is to promote an environment free from noise that jeopardizes human health or welfare. USEPA has also established noise guidelines that parallel the objectives of the Noise Control Act. These guidelines recommend noise limits for indoor and outdoor noise levels. In general, an average noise level over a 24- hour period of 70 dBA is listed as the threshold for hearing loss. In a residential area, an outside 24-hour average sound level of 55 dBA is recommended (USEPA, 1974). As regulated by the Act, noise impacts are primarily governed at the local level. FHA has established noise abatement criteria based on hourly Leq measurements for various land-uses, as presented in Table III-15. Table III-15. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA Activity Leg(h) Description of Activity Category category А 57 Land for which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and (exterior) serve an important public need, as well as where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active, sports areas, parks, (exterior) residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. С 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or (exterior) B above. D Undeveloped lands. E 55 (interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Note: The Leq and L10 designations represent hourly A-weighted sound levels expressed in decibels (dBA). Source: USDOT, FHWA 1974. 1.12 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES 1.12.1 Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include the residential communities of Windmill Shores, Rivermill, Edgefield, and Merrifields, located southwest of the proposed port facility. Rivershore Baptist Church, the only church in the project vicinity, is located in the Windmill Shores community. Four DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-52 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III schools are also located in the project vicinity just northeast of the residential communities, and include Churchland Primary, Churchland Middle School, Churchland High School, and Churchland Academy. Churchland Park, an expansive recreational area, is located immediately southeast of the U.S. Navy Craney Island Fuel Depot. Existing vegetation on CIDMMA and the Navy Fuel Depot property currently blocks the viewshed of the proposed port facility from these sensitive receptors. No cemeteries were identified in the project vicinity. Waterfront properties located immediately west of CIDMMA may have a partial to unobstructed view of the proposed port facility. However, the Monitor Merrimac Bridge- Tunnel and CIDMMA currently impact existing views from these residences. Another sensitive receptor is the residential neighborhood of Edgewater located 1.5 miles east of the proposed port facility in the city of Norfolk. The Elizabeth River separates the neighborhood from the proposed port; therefore, the view from waterfront residences in this neighborhood is relatively unobstructed. Most of the Edgewater properties contain large trees that would partially obstruct the view of the port facility; however, the lack of foliage in the fall and winter would provide a less obstructed view of the port facility. The current viewshed for the Edgewater community includes NIT, Lambert's Point Coal Terminals, U.S. Navy Craney Island Fuel Depot and CIDMMA. The view of the CDMMA would change from an unvegetated dredge material containment area, to an industrial facility including bulkheads, wharves, vessel berths, containers, and cranes. 1.13 RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL USE OF WATERS 1.13.1 Commercial Shipping Hampton Roads is the water body through which the waters of the James, Nansemond, and Elizabeth Rivers pass into Chesapeake Bay. One of the best natural harbors in the world, it has been a major anchorage point since colonial times and has extensive harbor facilities and shipyards. The cities of Newport News and Hampton are located on the north shore, Norfolk and Portsmouth on the south. The Port of Hampton Roads is one of the busiest U.S. seaports. Hampton Roads has long been important to the U.S. Navy; Norfolk is headquarters for the Atlantic Fleet. Due to current security concerns, Naval Station Norfolk cannot provide information on military ship movements; however, several battle groups do deploy routinely from the Naval Station located in Norfolk. Ships entering Hampton Roads from the sea follow the Thimble Shoal Channel into the waters of Hampton Roads. They can then use the Newport News Channel, which extends approximately 7 miles westward from Hampton Roads to Newport News, or the Norfolk Harbor Reach, which extends from the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel into the southside cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake. The Craney Island Reach of Hampton Roads provides access to the Elizabeth River. Heavy industry and bulk cargo terminals are accessed through Hampton Roads and associated secondary channels. Areas adjacent to the shipping channels are important commercial transportation destinations. In 2000, vessel calls at U.S. ports accounted for about 10 percent of vessel calls at world ports (Office of Statistical and Economic Analysis, 2000). There were 5,000 total vessel calls at Hampton Roads in the year 2000. Vessel types that call at Hampton Roads ports include tankers, dry bulk, container, RORO, DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-53 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III chemical tankers, and gas carriers. Hampton Roads area ports include Chesapeake, Hampton Roads, Hopewell, Lynnhaven Roads, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Richmond, and Yorktown. Containership calls at U.S. ports increased by 5.7 percent from 1998 to 2000; however, containership capacity calling at U.S. ports increased by 12.1 percent as average vessel size increased by 5.9 percent over this same period. In recent years, the Port of Virginia has experienced average annual growth rates in containerized cargo of over 6 percent. The most recent forecast for containerized cargo at The Port of Virginia predicts a growth rate between 3.5 percent and 4.7 percent, or an average rate of 4.1 percent per year. 1.13.2 Commercial Fishing Commercial fishing in the Hampton Roads area supports the seafood harvest and production industry in the surrounding region. The Elizabeth River and waters surrounding the proposed port facility produce commercially-important species, including blue crab and Atlantic croaker. A moderate amount of commercial fishing for spot, croaker, and striped bass, including the use of gill nets and haul seines, occurs in the area adjacent to the proposed port facility (VMRC, April 2002). Blue crabs are harvested for the local seafood market and are exported from the Chesapeake Bay area as well. Oysters were once an important part of the commercial fishery in the Hampton Roads area. However, harvestable oyster populations have dropped to their lowest levels in history. At the peak of Virginia's oyster harvesting heyday in the early 1900's, annual catches exceeded 9 million bushels. By 1958, landings were about 4 million bushels. Total oyster landings for the 1997/1998 season were just 14,295 bushels, only 1 percent of what was harvested 35 years ago (VDEQ, 2002). The harvest for 2000/2001 was slightly higher; however, the harvest for the 2001/2002 season is slightly lower due to the drought than the harvest reported for the 1997/1998 season (VMRC, April 2002a). This historical oyster decline is due to overharvesting and the presence of two disease organisms, Perkinsus marinus (Dermo) and Haplosporidium nelsoni (MSX) in addition to the oyster drill (Urosalpinx cinera, Eupleura caudata). In recent years, reports have indicated that oyster drill abundance is again increasing in Virginia waters after Hurricane Agnes reduced the populations in 1972. The oyster drill, combined with the recent discovery of the veined rapa whelk (Rapana venosa), has serious consequences for the commercial oyster fishery as well as Virginia's on-going oyster restoration efforts. Both species of oyster drill are more abundant in downriver habitats with salinities ranging from 15 to 25 ppt (Southworth et al., 2000). The most viable oyster populations left in the project vicinity occur in the lower James River, upstream of the James River Bridge (VMRC, April 2002). Since 1999, cooperative efforts between VMRC, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and other local sponsors have restored approximately 20 acres of oyster reefs and grounds throughout the Elizabeth River. The nearest reef to the proposed project vicinity is near Craney Island Creek, close to the tank farm (VMRC, April 2002). According to the Virginia State Department of Health, Division of Shellfish Sanitation, the area around CDMMA is part of condemned shellfish area number 7 (see Figure III-17). The areas to the north, east, DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-54 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III and west of CIDMMA are part of the Hampton Roads Shellfish Relay Area. The Relay Area is considered to have a polluted bottom and, in order to utilize shellfish that are harvested, they must be moved to a clean area for depuration for a period of 15 days prior to use (VMRC, April 2002). The area to the south of CIDMMA in the Elizabeth River is condemned to shellfishing. The rapa whelk has also heavily impacted clam populations. Rapa whelks are native to the Sea of Japan and were discovered in the lower Chesapeake Bay in 1984. Evidence suggests that these animals were introduced into the region through ship ballast waters (Mann, 1999). Continuing efforts to map the whelk's distribution in the lower Chesapeake Bay indicate no new range extensions and a relatively constant population in the lower James River, Hampton Bar, and Ocean View/Little Creek regions (Mann and Harding, 2000). Blue crabs are present in Hampton Roads from March through December. Analysis of long-term juvenile and adult fishery-independent surveys conducted in the Chesapeake Bay indicates that blue crab abundance is below average and declining in recent years. The current status of the stock was compared to thresholds and targets endorsed by regional management agencies. The 3-year (1998-2000) average commercial baywide harvest of 60 million pounds is below the long-term (1968-2000) average of about 75 million pounds. The 2000 baywide harvest of 50.8 million pounds is below average and is the lowest since the Maryland commercial crab reporting system changed in 1981 (FY 2000 Blue Crab Advisory Report) A blue crab management area was established July 1, 1998, in response to reduced abundance in the blue crab stock and increased fishing pressure on the resource (Figure III-5). Management covers an area between the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel and the Monitor Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel. Dredging for crabs within this area is prohibited at all times. Commercial crabbers most heavily use the area near CIDMMA in spring and early fall. Depending upon the particular season, there may be 12 to 15 crab boats in the area and hundreds of crab pots scattered about the area (VMRC, March 2002). 1.13.3 Recreational Boating and Fishing Recreational boaters from the surrounding areas use many areas within the Hampton Roads Harbor for a variety of purposes. Numerous sailing communities with marinas and boat ramps border the project area. Recreational fishermen and pleasure boaters often cross or navigate the above-described channels to reach their destinations. The Elizabeth River contains fisheries for recreational estuarine and marine species including Atlantic croaker, grey seatrout, striped bass, summer flounder, and bluefish. Data kept by VDGIF for recreational boating in the Hampton Roads area are summarized in Table III-16. A review of USCG records indicates that there are 15 documented vessels (i.e., vessels weighing in at 5 net tons or greater) having Hampton Roads registered as their hailing port. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-55 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Table III-16. REGISTERED BOATS IN HAMPTON ROADS AREA (1) Northampton County 1,641 Accomack County 4,500 City of Norfolk 4,660 City of Virginia Beach 12,416 City of Newport News 3,624 City of Hampton 4,237 City of Suffolk 3,261 City of Chesapeake 6,049 City of Portsmouth 3,109 City of Poquoson 1,453 Total 44,950 (1) Source of information: VDGIF Boater Registration (2001 Registry). 1.14 ECONOMICS 1.14.1 Affected Environment The geographic region of influence or impact study area for economics is the Hampton Roads region. This area includes the South Hampton Roads communities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach; the Lower Peninsula area consisting of Hampton, James City County, Newport News, Poquoson, Williamsburg, and York County; Gloucester County on the Middle Peninsula; and the non-metro areas of Franklin, Isle of Wight County, Southampton County, and Surry County. Economic activity in the region is distributed across the service, manufacturing, retail trade, and government portions of the regional economy. The Hampton Roads region is economically-dependent on the defense sector, with expenditures and obligations totaling more than $5.3 billion in constant 1982- 1984 dollars) in 2000 (HRPDC, 2001). Total military employment in the Hampton Roads region is reported at 109,049, which is one of the largest concentrations of military personnel in the world (HRPDC, 2001). Shipbuilding has been a mainstay of the regional economy for decades, but its contribution has lessened during the past decade as a result of Department of Defense budget cuts, which reduced an ambitious U.S. Navy ship construction program by almost one-half. Additionally, commercial shipbuilding suffered a substantial decline in the 1980's from foreign competition. The result was a decline in employment at Norfolk Naval Shipyard from 12,500 to 7,000 employees between 1988 and 2001 and at Newport News Shipbuilding from 30,000 to 17,200 employees between 1985 and 2001. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-56 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Long-term forecasts for the region indicate continued growth of both population and employment but at rates less than experienced in the past decades. As reported in the following table, total employment (civilian and military) in Portsmouth is projected to increase by 7.5 percent from 52,913 in 1999 to 56,900 in the year 2021 (HRPDC, 2001). In comparison, total employment in the Hampton Roads region, excluding Gloucester County and Rural Southeastern Virginia, is anticipated to increase by 21 percent from 911,253 in 1999 to 1,103,600 in the year 2021. A review of the data presented in the Table II-17 indicates that 25 percent of the 911,253 civilian and military jobs in the region are located in Virginia Beach. Civilian unemployment in the region in March 2003 varied from 2.2 percent to 7.9 percent, with the highest rate in Williamsburg (HRPDC, 2001). 1.14.2 Economic Impact of Virginia Port Authority Data collected by the American Association of Port Authorities reveals that The Port of Virginia (Hampton Roads) was the eighth busiest container port in the U.S. This activity and the movement of other cargo through the port makes it a hub of regional economic activity, generating many jobs and providing a significant source of revenue for the city and counties in the Hampton Roads region. A recent study, completed by the Regional Studies Institute of Old Dominion University and released in 2001, assesses the economic impacts of port activities on the Hampton Roads region. Other information regarding the economic impact of VPA terminals is included in a study completed in 1999 by Martin Associates. The following sections summarize the results of these studies. Based on results of the study completed for VPA, activities at VPA terminals generated 8,525 jobs in 1998. These jobs are with the International Longshoremen's Association, terminal operators, stevedores, trucking firms, railroads, steamship agents, freight forwarders, customs house brokers, warehousemen, Federal Government agencies, towing companies, pilot organizations, and marine construction companies. The majority (more than 80 percent) of these jobs are held by residents of Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Newport News, and Hampton (Figure III-18). An additional 4,636 jobs are induced or jobs supported by the local purchases made by the 8,525 individuals who are directly employed by port activities. These jobs are with local grocery stores, retail outlets, restaurants, transportation services, local government services, schools, hospitals, etc. An additional 1,534 jobs are indirectly generated at firms dependent on the purchase of office supplies, equipment, utilities, communications, maintenance and repair services, transportation services, professional services, and other goods and services from local businesses. Expenditures by VPA for local goods and services were reported at $24 million, while total purchases by firms dependent on VPA's marine terminals reached $49.6 million in 1998. In addition to the direct, induced, and indirect job impacts of the port, an additional 149,563 jobs in Virginia are related to the movement of cargo at VPA's marine terminals. These jobs are held by employees of firms exporting and importing cargo through the terminals and include businesses such as manufacturers and chemical companies, as well as wholesale and retail outlets for beverages, furniture, and agricultural equipment. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-57 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III - Businesses providing maritime services at VPA's terminals are reported to have received $762.5 million of revenue in 1998. This revenue does not include the value of the cargo that moved through the marine terminals. Of the $762.5 million in revenue, $49.6 million was used for local purchases by those firms directly dependent upon port activity. The 8,525 individuals directly employed as a result of VPA terminal activities received $278.2 million in personal wage and salary income in 1998. Local purchases made by these individuals created additional jobs that generated an additional $266.1 million in income and consumption expenditures in the Commonwealth. Activities at VPA terminals are reported to have resulted in $60.7 million in state and local tax revenues in 1998, and the Federal Government reportedly collected $286 million of customs receipts from cargo handled at VPA terminals. About $30.3 million of tax receipts were generated at the city and county levels of government, and it is estimated that about 80 percent of the local taxes were collected by those jurisdictions in immediate proximity to the port terminals (Martin Associates, 1999). Overall, more than 164,000 people are employed either through direct, induced, and indirect job impacts of the port or through jobs related to the movement of cargo at VPA's marine terminals, generating approximately $4 billion in wages and more than $500 million in taxes annually (HRMA, 2002). DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-58 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Table III-17. EXISTING AND FORECASTED EMPLOYMENT Locality Chesapeake Norfolk Portsmouth Suffolk Virginia Beach Hampton James City Co. Newport News Poquoson William sburg York County Total 1999 101,165 225,297 52,913 25,833 231,994 83,555 47,974 116,969 2005 121,028 241,511 57,519 33,320 238,497 83,513 32,625 126,564 2011 145,600 235,700 55,900 38,700 259,900 85,700 35,900 136,600 2,500 24,900 30,900 1,052,300 2021 156,100 236,900 56,900 46,100 276,100 87,100 40,200 141,700 2,700 27,400 32,400 1,103,600 25,553 911,253 26,746 961,323 Source: 2001 HRPDC Economic Outlook; Conform ity Documentation, Appendix B-1; HRPDC, 2002. Notes: Data in 1999 and 2003 for James City County includes William sburg. Data in 1999 and 2005 for York County includes Poquoson. Data for 1999 is from the 2001 HRPDC Economic Outlook; data for 2005 was provided byHRPDC in April 2002 and represents an update of data in the Conformity Documentation; data for 2011 and 2021 is from the Conformity Documentation. 1.15 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Executive Order (EO) 12898, Environmental Justice, was issued by President Clinton on February 11, 1994. Objectives of the EO, as it pertains to this evaluation, include development of Federal agency implementation strategies; identification of low-income and minority populations where proposed Federal actions have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects; and participation of low-income and minority populations. Accompanying EO 12898 was a Presidential Transmittal Memorandum that referenced existing Federal statutes and regulations to be used in conjunction with EO 12898. The memorandum addressed the use of the policies and procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Specifically, the memorandum indicates that, “Each Federal agency shall analyze the environmental effects, including human health, economic and social effects, of Federal actions, including effects on minority communities and low-income communities, when such analysis is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. section 4321 et. seq." 1.15.1 Affected Environment To evaluate the potential for environmental justice impacts resulting from the proposed port facility, the socioeconomic characteristics of the immediate project area within the city of Portsmouth, and the city of DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-59 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Portsmouth itself, were compared to the Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Socioeconomic characteristics are presented in Table III-18. The project area consists of census tract 2130.01, which contains CIDMMA, and census tract 2131.03, which borders CIDMMA to the southwest. The Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News MSA, constituting the service area of the proposed port, consists of the counties of Gloucester, Isle of Wight, James City, Mathews, Surry, and York, along with the cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Poquoson, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg. ! Minority races included in the 2000 Census are identified as Black; American Indian and Alaska Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander; other; or individuals of two or more races. Minority populations within the project vicinity, consisting of census tracts 2130.01 and 2131.03, constitute approximately 36.3 percent of the residents, a much lower percentage than the total minority population within the City of Portsmouth, which averages 54.2 percent of the residents (US Census, Census 2000). The minority population within the project vicinity is also lower than the minority population within the MSA, which averages 32.0 percent of the residents, but is above the State average of 27.7 percent (U.S. Census, Census 2000). Table III-19 provides the percentage of residents within the various racial groups. Table III-18. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS (1) (2) Total Non-White Population (%) Poverty Pop. (%) Median Household Income Unemployment Rate (%) Population Jurisdiction Tract data 2000 14,912 36.3 4.7 50,110 3.8 Portsmouth 1990 48.7 17.2 3.8 103,907 100,565 24,601 33,742 2000 54.2 16.2 7.7 Norfolk-Virginia Beach- Newport News MSA 1990 29.3 10.6 2.5 1,435,653 1,558,180 31,060 44,226 2000 32.0 10.2 4.8 Commonwealth of 2.3 Virginia 1990 6,187,358 22.6 9.8 33,328 2000 7,078,515 27.7 9.6 46,677 Sources: (1) Year 2000 Census Data obtained from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census. (2) Year 1990 Census Data obtained from U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census. 4.2 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-60 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Table III-19. Ethnic DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATIONS IN STUDY AREA AND COMPARISON AREAS, CENSUS 2000 Percent of Total Population by Ethnic Origin White Black Asian Other Area Hispanic Origin 3.4 30.4 1.8 4.0 50.6 0.8 2.8 1.7 Project Area Census 63.7 Tracts City of Portsmouth 45.8 Norfolk-Virginia Beach- 68.2 Newport News MSA Virginia 72.3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census 27.1 1.8 2.8 2.1 19.6 3.7 4.4 4.7 Figure III-19 demonstrates the 2000 non-white population levels in the project vicinity and how this level relates to non-white population levels in the City of Portsmouth, the Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News MSA, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The poverty population of the City of Portsmouth exceeds the Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News MSA and statewide average. Based upon the 2000 U.S. Census, 16,291 residents of the city of Portsmouth, or 16.2 percent, were in poverty. The number of residents in the city of Portsmouth in poverty has decreased from the estimate of 17.2 percent reported in the 1990 Census. The 2000 U.S. Census also indicated that the number of residents within the MSA in poverty has decreased from 10.6 percent, as reported in the 1990 Census, to 10.2 percent in 2000. Poverty estimates for the State have declined from 9.8 percent in 1990 to 9.6 percent in 2000 (U.S. Census, 2000). Figure III-20 demonstrates the change in poverty levels for the city of Portsmouth from 1990 to 2000 in comparison to the MSA, and Commonwealth. Median household income for the city of Portsmouth is approximately $10,000 less than the Norfolk- Virginia Beach-Newport News MSA and State average. The data presented in Table 111-18 concerning unemployment indicate that the city of Portsmouth has an unemployment rate higher then the statewide average and the MSA average. 1.16 PUBLIC SAFETY 1.16.1 Emergency Planning Emergency planning for the Hampton Roads area is coordinated at Federal, state, and local levels. Region III of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) works in partnership with the Commonwealth of Virginia's emergency management agencies to prepare for and respond to disasters. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 111-61 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III The Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) is a state agency that works closely with local government emergency managers, other state agencies, voluntary organizations, and Federal agencies such as the FEMA to ensure a comprehensive, efficient, and effective response to emergencies and disasters throughout Virginia. HRPDC serves as a resource to support local and regional strategies that will complement existing emergency management programs in cities and counties throughout Hampton Roads. HRPDC has developed a Hampton Roads Emergency Information System and Geographic Information System that allow for the secure sharing of data and plans concerning resources, shelters, hazardous material information, and locations with all emergency operations centers within the region. The Portsmouth Office of Emergency Management is responsible for the Emergency Preparedness program for the city of Portsmouth. Portsmouth has emergency preparedness plans in place for numerous situations including, hurricanes, family disaster, terrorism, and emergency medical dispatching. 1.16.2 Emergency Services a 1.16.2.1 Fire Protection Currently, the Portsmouth Fire Department provides fire protection service in the vicinity of the proposed port facility. The Portsmouth Fire Department can mobilize 220 full-time professional firefighters from 9 fire stations with a citywide overall response time of 4 minutes. Portsmouth fire stations are equipped with engine companies, ladder companies, Hazmat vehicles, and ambulances. Staffs are trained for fires, HazMat, emergency medical, disaster, and terrorist situations. Station 3 houses the department's hazardous materials team, which is the lead team of the Southside Regional Hazardous Materials Team. Local agreements are in place with the Chesapeake, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach Fire Departments for provision of additional help. Chesapeake has a foam truck, and Norfolk and Virginia Beach have technical rescue teams. 1.16.2.2 Law Enforcement The city of Portsmouth Police Department would be the primary law enforcement agency in the proposed port project area with 250 officers. The Police Department operates several special units within the force including a SWAT Team, Narcotics Unit, Traffic Unit, Animal Control Unit, and Detective Bureau. Through a Mutual Aid Agreement, the Portsmouth Police Department can obtain additional assistance from the cities of Suffolk, Chesapeake, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach. In emergency situations these officers would have concurrent jurisdiction. The city of Norfolk has over 700 officers, Chesapeake has a staff of 466, Virginia Beach has 777 officers, and Suffolk has 139 officers. Through special legislation that was passed in the late 1970's, VPA formed its own Police Department. VPA Police force consists of 69 swom, state-certified officers. Port Authority Police are present at all VPA ports 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and provide law enforcement and security services. Port Authority Police conduct inspections of gate arrivals and departures, as well as meet all arriving ships. > DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 111-62 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III 1.16.2.3 Emergency Medical Services Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in the Hampton Roads area are provided by 69 private and public state-licensed EMS agencies. The Tidewater EMS (TEMS) region includes the Eastern Shore (Northampton and Accomack Counties); the South Hampton Roads counties of Isle of Wight and Southampton; and the cities of Chesapeake, Franklin, Portsmouth, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach. Approximately 1 million people reside within the region's 2,700-square-mile area. The 911-telephone number provides access to EMS. Ground ambulances, supplemented by aircraft and watercraft, provide transportation of personnel and patients. There are over 2,500 highly-trained persons involved in the delivery of EMS in Tidewater. Fifteen hospitals in Hampton Roads are served by TEMS. Severe trauma patients are taken to the Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, the only Level I Trauma Center in the Hampton Roads area. The Sentara Nightingale Regional Air Ambulance serves a 125-mile radius from its base at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, and the Air Ambulance has the ability to serve 56 hospitals in the region. The Portsmouth Fire Department's Medic 6 Unit provides EMS in the city of Portsmouth. This unit responds to over 200 calls each month. 1.16.2.4 Hurricane Evacuation In 1992, USACE, FEMA, and VDEM conducted the Virginia Hurricane Evacuation Study, resulting in a Technical Data Report containing information valuable to emergency planners and coordinators, and allowing them to effectively respond to a hurricane affecting the Hampton Roads area. The transportation analysis estimated clearance times and defined the evacuation road network. Clearance times identified for the city of Portsmouth based on the category of hurricane are listed in the following table. Table III-20. CITY OF PORTSMOUTH HURRICANE CLEARANCE TIMES Storm category Type of response 1 Rapid Medium Slow Rapid Medium Slow Rapid Medium Slow Low seasonal occupancy High seasonal occupancy (hours) (hours) 374 344 614 674 9/4 974 344 3272 674 614 974 914 5 512 644 6% 914 974 2-3 4 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-63 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III The following evacuation routes have been established for the city of Portsmouth: . Individuals residing north of I-264 are encouraged to use U.S. Route 17 North to Route 258/32 South in Isle of Wight County; and Route 337 West and I-664 North, to U.S. Route 17 North then to Route 10 West toward Smithfield. Individuals residing south of 1-264 are encouraged to use U.S. Route 58 (Airline Blvd.) to U.S. Route 58/460 West toward Suffolk. 1.17 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Cultural resources are prehistoric and historic sites, structures, districts, artifacts, or any other physical evidence of human activity considered important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f), the area of potential effect is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist (36 CFR $ 800.2). The NHPA requires that the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the issuance of the license, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in, or eligible for inclusion, in the NRHP (see generally 36 CFR § 800). The National Register is the official Federal list of cultural resources significant to American history and pre-history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register includes all prehistoric and historic units of the National Park System, National Historic Landmarks recognized by the Secretary of the Interior, and properties nominated by State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO's), Federal agencies and others that have been approved for listing by the National Park Service. Only properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP are subject to protection or consideration by a Federal agency. In Virginia, the Director of the VDHR functions as the SHPO and is responsible for conducting review of projects involving Federal action to assure their compliance with Section 106. The SHPO designates cultural properties as archaeological and architectural resources. Archaeological resources are further categorized as prehistoric and historic sites. Prehistoric sites may date from as early as circa (ca.) 10,000 B.C. to ca. A.D. 1600 and consist of Native American sites; historic sites may date from ca. A.D. 1600 to present. Architectural sites include structures and objects dating back at least 50 years and/or are unique enough to be considered culturally significant. There is evidence of Native American occupation in Virginia beginning about 12,000 years ago, and continuing to the present time. The earliest identifiable groups, known as “Paleoindians," apparently lived in groups of extended kin. They pursued a variety of game animals and probably foraged the limited vegetable resources of the boreal forest. During this period, the climate was sub-arctic because of the advance of continental glaciers. The glaciers tied up a significant portion of the world's water budget, and, as a result, sea level was about 100 meters lower than at present. The shoreline of the Atlantic Ocean was well to the east, near the edge of the continental shelf. The Susquehanna River, carrying totally DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-64 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III freshwater, flowed east through the area of what is now the Chesapeake Bay; its tributaries, the Potomac, York, James and Elizabeth Rivers, were also freshwater rivers. From this point, sea level rose fairly rapidly until about 6,000 years ago, drowning the fresh water rivers and creating the complex estuary called the Chesapeake Bay. At that time sea level was 6 or 7 meters below the present level. The climate had also warmed considerably as the glaciers retreated, creating a new set of environmental conditions to which the Native Americans adapted by exploiting new food resources, including the abundant shellfish and finfish of the estuaries. This resulted in changes in the material culture, which are also reflected in the archaeological record, and the beginning of the period known as the Archaic. Because sea level was still lower than at present, the people of that era may have been living and exploiting estuarine resources on banks of the estuary that are now fully submerged. This creates the possibility that there may be submerged prehistoric archaeological sites below the water line along the Elizabeth River. From Archaic times forward the rate of sea level rise slowed, and the climate stabilized somewhat. Native American populations grew and expanded their food-getting activities. By about 3,000 years ago, they were making pottery, and by about 1,000 years ago, they had begun to cultivate plants such as corn and squash. They continued to use the rich resources of the Chesapeake Bay and may have engaged in a seasonal movement from the shoreline to the interior. This period is known as the Woodland period. There are numerous terrestrial prehistoric sites in the vicinity of the study area from the Archaic and Woodland periods that clearly indicate the presence of Native Americans during these time periods, but a portion of the living and exploitation patterns may be located below the present water level of the estuaries. The first permanent European settlement in the southeastern Virginia region did not take place until 1607 with the English settlement at Jamestown. From this settlement the English colonists spread throughout the Chesapeake Bay area, particularly along the rivers and close to the mouth of the Bay. Tobacco was introduced into the colony about 1612 and quickly became the colony's main export crop. The emphasis on tobacco tended to keep the colony from growing other crops or developing additional major industries. Shipbuilding in Virginia began in the 1620's with the construction of small vessels for trade along the rivers and the Chesapeake Bay. The General Assembly offered various incentives to encourage the colonists to build larger vessels that would make the colony less dependent on British vessels. Ferryboats began to be constructed to serve the demand for public transportation across several waterways. One of the earliest was a ferry between Norfolk and Portsmouth constructed in 1636 and operated as a private enterprise by Adam Thoroughgood. By 1728, Norfolk, which was officially established in 1705, had already become a significant port. Shipbuilding began to be a more important part of Virginia's economy in this century, and Norfolk shipyards were the leading shipbuilders in the colony. Between 1763 and 1774, the Norfolk shipyards built approximately 180 vessels, which consisted of sloops, schooners, ships, brigs, and snows. In 1767, DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-65 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III the Gosport Navy Shipyard was built in Portsmouth and quickly began an important industry for that city, which had been founded in 1752. Despite the ships that were being constructed in the Virginia shipyards, the U.S. had a very small navy compared to the British navy when the Revolutionary War started. The British also dominated the trade routes from the Chesapeake Bay southward. The British used its navy to choke American commerce and trade, putting great pressure on colonial maritime activity. The Chesapeake Bay region was the choke point between Cape Charles and Cape Henry. In 1776, the British burned Norfolk, almost totally . destroying it. In response to this action and others at the beginning of the war, the Continental Congress and various colonial govemments established naval forces and enlisted the help of privateers to harass British shipping. The naval actions that occurred in Virginia's waters resulted in numerous combat losses as well as intentional sinkings in order to create obstructions or prevent vessels from falling into enemy hands. Although the British Navy could not be defeated by the colonial forces alone, these forces did succeed in harassing British shipping and intercepting supplies intended for the British Army. However, when the French forces and their fleet came to the aid of the U.S., the war finally came to an end in 1781 at Yorktown. Because of its strategic location, the Hampton Roads area again became directly involved in the hostilities when the War of 1812 broke out. The British objectives of controlling the Chesapeake Bay and restricting the area's waterborne transportation and trade were similar to those of the Revolution. The British succeeded in blockading the bay, severely reducing the region's commerce. In 1813 they attacked Craney Island in order to establish a position from which to attack the Gosport Navy Yard, to attack the towns of the area, and to capture or destroy the U.S.S. Constellation, which lay at anchor in the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. This initial attack failed, and shortly thereafter the British attacked Newport News and Hampton, where they committed a number of atrocities. Both Fort Monroe and Fort Wool were built in the following years to enhance the defense of these cities. The growth of the region accelerated after the War of 1812. Shipping from all of the bay ports increased, and the growth of Baltimore at the northern end of the bay increased traffic. Steamboats were introduced in the Norfolk area after War of 1812 and gradually replaced sailing ships for both passengers and freight. After the 1820's steamboat service rapidly expanded along the bay. It was in this time period also that railways were introduced to the area. During the 1850's an extensive railway network was developed throughout the state, which continued to expand after the Civil War, helping to fuel the area's growth in the late 19th century. The Hampton Roads area again became a battleground during the Civil War. Federal forces attempted to destroy the Gosport Navy Yard before abandoning it to the Confederates, but were not completely successful in their attempt. The Confederates raised four former Union vessels and began to convert the Merrimack into an ironclad. In March 1862 the famous battle between the C.S.S. Virginia (formerly Merrimack) and the U.S.S. Monitor took place in the Hampton Roads Harbor. In May 1862 the Confederates evacuated from Norfolk and burned the Virginia to avoid its capture by the Union forces. Although the Confederate evacuation of Hampton Roads ended the open confrontations between the two DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 111-66 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III sides, Hampton Roads remained a base for Union forces conducting operations against Confederate forces on the upper James River. Although the region's economy was devastated by the Civil War, the region experienced a slow but steady recovery. The growth of the inland coal industry stimulated shipbuilding, which expanded to meet the increased demand for cargo vessels needed to transport coal. Other industries grew as a direct result of the coal industry, manufacturing everything needed to bring coal from the mountains to the shipping terminals. The growth of the military also contributed to the overall area's growth at the end of the 19th century. Between 1889 and 1892 the country's first battleship was built at the Norfolk Navy Yard at Gosport, and between 1919 and 1922 the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Langley was built there. In 1917, the U.S. Navy established a major base in Norfolk, and throughout the two World Wars the region grew because of this military connection. Within the past 20 years there have been several investigations of areas within the Hampton Roads harbor for the presence of historical resources. While it is likely that there are intact prehistoric archaeological sites in submerged areas along the former freshwater drainages such as the Elizabeth River, the methods and techniques of underwater archaeology are not now sufficiently refined to easily identify these resources. In July 1986, personnel from the Norfolk District conducted a remote sensing survey in the vicinity of the CIDMMA that resulted in the identification of three targets for further investigation. These targets were later identified as modern ferrous debris. In 1989, the Norfolk District conducted remote sensing surveys in the areas immediately to the north and to the west of CIDMMA as part of the Norfolk Harbor and Channels Long-Term Dredged Material Management Study. This survey covered the areas to the north and west of CIDMMA, which were under consideration in this study as options for an expanded CIDMMA. The survey found over 300 targets, none of which were identified as being culturally significant or requiring additional investigation. An investigation for the Hampton Roads Naval Museum resulted in the identification of the sites where the remains of three vessels associated with the Civil War are located, specifically the U.S.S. Cumberland, C.S.S. Florida, and C.S.S. Virginia, (Watts, 1987). In 1999, a remote sensing survey of several potential alignments for a third crossing of the Hampton Roads waterway was carried out (Cox, 1999). This survey found 78 targets, 30 of which were classified as potential cultural resources. No additional investigations of these targets have been done to date. a Since the area to the east of CIDMMA had not been surveyed previously for the presence of cultural resources, a remote sensing survey of this area was carried out as part of the current study. This survey, which took place in September 2000 under contract to Pan-American Consultants, Inc., resulted in the identification of over 400 anomalies. However, none of these targets was considered potentially significant in terms of historic resources, and, thus, no further work was recommended. The reports that resulted from this work have been coordinated with VHDR. VDHR was consulted regarding the location of previously-recorded archaeological and architectural resources within the project area and within a 1-mile radius of the project site (VDHR, March 2002; DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-67 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III VDHR correspondence included in appendices). No archaeological or architectural historic resources were identified within the proposed port facility footprint. Also, no archaeological sites were identified within the 1-mile radius of the proposed port facility. 1.18 SECONDARY GROWTH 1.18.1 Population Growth During the 1980's and 1990's, the population of the city of Portsmouth continued to decline from 104,577 in 1980 to 100,565 in 2000 (see Table III-21). This moderate decline in population, averaging -0.3 percent per year in the 1990's, contrasts with a 0.8 percent average annual increase in population in the entire Hampton Roads region. This negative population growth in Portsmouth and other central cities such as Norfolk has been attributed, to some extent, to out-migration. Within the region, the population movement has been away from the central cities to the fast-growing suburbs of Chesapeake, Suffolk, and Isle of Wight County on the Southside, and to James City County and York County on the Lower Peninsula. Forecasts from HRPDC indicate that the region's population and employment growth will be slower in the future, as diminished military spending and employment reduce growth in per capita income. The most recent population projections for the region are included in the CMS Conformity Determination report for the Hampton Roads Ozone Maintenance Area. This report includes population projections for the years 2005, 2011, and 2021. HRPDC developed the socioeconomic information used in the conformity analysis using the REMI model. The REMI model was used to forecast control totals, which the HRPDC then allocated to the local level, and these allocations were then reviewed by each locality and adjusted as appropriate. The results of the forecasted population growth are presented in the Table III-22 and illustrated in Figure III-21. As shown in the previous table, the population of Portsmouth is projected to decline between the years 2000 and 2011. An increase in Portsmouth's population is projected between the years 2011 and 2021; however, the population projected for the year 2021 is less than both the anticipated population in the year 2005 and 2000 population of 100,565. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-68 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Table III-21. HAMPTON ROADS POPULATION GROWTH CENSUS POPULATION GROWTH (%) 1990- 1980 - 1990 2000 1980 32.8 31.1 -2.1 -10.3 -0.6 -3.2 22.1 9.5 49.9 8.2 Locality Chesapeake Norfolk Portsmouth Suffolk Virginia Beach Hampton James City County Newport News Poquoson Williamsburg York County TOTAL 9.1 114,486 266,979 104,577 47,621 262,199 122,617 22,239 144,903 8,726 10,294 35,463 1,140,104 9.4 37.6 57.2 18.3 5.1 1990 2000 151,982 261,250 103,910 52,143 393,089 133,811 34,970 171,439 11,005 11,409 42,434 1,367,442 199,184 234,403 100,565 63,667 425,257 146,437 48,102 180,150 11,566 11,998 56,297 1,477,626 26.1 5.1 5.2 10.8 19.7 32.7 8.1 19.9 Source: HRPDC, 2001. 9 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page III-69 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT III Table III-22. FORECASTED POPULATION GROWTH 2000 2005 Locality Chesapeake Norfolk Portsmouth Suffolk Virginia Beach Hampton James City Co. Newport News Poquoson Williamsburg York County Total 199,184 234,403 100,565 63,667 425,257 146,437 48,102 180,150 11,566 11,998 56,297 1,477,626 211,686 236,489 99,187 72,442 450,046 138,583 55,242 188,082 13,645 13,081 57,118 1,535,601 2011 235,600 226,600 97,300 80,300 472,900 140,500 63,400 195,300 14,700 13,700 63,000 1,603,300 2021 251,600 227,700 98,500 95,300 498,700 145,700 72,700 211,000 15,900 14,600 70,500 1,702,200 Note: Data for 2000 is from the 2001 HRPDC Economic Outlook; data for 2005 was provided by the HRPDC in April 2002 and represents an update of data in the Conformity Documentation; data for 2011 and 2021 is from the Conformity Documentation. Source: CMS Conformity Documentation, Appendix B-1, HRPDC, 2001; HRPDC, 2002. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page 111-70 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Figures 1 1 بي W A hoe Arla Chesapeake Bay Lower James River Newport News 2 Hampton Roads Norfolk pos Craney Island Lafayette R www moras Portsmouth Branchs W. Branch Elizabeth River Basin S Branch Note: Summary of VIMS Hydrodynamic Modeling Studies (Boon et. al., 2001 and 2004) can be found in Feasibility Report, Appendix A. TIDAL PRISM OF THE ELIZABETH RIVER BASIN Figure III-1 1 1 wat son Anh N izmeni Gloucester Williamsburg York James City County Poquoson eoquoson York County Newport News Hampton Newport News Hampton Chesapeake Bay James River Rampton Roads Nortolk Isle of Wight County Norfolk Virginia Beace Isle of Wight Portsmouth Portsmouth Suffolk Virginia Beach Suffolk Chesapeake Legend Non-Attainment Areas Virginia Counties Roads para > 10 Miles 0 2.5 5 Groete Figure III-2 HAMPTON ROADS OZONE NON-ATTAINMENT AREA CHO N NEWROTNEW gtx NON Misty PEACH ROADS NORCA AMPTON crans A BUFFOLE CITY 0I -M1H Sehe US ARMY www. DISPOSAL AREA TRENI GANE SLAND Crangy island IS NAKAL SUPPLY CENTER REON PORTSMOUTH : ETH Legend PORTSMOUTH Proposed East Expansion OSMAN Approximate Nest Site Locations Least Tern ELIZABETH ☆ Piping Plover Befredete Por Source: - USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Map, Norfolk North, VA Nest Site Locations based on 1994-1995 USFWS Field Notes 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles UNCH Pianis PIPING PLOVER AND LEAST TERN Figure III-3 NEST SITES 1 Figure III-4 1149" שוויון "ויזוית i11 l' MUMK 36 37°30 35 5715" X 5700" 36 5145" 363130" 36 5115" X SIDO 3650-43" 36 50*30" 6 015" X Spo "יוניון T'as 49" 10*3r13" Nºze 7°213" 70°1743" 10 1919 Proposed Sites Proposed Route 164 VMS Historical 30ft Trawl Stations VIMS Historical 1611 Trawl Stations WEST NORTO 38*45" XC 700" 36 ST15" 36 50 30 36 5845" 36" 3500 26 5815" 363r3036 5145" X 5700" 363715" 36 5730" 49045" 76*270" 18-2130" ***2ro." 16"2010" 16*2600" 76173" 76'1100 18'10" 76°1800" Figure 1. Sampling Area With Quarter Mile Gridded Outlay and 1.5 mile Radius around the Impact Area. Sampling sites and historical sampling sites are shown in key. Source: Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for the Route 164 Pinners Point Connector, Patrick Geer, VIMS, 2000 TRAWL LOCATIONS AROUND ROUTE 1-64 CONNECTOR Commercial and recreational crabbing prohibited in sanctuary from June 1 - September 15 SOUND N EX S PAHANNOCKR VON JACK BAY poo OP RIVER W. 7 Area of Sanctuary = 927 sq. mi. 1 VES RIVER AVORT NA FTC Honry Nautical Miles VIRGINIA BLUE CRAB SANCTUARY Figure III-5 James River Bridge MOBPH Sako NEWPORT NEWS HAMPTON James River រ៖ ^__ A1 Newport News Creek Fishing Point Hampton Flats EAST ISLAND Newport News Point Newport News Bar Cooper JMSPH RAGGED ISLAND Newport News Channel CANDY ISLAND JMSMH Island Creek Newport News Middie Ground Batten Bay Hampton Roads Chuckatuck Cree Eclipse Crittendeni SAV Area In Acres A1 15.3 Bleakhorn Creek Pig Point Tidewater Community College US Naval Supply Center po 135 Suffolk West Creed Bridge Nansemond Hoffe Creek 623 Portsmouth Nansemond River Spreete Bennett C. KOS Twin Pines KNOTUS NECK Hectares of SAV: 12.16 Date Flown: 6/21, 10/07 0-10% 2004 SAV Density Class 10-40% 40-70% 70-100% 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 Meters Sources: VIMS, USGS Source: USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Map, Wewport News South, VA 1986 & VIMS SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION 2004 Figure III-6 Poquoson PLUM TREE ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE D REFUGE BIG SALT MARSH СВ6PH OAK ISLAND R2 Par Creek est Branch S4 Northwes River N F4 Q1 Northend Point Messick Point M4 G4 N4 too longgala 010 P4 X2 L3 K4 Y3 W2 V3 J4 Tin Shell PL Back U2 Waliace H1 T1 Langley Air Force Base Harris Bay Warehouse Road Grand View Branch MOBPH om Southu 169 Salt Ponds Malo Beach 258 الح 351 Chesapeake 134 168 164 JMSPH tón Ri er R HAMPTON СВЯРН 351 1 West Hampton Ham Hampton University Mill Creek C2 Fort Monroe Military Reservation D2 258 143 B2 Tunnel Bridge Roads Hampton SAV Area In Acres A1 15.3 B2 13.5 C2 11.5 D2 4.6 E1 0.7 Merrimac Raleigh+ + Shores Terrace A1 E1 Old Point Comfort Hectares of SAV: 275.05 Date Flown: 06/21, 06/27, 10/07 2004 SAV Density Class 10-40% 40-70% 70-100% 0-10% 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 Meters Sources: VIMS,USGS Source: USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Map, \Hampton, VA 1986 & VIMS SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION 2004 Figure III-7 1 1 Figure III-8 VIMS/VMRC Hard Clam Stock Assessment 2001-2 © 2002. VIMS Molluscan Ecology Program. SR 258 Bridge Newport News Point Lammil 40 } لے HARD CLAM STOCK ASSESSMENT 1 1 Wood 5 Poquoson Williamsburg Newport News Int'l Airport York County 17 Langley Air Force Base 32 64. (143 Hampton Newport News (258) (664 Chesapeake Boy James River Hampton_Roods Bridge Tunnel abpill Rap sonsor Newport News Shipbuilding 17 smpton Roads U.S! Novo! Bose (564 64 Monitor - Merrimad Memorial Bridge Tunnel Croney Island N.I.T. Isle of Wight County Norfolk Int'l Airport 337 Norfolk Portsmouth 164 17. 264) Virginia Beach 1664 Suffolk (264 164 464 $160c HAMPTON ROADS CROSSING STUDY DENSITY FIGURE 3-10 CLAMS PER ACRE 0-500 CLAM DENSITIES 501 --5,000 5,001-10,000 10,001 - 15,000 15,001 - 20,000 SOURCE: FISHERY NDEPENDENT STOCK ASSESSMENT OF VIRGINIA'S MURD CUM POPULATON OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY (WESSON, 1995) POPULATION DENSITIES OF HARD CLAMS Figure III-9 Figure III-10 NEWPORT NEWS AP Legend USA Federal Navigation Channels Copyright 2000 AirPhotoUSA, LLC All Rights Reserved Proposed Third llighway Crossing by VDOT Port Expansion Oyster Grounds Access Channel Limits East Port Expansion Channel to Newport News Willoughby Bay Naval Operations Base Norfolk James River Norfolk Harbor NORFOLK Norfolk International Terminal Monitor - Merrimac Bridge - Tunnel Public Ground No. 1 Norfolk County E Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area Elizabeth River SUFFOLK 5.080 2,500 5,000 Teet CRANEY ISLAND FASTWARD EXPANSION NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS TIAMPTON ROADS, VIRGINIA PORTSMOUTH EAST PORT EXPANSION NORFOLK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS PUBLIC OYSTER GROUND NUMBER 1 si Norfolk Harbor Reach Hampton Roads Norfolk Harbor Reach JULI Newport News Channel Valentin Norfolk Craney Island re rush 0 0 ti លាប lo 产 ​o Portsmouth 0 & Do 2 Miles 0 0.5 1 Legend Oyster Reefs Virginia Counties Shipping Channels Figure III-11 ELIZABETH RIVER OYSTER REEFS LAM A 8 WIT Home with os van N woning soling & ry o ” ze Legend Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond For Lake 0 1 2 4 Miles Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Habitat Assessment, 2005 no an NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP Figure III-12 -.-.- Poquoson York County stati Hampton Newport Newsk 258 Chesapeake Bay James Hiver 64) 13 173 Hampton Roads 664 Norfolk Isle of Wight County med the Virginia Beach (164) 17 584 1 Portsmouth 464 Suffolk 264 64 77 W 1460 Legend WIZZ Proposed East Expansion Virginia Counties Major Highways 0 1 2 4 Miles MAJOR HIGHWAYS Figure III-13 . Poquoson York County wrath CSX Hampton Newport News! Chesapeake Bay James Awer CSX Hampton Roads 8-01 NS NPBL Norfolk Isle of Wight County , trash NPBL NS CRI ESHR Virginia Beach 1 4 NS ao CRI Portsmouth CSX Suffolk NPBL NS ਸਬਗ 770 C'&* Legend Proposed East Expansion Virginia Counties Major Railroads 0 1 2 4 Miles MAJOR RAILROADS Figure III-14 N Newport News Chesapeake Bay Hampton Roads Legend Open Water Developed, Open Space Developed, Low Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity Developed, High Intensity Barren Land Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Pasture/Hay Cultivated Crops CWoody Wetlands Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Norfolk Craney Island Portsmouth Chesapeake 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Source: Land Use - Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2001 LAND USE MAP Figure III-15 ! 1 EU41.5 PORTSMOUTH CITY ADS POLINE Craney #0 #6 #1 Us ARMY PIPELINE DISPOSAL AREA #2 INDEXISTE CRANEY #5 ISLAND #4 Craney Island #3 S. NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER, Edgefield #9 RTSMOUTH The RYANA REACH Licht eroner Radio Conan PAELWE Legend Proposed East Expansion Noise Monitoring Locations 0 0.25 0.5 Source: - USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Map, Norfolk North, VA - Nest Site Locations based on 1994-1995 USFWS Field Notes 1 Miles NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS Figure III-16 ) | 4 Che les ler Mamaton Roads BLOW Yus Nor TH ang r ww A Portsmouth Legend VIZ Proposed East Expansion Condemned Shellfish Area 0 8 0 0.5 1 2 Miles CONDEMNED SHELLFISH AREA NO. 7 Figure III-17 Figure III-18 20.6% 21.2% Norfolk Virginia Beach Chesapeake O Portsmouth 8.5% -7.2% 23.7% Newport News Hampton Suffolk Other 11.9% -4.4% -2.6% WORK FORCE POPULATION BY LOCATION Figure III-19 50.0 40.0 % of Population 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Tract Data City of Portsmouth Norfolk-Virginia Beach- Newport News MSA State of Virginia Year 1990 Non-White Population Year 2000 Non-White Population Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census and 2000 Census 2000 NON-WHITE POPULATIONS Figure III-20 25 20 16 % of Popul tion 10 5 0 City of Portemouth Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News MSA State of Virginia Year 1990 Year 2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census and 2000 Census POPULATION IN POVERTY Figure III-21 1,750,000 1,700,000 1,650,000 1,600,000 Population 1,550,000 1,500,000 1,450,000 1,400,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year HAMPTON ROADS FORECASTED POPULATION GROWTH Environmental Consequences 1 SECTION IV ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section of the EIS evaluates the environmental impacts of the Recommended Plan, an eastward expansion of the CIDMMA and port development on the constructed cell. Environmental impacts include direct impacts, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, and indirect impacts, which are caused by the action and are later in time, but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 1508). The environmental consequences related to port development and operation are also addressed although, at this time, specific design details of the proposed port facilities have not been developed. Cumulative impacts are also addressed in this section. 1.1 HYDRODYNAMICS AND WATER QUALITY The degree to which a development project in tidal waters will impact water quality can be evaluated by considering two factors (Hershner et al., VIMS, 2002): 1. The increase in nutrient or toxics-loadings in the water column generated by the project. If pollutant loads will increase as a result of the project, there is a potential for degradation of local conditions. The degree of degradation will be dependent on existing conditions and the relative change in loads caused by the project. 2. The alteration of circulation patterns caused by the project. In general, if the project design will result in locally-increased retention times or increased water column stratification, the potential for degraded water quality conditions exists. Again, the degree of hydrodynamic change will influence the potential for degradation. In the case of the proposed expansion of CIDMMA, there are three areas of potential concern for water quality impacts: the Elizabeth River, Hampton Roads, and the near shore area west of CDMMA. 1.1.1 Hydrodynamic Modeling Several hydrodynamic modeling studies were undertaken to evaluate the potential impacts of alternative CIDMMA expansion plans on the Lower James River, Hampton Roads Harbor, and the Elizabeth River. These studies were conducted by VIMS, and a Technical Review Committee was established to monitor the progress of the modeling effort and perform an independent review of the analyses and results. This committee was comprised of members of the Norfolk District, USACE, hydraulics and hydrology staff, the Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory's Estuarine Engineering Branch of the USACE ERDC, Old Dominion University Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography, consultants for the VPA, and the citizens group Elizabeth River Project (ERP). Two detailed reports entitled “Three Dimensional Hydrodynamic Modeling Study Craney Island Eastward Expansion, Lower James River and Elizabeth River, Virginia” and “Additional Assessments of the Craney Island Eastward Expansion in the Elizabeth River and Hampton Roads - Hydrodynamic Model Results" are available on the VIMS web site (http://www.vims.edu/physical/projects/craney.). - DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-1 4368-010 21 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Appendix A of the Feasibility Report also provides the complete reports and a summary of the hydrodynamic modeling studies. Of the four expansion alternatives initially tested, global analysis revealed that the northward expansion and the northeast expansion produced noticeable percentile changes in water surface elevation, current magnitude, salinity, and bottom sedimentation potential. Westward expansion produced a lesser degree of change, and eastward expansion produced only minor changes in the immediate vicinity of CIDMMA. Northward expansion produced strong westerly surface and bottom currents in the berthing channel on the north side that were believed responsible for a significant increase in bottom salinity noted west of CIDMMA and extending to the Nansemond River entrance. Local analysis revealed no appreciable change in flushing ability in either the Elizabeth River Basin or the Lafayette River for any of the alternatives tested. Northward expansion, however, produced noticeable changes in simulated residual currents within the Elizabeth River and in areas between Newport News Point and CIDMMA. A tidal front near Newport News Point and a large tidal eddy over Hampton Flats appear to be affected by expansions to the north and northeast. It was concluded that any expansion to the north would have greater impacts on the physical and hydrodynamic features of the Hampton Roads and Elizabeth River system than the other alternatives. Thus, the more detailed hydrodynamic modeling was limited to eastern and westem expansions (or combinations thereof). The more detailed hydrodynamic modeling included an eastward expansion and an eastward expansion in combination with a modified westward expansion. The westward expansion was modified from that previously modeled to create a more hydrodynamically efficient shape. As was observed in the initial modeling run, the more detailed analysis indicated little change from the Base Condition for the eastward expansion. Changes for the combination eastward and westward expansion alternative were slightly greater than those observed for the eastward expansion alone, but were less than those observed for the westward expansion alone. The conclusion of the initial modeling study indicated that there would be no significant effects to water circulation, sedimentation, salinity, currents, and tidal flushing from the Elizabeth River with an eastward expansion of the CIDMMA. As part of the modeling study, several directional expansion scenarios were evaluated, and the eastward expansion demonstrated the least effects. Subsequent to the initial hydrodynamic modeling, two issues arose that indicated additional hydrodynamic assessments of the eastward expansion alternative would be appropriate and beneficial. The first issue was a proposal for a new APM (Maersk) Terminal located south of CIDMMA, which evolved from non-existent, to a conceptual idea, to a reality that is under construction at the present time. Thus, additional hydrodynamic modeling was accomplished to evaluate the cumulative effects of the CIDMMA and the channel and berthing area deepening associated with the Maersk Terminal. This was accomplished by incorporating the necessary changes associated with the Maersk Terminal into the eastward expansion alternative model and comparing the results to the original base condition. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-2 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV A global analysis of the additional hydrodynamic assessments was conducted similar to those previously described. From the additional assessments, it was observed that both the Maersk Terminal dredging and the berthing of ships by itself and both port facilities together had minimal impact on either the surface elevation or sedimentation potential. It was further observed that the berthing of ships at CIDMMA, if considered permanent as opposed to the actual transient nature of the ships, exhibits a localized effect on the salinity distribution and the velocity distribution. Flushing analyses revealed that neither the flushing of the Southern Branch, nor that of the entire Elizabeth River system showed any detectable adverse response from the combined effects of the CIDMMA and the Maersk Terminal dredging with ships docked at all berths. In order to assess the impacts of dredging and ship berthing during extreme conditions (high wind and high and low precipitation events), more detailed hydrodynamic modeling was conducted testing the cumulative impact of the CIDMMA expansion, the dredging of the Maersk Terminal area, and the berthing of ships. As in the initial analyses, little change was noted when compared to the hydrodynamic effects of the eastward expansion alone. When comparing the results to those of the eastward expansion in combination with the modified westward expansion, the changes were slightly greater in salinity, but less for all of the other parameters. It was noted, however, that the changes in salinity for either the eastward expansion or the eastward expansion, in combination with the modified westward expansion, are well within the naturally occurring salinity variations of the system; i.e., the changes in salinity observed in the model represent as small as 1 percent of the natural salinity variability that has been measured and observed. 1.1.2 Water Quality 1.1.2.1 Dredging for Access Channel and Cell Construction The primary adverse effect on water quality from dredging and cell construction will be the temporary increase in turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS) from the incidental release of sediments. Approximately 19 million cubic yards of material will be removed using a combination of bucket dredges, hydraulic dredges, or similar equipment. Dredging will provide channels for navigational access to the east expansion cell; the material will be placed in CIDMMA and the Norfolk Ocean Placement Site Construction is expected to last approximately 5 years. The plume will be contained primarily in the immediate vicinity of the dredge area, due to the relatively low ambient current velocities at the site. On ebb tides, a portion of the plume, composed of very fine sediment particles, will travel north in the navigation channel and eventually into Hampton Roads. On the subsequent flood tide, this water with fines still in suspension, will be carried back into the dredge area and to the south, and concentrations will increase in these areas. The suspended sediment concentration near the dredge steadily increases until a steady state concentration is reached. This is expected to occur over a period of approximately 10 days. At steady state, the daily average concentration remains constant, but the hourly concentrations vary with the tides. The long-term, depth-averaged background suspended sediment concentration in the Elizabeth River near the dredge area is approximately 20 mg/l, compared to the short-term, storm-induced suspended sediment DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-3 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV concentrations as high as 76 mg/l on a depth-averaged basis and 127 mg/l near the bottom. The steady state increase in suspended sediment associated with the dredging activities is on the order of the background concentration in the Elizabeth River, and within the natural short-term variability in the background concentrations associated with advective pumping into the Elizabeth River from the James River and a result of prop wash from the passing of large ships. a A proposed dredge plan will be developed during the PED Phase to minimize the potential effects of a suspended sediment plume. The dredging will be accomplished using equipment that minimizes turbidity plumes to the greatest extent practical. The Elizabeth River system adjacent to the project site recovers rapidly and dredge-induced suspended sediment concentrations are expected to decrease rapidly following the termination of dredging operations. Short-term and localized increases in turbidity are expected to occur as a result of the dredging activities. Some reduction in DO levels due to releases of organic materials into the water column are anticipated. Elevated contaminant levels in the sediment are not anticipated. Pre-dredging testing of the sediments during PED will be performed to ascertain sediment contamination and develop appropriate mitigation (avoidance and minimization) measures. If the sediments are contaminated, potential releases of toxic levels of trace materials, along with synthetic organic contaminants, could occur during dredging. Mitigation for turbidity increases will involve maximizing the use of a hydraulic cutterhead or hopper dredges to the extent practicable. This is intended to minimize and localize the generation of turbidity and settleable solids. C Another potential water quality impact is related to releases of water from the confined material expansion cell itself, and the associated consequences on water quality in the area around the CIDMMA. The proposed eastward expansion containment area will be designed to retain dredged material solids, while allowing the clarified carrier water to be released from the containment area through spillboxes. Four spillboxes are anticipated, two at the division dike, and two along the north dike. The Phase 1 cell will be rapidly filled during the first year. Excess water and suspended solids will discharge from the division dike spill boxes and be retained in the remaining 2/3 (approx. 380 acres) to provide maximum settling time for suspended solids. Coarse material (i.e., sands) falls from this slurry relatively quickly, near the location of the dredge inlet pipe. Fine-grained material (silt and clay) continues to flow through the containment area where the solids are allowed to settle out. As the solids settle out, clarified water will pass over the spillbox weir as return water. The spillbox structure and weir regulate the release of the clarified water by allowing adjustments to be made to the depth of the ponded water within the containment area. Detailed design of the spillbox and weir will take into consideration influent rates of the dredge material, nature of the dredged material, hydraulic efficiency of the area, etc. A water quality assessment will be conducted during the PED Phase to ensure that any effluent discharged meets prescribed water quality standards. > Nutrient loads and/or other pollutants introduced to surface waters as a consequence of CIDMMA expansion will be mitigated (avoid and minimize) by the location, design, and monitored efficiency of the surface runoff control structures built into CIDMMA. For the area to the east of CIDMMA, the existing 3-D hydrodynamic modeling does not suggest an increase in residence time or an increase in stratification under any of the potential project designs. Therefore, the degree to which the Recommended Plan will impact water quality is expected to be relatively minor and short-term. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page JV-4 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV As reported by Priest (1981), most of the information on TSS generated from dredging activities has focused on the site of open water disposal or pipeline discharge, not the cutterhead itself. However, analysis of cutterhead dredging projects by Barnard (1978) indicates that TSS plumes generated by such dredges are normally near the bottom, measuring a few hundred mg/L for a few hundred meters downcurrent. Priest (1981) cites data from Boon and Byrne (1975) from the dredging of Hampton Bar, Virginia. The dredge produced a typical surface plume concentration of 20-40 mgl during maximum current conditions. Concentrations within 400 yards of the dredge were 50 mg/l and higher. Background levels were 5-15 mg/L. During flood tide, a visible plume approximately 400 x 4000 yards was produced. Boon and Thomas (1975) reported TSS concentrations generated from a construction project associated with the second Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel. TSS concentrations of 15-30 mg/l were reported in the surface plume produced by a hydraulic dredge at distances of less than 1000 feet. Background levels were 3-9 mg. Therefore, dredging of the impounded sediments will produce increases in TSS concentrations over background levels, although conditions are not anticipated to be extreme. A Clean Water Act, Section 404 (b) (1) Evaluation has been completed for the proposed construction activities and appears in EIS, Appendix H. 1.1.2.2 Terminal Development Construction Construction of the CIDMMA container terminal would take place in four major phases during 5-year construction periods at various stages of the planning horizon. Construction for each phase would involve grading, excavating, trenching, and landscaping. Container terminal construction would not include dredging activities in the harbor. Dredging is planned as part of the proposed CIDMMA eastward expansion and would be completed regardless of port development. The primary water quality concem from land-based construction is erosion of disturbed lands and transport of sediment into the Norfolk Harbor. Water quality impacts from construction would be mitigated by erosion and sediments (E&S) controls and best management practices implemented at the site, in accordance with state regulations. An erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP) would be developed as required by the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations (4VAC50-30) administered by the VDCR. This document specifies measures that will be used to control E&S during construction, such as silt fencing, temporary sedimentation ponds, rip rap, vegetative stabilization, etc., and must be prepared in accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Handbook published by VDCR. All construction activities at the proposed facility that disturb more than 1 acre would also require a Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit to discharge stormwater, in accordance with VDEQ regulations and the CWA. This would require the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) that identifies potential sources of pollution and management practices to control those sources. BMP's are required to be inspected at least once every 14 calendar days and within 48 hours of a storm event that is 0.5 inch or greater. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-5 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Stormwater Runoff The proposed CIDMMA container terminal has the potential to impact the water quality of Norfolk Harbor by the runoff of contaminants originating from vehicular traffic, mechanical equipment, container storage areas, and maintenance areas. Primary contaminants of concern include phosphorus, nitrogen, sediment, oil and grease, and metals. Water quality impacts would be mitigated by comprehensive stormwater quality management planning and the implementation of both structural and non-structural BMP's, in accordance with state regulations. Several different state agencies administer regulations designed to protect water quality from stormwater impacts, such as the VPDES program (VDEQ), Virginia's Stormwater Management Regulations (VDCR), and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBLAD). Virginia's Stormwater Management Regulations (4VAC3-20) are intended to provide uniform guidelines for stormwater quality management planning among these agencies and programs. The following provides an overview of these programs and their application to the proposed terminal. VPDES Program The CIDMMA container terminal would have to obtain a VPDES permit to discharge stormwater to the Norfolk Harbor. The general VPDES stormwater permit for water transportation facilities includes monitoring thresholds for three constituents: Total recoverable aluminum: 750 ug/L Total recoverable iron: 1 mg/L Total recoverable zinc: 120 ug/L VPA has initiated several projects aimed at improving stormwater quality, including the installation of manufactured stormwater treatment devices in selected areas, a recent study to evaluate the effectiveness of those devices, and a recent study to identify sources of metals at three container terminals. The results of these efforts will aid stormwater management planning at the Craney Island terminal. The VPDES permit would require the development of a facility-wide SWP3 that would describe/identify: All potential pollutant sources A pollution prevention team Drainage areas, directions, and outfalls Documentation of spills and leaks Summary of existing monitoring data Measures and controls to prevent stormwater pollution, including; Good housekeeping Preventative maintenance Inspection programs Spill prevention and response procedures Employee training Record keeping An annual comprehensive site compliance evaluation if DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-6 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV I Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations These related programs will require stormwater management planning and BMP implementation to mitigate for potential water quality impacts caused by the increased impervious area and reduction of the shoreline buffer. The "Bay Act,” passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1988, required local governments in Tidewater Virginia to develop regulations to protect water quality. The CBLAD approves local ordinances and administers similar regulations for state projects. The Bay Act and related local ordinances define Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas and performance standards to reduce or prevent increases in nonpoint source pollution. Virginia's Stormwater Management Law (Title 10.1, Chapter 6, Article 1.1 of the Code of Virginia) and Stormwater Management Regulations (4VAC3-20) set uniform requirements for stormwater quality management programs administered by the VDCR, CBLAD, VDEQ, and localities. As a state project, the proposed terminal will not require direct approval from the local host jurisdiction for its development plans. However, Virginia's Stormwater Management Regulations require that state projects comply with local stormwater management programs to the maximum extent practicable or demonstrate that the local program technical requirements are not practical for the project. The city of Portsmouth administers a stormwater quality management program through its Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay Ordinance, which is based on the guidelines of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. The city's requirements are consistent with those of the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations and are not more stringent. The Bay Act defines two types of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas that would apply to the proposed project: (1) a resource protection area (RPA) that consists of a 100-foot buffer directly adjacent to wetlands and shores, and (2) a resource management area (RMA) composed of an area measuring 530 feet landward from the RPA. As a water-dependent use, the proposed facility would not require a vegetated buffer adjacent to the shoreline. However, the facility would have to employ BMP's to (1) mitigate water quality impacts caused by the reduction of such a buffer, and (2) offset increases in nonpoint source pollution caused the by the new development. Because the proposed project will exceed 2,500 square feet of land disturbance, the Bay Act would require a plan of development that includes the following elements: 1. A site plan. 2. An environmental site assessment that delineates wetlands, shores, and other sensitive environmental features. 3. A landscaping plan that shows the location, size, and description of all existing and proposed plant material. 4. A stormwater management plan that identifies the locations and design of all stormwater-control devices, non-structural stormwater-control practices, and pre- and post-development nonpoint source pollutant calculations, in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations. 5. An ESCP as described in Section 1.1. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-7 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 6. A water quality impact assessment that identifies all potential impacts (and associated mitigation measures) of the proposed development on water quality, lands, and natural resources within the RPA. The Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations provide developers with the option of complying with either performance-based or technology-based criteria to protect water quality. Performance-based criteria require no net increase in nonpoint source pollution from new development and a 10-percent reduction in nonpoint source pollution from redevelopment. The technology-based criteria require specific BMP's to achieve target pollutant removal efficiencies that vary according to the percent impervious cover of the project. Although developers have the option of complying with either criteria, the technology-based criteria are more often applied to highly impervious sites such as the proposed terminal. The ability of the proposed project to comply with both performance-based and technology-based stormwater criteria was evaluated as described below. This analysis is a preliminary evaluation based on conservative (worst-case) assumptions regarding imperviousness and pollutant loading at the CIDMMA container terminal. With regard to performance-based criteria, the proposed project would be considered “new development.” If VPA chose to use these criteria as the basis for stormwater quality management planning, compliance would be evaluated by estimation of pre- and post-development loads of total phosphorus, associated removal requirements (in Ibs/year), and required BMP efficiency. Added to this removal requirement would be an additional removal requirement resulting from the absence of the 100-foot vegetated buffer. The stormwater quality management plan and water quality impact assessment would have to demonstrate by use of engineering calculations that selected BMP's would meet the removal requirement. Pre- and post-development loads from the proposed facility were estimated using the Simple Method (Schueler, 1987) in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook, guidance from CBLAD, and methodology employed by the city of Portsmouth Department of Public Works. The Simple Method uses the following formula to estimate annual stormwater pollutant loads: 本 ​L = Ou (P * P, * Ry * C* A * 2.72 / 12) Where: L = Annual pollutant load, lbs P= Annual precipitation, inches Pj = = Ratio of storms producing runoff (typically assumed to be 0.9) Ry = Runoff coefficient Cu = Event mean concentration of pollutant, mg/L Au = Drainage area, acres The runoff coefficient may be estimated as: Ryu = 0.05 + 0.009 * I = Where: I = Percent imperviousness of land DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-8 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Substituting this relation into the basic formula and applying the values for P and P, used by the city of Portsmouth, the equation becomes: L = 9.18 * [0.05 + (0.009 * 1)] * C*A It is the practice of CBLAD and VDCR to assume a pre-development percent imperviousness (I) of 16 for pre-development conditions, based on average land conditions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. However, the city of Portsmouth uses a pre-development percent imperviousness of 19 for the portion of the Elizabeth River watershed in which the proposed project would be built. The value was used in this analysis (Table IV-1) because it is based on a more local watershed characterization. Based on existing VPA terminal facilities, the post-development imperviousness of the proposed 575-acre terminal was estimated to be 95 percent. Table IV-1. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE-BASED CRITERIA TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY AT THE PROPOSED CRANEY ISLAND CONTAINER TERMINAL Post-development Pre- development 575 19 1.08 100 575 95 1.08 0 Parameter Worksheet input Site area, acres Imperviousness, percent Total phosphorus, mg/L Buffer width, feet Worksheet results Net increase in phosphorus load due to new development, Ibs/year Phosphorus removal requirement due to absence of buffer, Ibs/year Total BMP removal requirement, Ibs/year Estimated BMP removal efficiency target, percent 3,941 8.1 3,949 76 CBLAD and VDCR use total phosphorus as the ‘keystone' pollutant for which to evaluate pre- and post- development loadings, i.e., mitigation measures for total phosphorus are assumed to mitigate for other pollutants such as sediment. The event mean concentration (C) of total phosphorus was assumed to be 1.08 mg/L in accordance with CBLAD assumptions for highly impervious land, a value that was derived from Schueler's (1987) tabulation of 'C' values representative of "older urban areas.” The Simple Method was also used to estimate pre- and post-development loads of total nitrogen, biological oxygen demand (BOD), and zinc, using C values representative of “older urban areas” (Table IV-2) as compiled by Schueler (1987). These assumed concentrations are conservative (high) in that they would be expected for areas subject to high traffic volumes and the accumulation of debris. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-9 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table 1-2. NET INCREASE IN LOADS FOR REPRESENTATIVE CONSTITUENTS ESTIMATED USING THE SIMPLE METHOD Assumed pollutant Net Increase without Constituent concentration (1) BMP's (mgL) (lbs/year) Total nitrogen 13.6 46,647 Total phosphorus 1.08 3,950 BOD 11.9 43,442 Zinc 0.397 1,457 (1) From Table 1.1 of Schueler, 1987, Controlling Urban Runoff, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Manual. Representative of “older urban areas.” In accordance with CBLAD methodology, a separate calculation was used to estimate the increased phosphorus load from absence of the 100-foot vegetated buffer, assuming that the full buffer would remove 40 percent of nutrients from a 200-foot-wide region landward of the buffer. To make the analysis conservative, it was assumed that the proposed facility would have no vegetated buffer, although some vegetated buffer might exist. a Results of the preliminary analysis (Table IV-2) indicate that, under the performance-based criteria, the proposed facility could potentially have to implement BMP's to remove about 4,000 lbs of phosphorus per year. The predicted net increase in load for phosphorus and other constituents (Table TV-4) is conservative (high) due to the relatively high concentrations (C) assumed. The estimated BMP removal efficiency target of 76 percent is dominated by the net increase loads due to the addition of impervious area, as evidenced by the fact that the removal requirement due to absence of the vegetated buffer is less than 1 percent of the total projected removal requirement under performance-based criteria. More refined facility design information and pollutant loading analysis could result in a different estimated target for BMP removal efficiency. Technology-Based Criteria The technology-based criteria of the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations (Table IV-3) set strict design standards for specific types of BMP's as a function of the percent imperviousness of the post- development site. The proposed container terminal would fall in the 67-100 percent imperviousness category, requiring BMP's that are capable of removing 65 percent of total phosphorus. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-10 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-3. TECHNOLOGY-BASED CRITERIA OF THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS (1) Water Target phosphorus Impervious quality BMP removal efficiency (%) cover (%) Vegetated filter strip 10 16-21 Grassed swale 15 Constructed wetlands 30 Extended detention (2 x WQ Vol) 35 22-37 Retention basin I (3 x WQ Vol) 40 Bioretention basin 50 Bioretention filter 50 Extended dentention-enhanced 50 38-66 Retention basin II (4 x WQ volume) 50 Infiltration (1 x WQ Vol) 50 Sand filter 65 Infiltration (2 x WQ Vol) 65 67-100 Retention basin III (4 x WQ Vol w/ 65 aquatic bench) (1) Innovative or alternate BMP's not included in this table (or those that target pollutants other than phosphorus) may be allowed at the discretion of the local program administrator or VDCR. Summary of BMP/Treatment Requirements The preliminary analysis presented above demonstrates that, as at most highly impervious sites, technology-based criteria would set the minimum standard for pollutant removal at the CIDMMA container terminal. Compliance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations would be achieved by the implementation of any of several different types BMP's that the state recognizes as removing at least 65 percent of total phosphorus. Although the technology-based criteria are more likely to be applied, the facility could also comply with performance-based criteria by the use of BMP's in series, retrofitting off-site areas with BMP's to offset increases at the project site, participating in regional BMP's, and implementing source reduction programs (CBLAD, April 2002). Existing VPA container terminals use a variety of structural BMP's to treat stormwater at selected locations, such as extended detention basins and manufactured devices (i.e., Vortechs System, Aqua- Guard. VPA has constructed innovative BMP's such as an under-wharf detention basin. Studies have recently been completed to identify the origin of stormwater contaminants at container terminals and measure the efficiency of the manufactured devices at removing a variety of contaminants. As previously stated, the results of these studies are expected to aid in the stormwater quality management planning for the proposed facility. Page IV-11 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV In summary, stormwater quality is a significant regulatory issue that will require comprehensive planning during all phases of the proposed development. However, regulatory requirements will be met (and environmental impacts avoided) by a comprehensive stormwater management plan that provides appropriate BMP technology and is designed to achieve a high level of treatment for the facility. 1.1.2.3 Accidental Spills Various types of petroleum-based oils and hazardous materials will be used, transported, and stored at the CIDMMA container terminal, such as fuels and lubricants for on-site trucks. In addition, various types of cargo will be handled and stored at the facility, some of which may impact surface waters if spilled. In practice, significant spills of oil and hazardous materials are uncommon at existing VPA container terminals. For example, the SWP3's for NIT, PMT, and NNMT indicate only two reportable (greater than 25 gallon) spills of toxic or hazardous substances during the last 3 years, neither of which reached navigable waters. More common are containers that leak non-hazardous substances such as food products (VIT, April 2002). Environmental impacts from spills may be prevented by adherence to Federal and state regulations that require that the facility develop and implement plans to prevent and control accident spills of petroleum oils and other hazardous substances. Oil Spill Contingency Planning Because the proposed facility is likely to have more than 1,320 gallons of above-ground oil storage, a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) will be required under Federal regulations related to oil spill contingency planning (40 CFR 112). The SPCCP addresses only oil and includes the following information: Facility spill history Potential spill volumes, rates, and directions Containment and diversionary structures Facility drainage Bulk storage tanks and associated spill prevention devices/measures Oil transfer operations Fuel loading/unloading procedures Security Personnel training in spill prevention procedures 40 CFR 112 requires appropriate containment and/or diversionary equipment to prevent spilled oil from reaching navigable waters, including secondary containment for all bulk storage tanks. It also requires periodic testing and inspection of all oil storage and transfer equipment, as well as the training of personnel in spill response procedures. Spill response procedures for existing VPA container terminals are also summarized in the Section 23 of the VIT Safety Manual, entitled “Hazardous Material Release Response Procedure." Like existing VPA container terminals, the CIDMMA container terminal would not require a facility response plan under 40 CFR 112 or USCG regulations related to transfer of oil and hazardous material (33 CFR 154), because it would meet the “no substantial harm” criteria of those regulations. Specifically, DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-12 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV the facility would not perform overwater transfers of oil, nor have a total oil storage capacity of more than а 1 million gallons. Stormwater Pollution Prevention As described in Section 2.1, a facility-wide SWP3 will be required by the facility's VPDES permit, and must list all potential contaminant sources and identify both structural and non-structural management practices to prevent spills from any potential contaminant, including hazardous materials and waste. Cargo Handling The CIDMMA container terminal would be classified as a "designated waterfront facility” under USCG regulations related to handling of dangerous cargos (40 CFR 126), and, thus, would require a general permit for the handling of dangerous cargo (including certain hazardous materials as listed in 33 CFR 126.7) in bulk, portable tanks, or containers. The general permit (33 CFR 126.27) specifies conditions for the storage, handling, and labeling of dangerous cargo to prevent fire or other hazards. These regulations are primarily intended to promote health and safety but would also help prevent impacts to water quality by spills of hazardous substances. Spills from Ships At full Build-Out, the CIDMMA container terminal will increase shipping traffic in the Hampton Roads Harbor System by about 19 vessel calls per week. This would represent a maximum increase in shipping traffic of about 20 percent from the baseline value of 5,000 vessel calls per year reported for the Hampton Roads Harbor System in 2000 (Office of Statistical and Economic Analysis). Although the increased traffic nominally increases the risk for potential maritime collisions, ship to ship computer aided simulations and modeling conducted by the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy show that the impact to navigation from the Recommended Plan is negligible. Accordingly, hazardous material or fuel spills related to maritime collisions are not expected to increase as a result of the Eastward Expansion. According to the Virginia Pilots Association, no collisions involving container ships have occurred in the Hampton Roads Harbor, so the baseline risk is small. The increased shipping will consist of commercial container ships, not tankers. Only about 2 to 3 percent of the containers currently handled at VPA terminals are placarded as containing hazardous materials (VIT, December 2004). In the event of an incident, the Marine Environmental Response Unit of the USCG is the primary responder and will respond according to the following plans: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (see http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/ncp.htm). Regional Contingency Plan of the USCG Regional Response Team III covering the states of West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia (see http://www.uscg.mil/lantarea/rtt/rcp/ homepage.html). Captain of the Port (COTP) Virginia Coastal Area Contingency Plan (maintained by the USCG Marine Safety Office—Hampton Roads). 1 Refueling of Ships Most container ships that dock at VPA terminals do not refuel in the Hampton Roads area. However, a small percentage of container ships do take on fuel while moored at the Norfolk Harbor Anchorage. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-13 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Although the projected increase in ship traffic would nominally increase the risk of refueling-related spills, the actual risk is expected to be small. No fuel will be transferred from the container terminal to ships. Refueling operations from barges to ships must be performed in accordance with USCG regulations related to oil transfers (33 CFR 154), which include equipment, planning, and procedural requirements for the prevention and containment of spills. The Virginia Pilots Association reports that refueling operations involving container ships have caused no reportable spills in the Hampton Roads area (Virginia Pilots Association, November 2004). 1.1.2.4 Ship Operations/Overboard Waste The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA) and the CWA as amended of 1987 were both established to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of U.S. territorial waters. Environmental impacts from ship-derived wastes are prevented by adherence to Federal regulations that prohibit the discharge or release of oil, oily wastes, noxious liquid substances, garbage, municipal, or commercial waste in U.S. territorial waters, as summarized in 40 CFR 151. These regulations prohibit the discharge of oily bilge water in ports and harbors in accordance with the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). No discharges of wastewater, bilgewater, or other wastes to the Norfolk Harbor would be permitted from ships at the proposed container terminal. Similarly, the facility would not accept wastewater or bilge water from the ships to the sanitary sewer. Shipping lines would have the option of paying a contractor to pump out ship-derived wastes into a tanker truck and dispose of them elsewhere. а Federal regulations (40 CFR 151) also include management guidelines and reporting requirements for clean ballast water. This issue is related to the introduction of exotic species and is addressed in Section 1.6. 1.1.2.5 Wave Action/Erosion and Hydrodynamics Dredging associated with the Recommended Plan is expected to enlarge the physical cross sectional area of the mouth of the Elizabeth River channel resulting in minimal increases in surface and bottom current velocity as verified by 3-D hydrodynamic modeling. According to modeling results, the magnitude of increase is below that of other modeled expansion alternatives (USACE, 2005). The project will result in an increase in the shipping traffic in the Norfolk Harbor and, thus, an increase in the frequency of displacement waves. Although these effects could increase the potential for shoreline erosion, actual impacts are expected to be minimal, because the affected shoreline in the Norfolk Harbor, including the proposed terminal, would be protected by manmade structures. The eastern shoreline is already stabilized by manmade structures of the Norfolk Naval Base and NIT. 1.1.2.6 Ballast Water The proposed project would increase shipping traffic and, therefore, has the potential to increase the chance for introduction of nuisance or exotic species into the Hampton Roads area by way of ship ballast water and, to a lesser extent, cargo. Mitigation measures for reducing the risk of exotic species introduction include strict adherence to applicable Federal, state, and international laws and implementation of voluntary guidelines regarding exchange of ballast water. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-14 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Ballast water is the most likely pathway for the introduction and spread of exotic species. As required by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, Federal (40 CFR 151 Subpart C) and Virginia (4 VAC 20- 395) regulations were developed to establish voluntary ballast water management guidelines and mandatory reporting requirements for the release of ballast water. According to the Virginia regulations, vessels carrying ballast water that was loaded in an area outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) are requested to employ at least one of the following ballast water management practices: 1. Exchange ballast water beyond the EEZ, in an area at least 200 nautical miles from shore and in waters greater than 2,000 meters in depth, before entering Virginia's territorial waters. 2. Retain the ballast water on board the vessel. 3. Use an alternative environmentally sound method of ballast water management that has been approved by the USCG. 4. Discharge ballast water to an approved reception facility. 5. Under extraordinary circumstances, conduct a ballast water exchange within an area agreed to by the COTP. In addition, the operator of commercial vessels must file a Ballast Water Control Report form with the VMRC, either within 72 hours of a ballast water discharge into Virginia waters or prior to the departure of the vessel from Virginia waters if ballast water was not discharged. In practice, most vessels abide by the voluntary ballast water management guidelines, and ballast water exchange is not conducted at VPA container terminals (VIT, December 2004). The proposed container facility is not expected to result in an unacceptable risk of exotic species introduction. 1.1.2.7 Sediment Suspension The passage of ships can suspend bottom sediments in shallow waters and reduce the light available to SAV or visual aquatic feeders. However, the 50-foot-deep Federal Navigation and terminal access channels should provide sufficient clearance to minimize sediment suspension in the harbor. Considering the high volume of ship traffic that already traverses the Norfolk Harbor, the proposed facility is not expected to significantly increase sediment suspension. 1.2 AIR QUALITY This section provides an assessment of air quality impacts related to dredging and construction of the CIDMMA east cell and to operation of the proposed container terminal facility. Background air quality information, including air quality standards and regulations, existing regional conditions, and regional emissions inventory projections are presented in Section III. 1.2.1 Estimated Air Emissions from Dredging and Dike Construction at CIDMMA This section provides an assessment of air quality impacts related to dredging and construction of the CIDMMA east cell. Background air quality information, including air quality standards and regulations, existing regional conditions, and regional emissions inventory projections are presented in Section III. Air pollutant emissions from diesel-powered dredges could cause localized exceedances of the federal and State of Virginia ambient air quality standards for NO2, the 8-hour CO standard, and the PM10 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-15 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV standards. The State's 24-hour SO, standard may also be exceeded. Mitigation measures that could be used to reduce emissions include either, or a combination of, increased usage of low sulfur fuels for diesel dredges, and electrification of diesel-powered dredges. Further, a conformity analysis for air quality compliance with pertinent ambient standards has been conducted to determine potential required mitigation measures. Air pollutant emissions from earth-moving equipment and related construction equipment, along with selected dredging for the eastward expansion and containment dikes could cause localized exceedances of the federal and State of Virginia ambient air quality standards for NO2, the 8- hour CO standard, and the PM10 standards. The State's 24-hour SO, standard may also be exceeded. Operation of heavy construction equipment would generate associated exhaust fumes in the immediate vicinity of the construction activity. However, a significant adverse air quality impact is not expected. Some minor volatilization of contaminants would occur during the dredging and handling of dredged material. Canopy cover measures would significantly reduce volatilization of contaminants during handling and transport. Construction activities associated with the proposed east expansion of CIDMMA are planned to include dredging operations and dike construction. Since these construction activities will require the use of large diesel-fired engines, air pollutant emissions estimates have been completed for these operations. The location of the east expansion is within the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area. As such, emissions of ozone precursor pollutants, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), have been estimated for the planned construction activities. The purpose of the planned dredging operation is to provide an access channel and foundation for the proposed east expansion dikes and, ultimately, the terminal facilities. Additionally, four dikes will be constructed as part of the project. The dredging and dike construction operations are estimated to be completed over a 5-year construction period starting in 2008 and ending in 2012 - 2013. To estimate emissions from the planned dredging and dike construction activities, information related to equipment requirements, engine sizes, and anticipated construction schedule with estimated equipment operating hours was provided by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Moffat & Nichol. This information was used in conjunction with USEPA emission standards for diesel engines to develop air emission estimates. Annual emission estimates were calculated for each of the five years of anticipated construction. The emission estimates include emissions from the following emission sources: Dredges (pipeline and mechanical) Tugs (tow and work tugs) . Dump scows, derricks, crew boats, fuel barges, & other marine based equipment On-road haul trucks For marine equipment (dredges, tugs, and other equipment) with engines rated at 50 horsepower or higher, emission estimates are based on USEPA emission standards for marine diesel engines. These standards have been promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 40 CFR 94.8(a)(2). DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-16 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV For marine equipment with engines rated at less than 50 horsepower, USEPA emission standards for nonroad compression ignition engines promulgated under 40 CFR 89.112, Table IIl-3 were used. Emissions from the land-based truck hauling are based on emission standards for heavy duty highway compression ignition (diesel) engines. Table IV-4 shows a summary of the annual emission estimates for the dredging and dike construction activities. Since USEPA diesel emission standards are primarily based on combined factors for NO, and VOCs, with VOCs designated as non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), the emission estimates are presented as the sum of NO, and NMHC emissions. Table IV-4. CIDMMA EAST EXPANSION EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR DREDGING AND DIKE CONSTRUCTION Year of Construction Estimated Calendar Year NO, + NMHC Emissions (tons/yr) 1 2008 18.8 2 2009 1089.5 3 2010 1013.5 4 2011 1022.1 5 2012 638.2 1.2.2 General Conformity - CIDMMA Expansion x The CIDMMA east expansion project constitutes a non-transportation federal action within the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area. Construction activities will generate emissions of air pollutants.. Provisions of the general conformity regulation are potentially applicable to federal projects locating within nonattainment and maintenance areas. To determine if a conformity determination is required, an emissions inventory of VOC and NO, emissions has been completed. For the 2009-2012 build-out, estimated NOx emissions exceed the 100 tons per year threshold level prescribed by the general conformity regulation. For the 2012 Build Out condition (dredging and cell construction), both VOC and NOx emission estimates exceed the 100 tons per year threshold. Consequently, general conformity issues must be addressed in order to obtain approval to develop the facility. Appropriate air quality permits may required prior to initiating construction, and, if needed, will be obtained prior to any proposed construction taking place. Compliance with general conformity requirements can be accomplished by the following approaches: Estimated dredging and cell construction emissions can be "offset" by obtaining emissions reductions within the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area. Emissions associated with dredging and cell construction can be incorporated into an approved SIP for the nonattainment area. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-17 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Based on information obtained from VDEQ, the process of developing a new SIP for the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area is expected to occur in 2005-2007. Coordination between the Corps, VPA, and appropriate state and local agencies will be needed to demonstrate that the proposed CIDMMA expansion construction will conform with future SIPs for the Hampton Roads regional area. Other mitigation measures that could be used to reduce emissions include either, or a combination of, watering to reduce construction dusts, increased usage of low sulfur fuels for diesel dredges, and electrification of diesel-powered dredges. Other technologies considered include; fuel emulsions, engine retrofits, particulate filters, oxidation catalysts, selective catalytic reduction technology, and other emerging technologies. 1.2.3 Craney Island Terminal Emissions Inventory The operations at the planned terminal facility will generate emissions of air pollutants. Emissions estimates related to terminal operations have been completed for the ozone precursor pollutants, NO, and VOC's. Emissions were quantified for these pollutants since the terminal is proposed for location within the Hampton Roads ozone maintenance area. To estimate the quantity of VOC and NO, emissions from onsite and offsite terminal activities, an emissions inventory has been developed. Emission estimates have been completed for two conditions; the Phase I condition in 2017 and the Build-Out condition in 2050. Methods prescribed by current USEPA guidance for emission inventory development were used to prepare the emissions estimates. Construction related emissions associated with the development of the terminal facility were not quantified. Construction activities will result in short-term, temporary impacts at intermittent periods over the course of the phased terminal development process. The primary air quality impact that can occur during construction is the generation of particulate matter/fugitive dust emissions from material handling, excavation, and earth moving activities, as well as wind erosion of exposed surfaces and storage piles. Also, exhaust emissions will be generated from the combustion of fuel in mobile construction equipment. All contractors will be required to comply with state regulations to minimize the release of air pollutants during construction. The role of a container terminal is to move containerized cargo into and out of a port. There are various sources of air emissions related to the operation of such a facility. Both onsite and offsite emissions are generated by these sources. Onsite emissions are emissions occurring inside the terminal site boundary and offsite emissions are those occurring outside the facility but within the Hampton Roads regional area. The primary sources of emissions related to terminal facilities are attributed to mobile sources. Mobile sources include self-propelled vehicles and equipment powered by internal combustion engines. These sources include marine vessels, motor vehicles (trucks), locomotives, and non-road container handling equipment. The emission inventory developed for the terminal facility includes contributions from these emissions sources. The following table presents a listing of the major emission sources associated with the planned terminal facility. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-18 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-5. CONTAINER TERMINAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SOURCES Emission source Function Location of emissions Marine vessels Transport containers to/from terminal Onsite/Offsite Heavy-duty diesel trucks Transport containers to/from terminal Offsite (1) Privately-owned vehicles Transport employees to/from facility Offsite (1) Maneuver partial trains around terminal Switch locomotives Onsite/Offsite and regional switch yards Line-haul locomotives Pull long trains to/from facility Offsite (1) Container handling equipment cranes (electric) Lift containers on/off container ships No Emissions Straddle carriers Transport containers around terminal Onsite (1) Emissions will predominantly occur offsite. Lower quantities of emissions will occur onsite. Marine Vessels Containers will be transported between the planned terminal facility and other ports via container ships. Emissions from container ships (marine vessel emissions) include both onsite and offsite emissions that occur during the arrival, loading/unloading, and departure of container ships. Offsite emissions occur while the vessels are under propulsion during arrival and departure. Therefore, offsite marine vessel emissions will occur during the transit of vessels through the Chesapeake Bay and Elizabeth River to and from the planned terminal facility. Emissions occur onsite while vessels are docked or are adjacent to the wharf for loading and unloading. A container ship is powered by propulsion engines and commonly employs auxiliary steam boilers and electrical generators. Emissions from the propulsion engines are offsite emissions and do not occur while the container vessel is loading/unloading. The auxiliary boilers generate both onsite and offsite emissions as they are operated during navigation and while docked during loading/unloading to provide electrical and accessory power for hot water, space heating, as well as propulsion engine preheating for start-up on departure. Depending on factors including weather conditions, vessel traffic, fuel prices, and ship captain preferences, other smaller marine vessels may be used to assist container ships. These other vessels could include tugboats for docking assistance and bunker barges for refueling. Therefore, identifying the number of tugboats, bunker barges, and other assist boats that may be associated with terminal operations is highly speculative. Emissions from these other vessels are not expected to be significant and were not included in the emissions inventory. Diesel Trucks/Privately-Owned Vehicles The transport of containers to and from the terminal facility will be accomplished primarily by heavy- duty diesel trucks. In addition to the heavy-duty diesel trucks, the other significant on-road vehicles DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-19 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV associated with terminals are privately-owned vehicles. These vehicles are used to transport employees and visitors to and from the facility, thereby producing onsite and offsite emissions. Locomotives Trains are the secondary means of transporting containers to and from the terminal facility. Both line haul and switch locomotives are typically used to transport containers. Line haul locomotives are used to pull long trains to and from the facility. Generally line haul trains employ three or more locomotives to pull long trains. Switch locomotives are typically smaller locomotives used to move partial trains around a switchyard as part of container loading and unloading operations and are sometimes used to stack/unstack partial trains when line haul trains arrive or prepare for departure. Container Handling Equipment Once container vessels are berthed, containers are moved between the wharf and the container yard during loading and unloading of the container ships. Container handling equipment is considered a non- road source of emissions and its operation is limited to the terminal facility. Therefore, these sources produce onsite emissions exclusively. Container movement is accomplished using specialized equipment, including cranes and straddle carriers. Cranes are used to transfer containers to and from container ships. Straddle carriers will be the primary means of moving the containers around the terminal's container yard and for stacking/unstacking containers. Electrical cranes are planned for use at the terminal and are, therefore, not a source of emissions. However, straddle carriers are powered by diesel engines, which generate air pollutant emissions from fuel combustion. Onsite emissions from the operation of straddle carriers were included in the emissions inventory. Other Sources of Emissions A limited number of small stationary sources that would be required to support port operations are expected. For example, small parts washers and touchup painting operations are likely. Because of the Jimited use and small size of these sources, they are considered insignificant and will not require an air quality permit. Emergency generators, which are comparably larger stationary sources of air emissions, are used to produce electricity during power outages. However, since these units will be operated on a very limited basis under extreme circumstances, emissions from these units were not evaluated. 1.2.4 Emissions Estimation Methodology Estimates of onsite and offsite pollutant emissions from the planned terminal operations described above have been completed. The first step in the estimation process involves identifying recognized emission factors and related models. Next, appropriate operational data anticipated for each source are used in conjunction with the identified emission factors and models to develop emission estimates. Marine Vessels The marine vessel emission factors were developed based on USEPA's "Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data,” USEPA 420-R-00-002, February 2000. Emissions estimates from both the propulsion engines and the auxiliaries were developed during cruise, slow cruise, and maneuvering for travel within the Chesapeake Bay and Elizabeth River. In addition, emissions from Page IV-20 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV I the auxiliary boilers were calculated to account for emissions generated while the ships are docked at the terminal facility. The emission factors are based on the following general equation: Emission rate (g/kw-hr) = a (Fractional Load)* + b The variables a, x, and b are found in Table 5-1 in the USEPA report for each pollutant. The fractional loads are based on the speed of the vessels and are obtained from Tables 4-6 and 5-2 of the USEPA report. The fractional load for cruise, slow cruise, and maneuvering are 80, 30, and 15 percent, respectively. Operational projections used to develop the emissions estimates are based on vessel size and call schedules provided by Moffatt & Nichol Engineers on behalf of the VPA (Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, April 2002). Average cruise speed, vessel dead weight tonnage (DWT), and rated hp values were obtained based on information from the USEPA document. Diesel Trucks/Privately owned Vehicles On-road emission factors for NO, and VOC's were developed using USEPA'S MOBILESb computer model and Hampton Roads specific input factors supplied by VDEQ to estimate emissions from heavy duty diesel trucks and privately-owned vehicles associated with terminal activities. Emission rates were estimated assuming summer conditions. This was done in recognition that VOC and NOx pollutant impacts on ambient levels of ozone are most severe during summertime weather conditions. Model inputs include such parameters as vehicle speed, vehicle operating conditions (the thermal states of the vehicular traffic), and ambient temperature. Speeds for the roadways and the proposed facility were based on the functional type (interstate, local roads) and location (urban or rural) of the particular road. Other MOBILESb input assumptions (i.e., control flag settings, inspection and maintenance (IM] program records, ATP and pressure and purge records) were based on the latest modeling information provided by VDEQ. Registration vehicle distributions were provided by VDEQ for the Hampton Roads Table IV-6 provides a summary of the MOBILES parameters used to estimate the on-road emission factors. area. On-road vehicle emissions were estimated based on various parameters designed to simulate the movement of travel associated with terminal facility operations within the Hampton Roads area. The majority of port cargo will be transported to and from the terminal via heavy-duty diesel vehicles (HDDV). The projected total container throughput for the planned facility was used to determine the terminal truck traffic projections. These estimates, provided by Moffatt & Nichol Engineers on behalf of the VPA, report the peak and average daily number of truck trips projected (Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, April 2002). The number of truck trips was assigned to roadway segments within the Hampton Roads regional area. These traffic assignments were provided based on a trip generation analysis for the regional area, which assumed that the HDDV would travel along interstate routes to and from the facility. Other mobile sources associated with the port operations include the traveling of employee workers. These employees would largely use privately owned vehicles, or light-duty gasoline vehicles (LDGV), to transport themselves to and from the facility. The employees were conservatively assumed to travel on local roads surrounding the facility. Emission factors for on-road vehicles are expressed in terms of grams per vehicle mile traveled (g/vmt). Emission factors for on-road vehicles are expressed in terms of g/vmt. The emission factors that were obtained from the MOBILESb model were then multiplied by the distance each vehicle was assumed to DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-21 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV travel to and from the facility. This is known as the vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The VMT for heavy- duty diesel container trucks with destinations outside of the Hampton Roads area were estimated for each roadway segment to the edge of the regional area. An estimate of how much cargo would be exported or originate outside of the region was assumed. Based on VPA import/export statistics, it was assumed that about 75 percent of the cargo would be destined for or originate from outside the Hampton Roads area, and about 25 percent of the cargo would be destined for or originate from within the Hampton Roads area. For the cargo that is delivered within the Hampton Roads area an average trip length equivalent to half the regional distance was conservatively assumed. Employees were assumed to travel a distance of 15 miles to and from the facility. This is based on an employee trip assignment distributing the majority of travel to the Norfolk vicinity. Additionally, idling emissions, expressed in units of grams per hour were also determined from the MOBILESb model. For the HDDV, an idling time of 15 minutes per truck trip was assumed. For the employees, an idling time of 5 minutes per trip was assumed. Total emissions for VOC's and NOx were calculated considering both the free flow and idling emission components for both the employee vehicles and terminal truck traffic. Locomotives Train movements are made up of line haul and switching activities and separate emission factors are used for each operation. Both line haul and switch locomotive emission factors were developed based on USEPA's “Emission Factors for Locomotives," USEPA 420-F-97-051, December 1997. The locomotive emission factors are expressed as grams/brake hp-hour (g/bhp-hr). Since the planned terminal facility is not expected to begin operations until 2017, Tier 2 emission factors for locomotive engines manufactured in 2005 and later were used. Locomotive emissions estimates were developed based on hp ratings, activity schedules, and the identified emission factors. Assumptions used to develop the locomotive emission rates include the following: 1 Rated hp values of 3,000-hp and 1,500-hp for the line haul and switch locomotives, respectively. Three engines per line haul train and one engine per switch locomotive. 1.5 hours per line haul and 5.0 hours per switch train activity estimates. Carrying capacity of 400 TEU's per 6,000 foot train. Trains will transport 466 TEU's per day at initiation of Phase 1 in 2017 and 2,685 TEU's per day at Build-Out in 2050 based on projections provided by Moffat & Nichol Engineers on behalf of the VPA (Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, April 2002). DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-22 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-6. MOBILE 5B INPUT PARAMETERS Parameter Input Region Low altitude Vehicle speed Urban interstate = 50.9 mph Local roads = 25.0 mph Vehicle thermal operating conditions 20.6 / 27.3 / 20.6 {cold non-catalytic/hot catalytic/cold catalytic} = Ambient temperature (summer conditions - ozone season) Minimum = 740F Maximum = 950F Average = 84.90F Year(s) analyzed 2017 and 2050 Tampering rates MOBILE5b default VM No No Anti-tampering program Vehicle registration distributions Provided by VDEQ; based on 1999 data Vehicle emission rates Input alternate basic exhaust emission rates applied to HDDV for NO, emissions (provided by VDEQ in 2002 for this assessment) Reformulated gas Credit Taken Exhaust emission factors No correction factors Container Handling Equipment Emission factors for terminal container handling equipment are published in USEPA's “Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study-Report,” USEPA 460/3-91-02, November 1991. However, emission standards for nonroad engines were promulgated by USEPA under 40 CFR Part 89.112 and are applicable to engines with model years beginning in 1996. Emissions estimates were developed for the diesel powered straddle carriers to be used at the proposed container terminal based on the 40 CFR Part 89.112 standards. The estimated emissions for the straddle carriers are considered conservatively high, given that USEPA is expected to establish more stringent standards for nonroad diesel engines within the next 5 years. Emission factors were not identified for cranes since the VPA plans to use electrically powered cranes. Emissions from the straddle carriers were estimated based on applying the emission standards for nonroad engines to projected operational data assuming that the units would be operated continuously during the DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-23 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV period that the terminal gates are expected to be open (11 hours daily, Monday-Friday). An engine hp rating of 330-hp was assumed based on discussions and information available from straddle carrier suppliers. The projected number of straddle carriers to be operated at the terminal was provided by Moffatt & Nichol Engineers on behalf of the VPA (Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, April 2002). 1.2.5 Craney Island Terminal Emissions Summary Air pollutant emissions estimates of VOC's and NO, have been developed for the planned terminal facility. Both onsite and offsite emissions are included in the completed emission inventory for the planned terminal facility. Emission estimates were made based on current methodologies prescribed in available USEPA guidance. The emission estimates do not account for future technological improvements in engine performance and emissions control and pending emissions standards to be promulgated by USEPA that will be more stringent than the currently applicable standards. For example, new USEPA emission standards for nonroad diesel equipment and locomotives will become applicable in future years and USEPA is expected to require the use of lower polluting fuels. In addition, the VPA has an equipment purchasing policy that requires vendors of nonroad equipment (straddle carriers) to provide engines meeting more stringent on-road emissions standards. Consequently, the emission estimates for the planned terminal facility are considered conservative estimates and are assumed to overstate actual emissions that will be generated by facility operations. Emission inventory summary tables are presented as Table IV-7 for the 2017 Phase I condition and as Table IV-8 for the 2050 Build-Out condition. Both annual (tons/year) and daily (tons/day) emissions have been estimated. The annual estimates reflect emissions corresponding to annual activity projections (marine vessel calls per year, truck trips per year, etc.) The daily emissions values are based on peak daily estimates of terminal related activity. Table IV-7. CRANEY ISLAND TERMINAL EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR 2017 PHASE I CONDITION VOC NOX Source tons/yr tons/day tons/yr tons/day Marine vessels 8.6 0.03 566.3 1.86 Trucks/on-road vehicles 20.9 0.10 80.0 0.40 Locomotives 0.24 Container handling equipment 49.8 3.5 0.014 57.3 0.20 343.6 1.35 Totals 82.8 0.3 1,047.2 3.9 1 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-24 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-8. CRANEY ISLAND TERMINAL EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR 2050 BUILD-OUT CONDITION VOC NOX Source tons/yr tons/day tons/yr tons/day Marine vessels 17.8 0.06 1,133.1 3.73 Trucks/on-road vehicles 46.4 0.23 337.5 1.70 Locomotives 20.0 0.082 330.2 1.36 Container handling equipment 122.0 0.48 841.5 3.31 Totals 206.2 0.9 2,642.3 10.1 A direct comparison of estimated terminal emissions and regional emission inventory projections cannot be made because a regional projection beyond 2008 is not available for the Hampton Roads region. Notwithstanding this, Phase I terminal emissions are compared with the 2008 Hampton Roads projected emissions inventory in Table IV-9 and in Figure IV-1. As shown, the estimated 2017 Phase I terminal emissions represents a 0.14 percent increase in regional VOC emissions and 1.7 percent increase in regional NOx emissions based on the 2008 projections for Hampton Roads. Table IV-9. COMPARISON OF HAMPTON ROADS EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND CRANEY ISLAND TERMINAL EMISSIONS Pollutant 2008 Projected 2017 Craney Island Terminal Emissions Inventory for % of 2008 Hampton Roads Hampton Roads (tons/day) (tons/day) Inventory VOC's 208.5 0.3 0.14 T NOX 227.2 3.9 1.7 : A comparison of terminal related truck/on-road vehicle emissions estimates with regional on-road projections based on the Hampton Roads Crossing (HRC) Study is shown in Table IV-10. On-road emissions projections for the Hampton Roads regional area are included in the HRC Study for the year 2018 (VDOT, 2001). As shown in Table IV-10, the estimated 2017 Phase I Craney Island terminal on- road emissions represent a 0.2 percent increase in regional on-road VOC emissions and a 0.6 percent increase in regional on-road NOx emissions. | DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-25 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-10. COMPARISON OF HAMPTON ROADS CROSSING STUDY EMISSIONS AND CRANEY ISLAND TERMINAL TRUCK/ON-ROAD EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Pollutant 2018 HRC Study 2017 Craney Island Truck/On-Road Emissions Emissions (tons/day) % of 2018 HRC (tons/day) Study Emissions VOC's 53.28 0.10 0.2 NOX 70.14 0.40 0.6 1.2.6 General Conformity - Terminal The Craney Island terminal project constitutes a non-transportation Federal action within the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area. Provisions of the general conformity regulation are potentially applicable to Federal projects locating within nonattainment and maintenance areas. To determine if a conformity determination is required, an emissions inventory of VOC and NOx emissions has been completed for the terminal. For the 2017 Phase I Condition, estimated NOx emissions from the planned terminal facility exceed the 100 tons per year threshold level prescribed by the general conformity regulation. For the 2050 Build-Out condition, both VOC and NO, emission estimates exceed the 100 tons per year threshold. Consequently, general conformity issues must be addressed in order to obtain approval to develop the facility. Compliance with general conformity requirements can be accomplished by the following approaches: 0 Estimated terminal facility emissions can be "offset" by obtaining emissions reductions within the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area. Emissions associated with the terminal can be incorporated into an approved SIP for the nonattainment area. 1 a In addition, it is anticipated that existing air emission reduction programs in place at VPA's three marine terminals will carry over to the proposed Craney Island Terminal. Presently, VIT operator of VPA's existing marine terminals, has a policy that requires all newly-purchased and replacement cargo handling and non-road equipment have the lowest emission rating available. This policy has been in effect since 2000. Preliminary results from a 2005 air emissions inventory show air emissions levels at VPA's three marine terminals have remained constant or declined in the last five years as cargo volumes have significantly increased suggesting that VIT's policy has been effective in minimizing impacts to regional air quality. Based on information obtained from VDEQ, the process of developing a new SIP for the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area is expected to occur in 2005-2007. Coordination between the VPA and appropriate state and local agencies will be needed to demonstrate that the proposed Craney Island terminal will conform with future SIP's for the Hampton Roads regional area. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-26 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 1.3 PROTECTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT 1.3.1 CIDMMA Expansion /Terminal Development 1.3.1.1 Sea Turtles In order to obtain material for dike construction at the site of the proposed east cell expansion, sand may be dredged from offshore channel areas by hopper dredge. The Atlantic Ocean Channel is designated as the primary source of material for dike construction, with Thimble Shoal and Cape Henry Channels as secondary sources. The total amount of required sand fill is estimated to be 19.5 million CY. An Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation has been completed for hopper dredging in the Atlantic Ocean Channel and the Thimble Shoal Channel. This included both maintenance dredging and deepening in these channels. A Biological Opinion was completed and approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on April 25, 2002. Correspondence with NMFS Northeast Region received during the scoping process indicated that, if the hydraulic pipeline method of dredging is used, “...NMFS has previously determined that this method will not affect sea turtles.” However, sand borrow by hopper dredge for dike construction has the potential to affect endangered and threatened sea turtles by incidental take. By implementing the proactive and preventive avoidance mitigation measures as recommended in the NMFS Biological Opinion, cumulative impacts to endangered and threatened sea turtles are not expected. Similar measures are recommended in Biological Opinion rendered for Cape Henry Channel. Further consultation with NMFS may be required during the PED phase when more specific design information is developed on volumes and locations of suitable sand. ! No potential sea turtle nesting sites (under the purview of USFWS) would be affected by the proposed construction activities. Increased ship traffic resulting from port development and operation may potentiality affect rare turtles through risk of injury and possible disruption of movement patterns, as well as avoidance of the area due to increased shipping activity. To further evaluate the potential for impacts to sea turtles from the proposed project, current data on sea turtle strandings were obtained from VIMS (Mansfield et al., 2002). In 2001, 65 sea turtles were stranded in the southern portion of the Chesapeake Bay out of 395 total strandings. This total includes the Eastern Shore area, where the majority of the strandings occurred. In the lower James River/Hampton Roads Harbor area, only nine sea turtle strandings were recorded. The only stranding near CIDMMA occurred a few hundred yards west of CIDMMA. The other eight sea turtle strandings occurred east of the mouth of the Elizabeth River in the lower Chesapeake Bay and vicinity. Based on this information, there appears to be a low probability of impacts to sea turtles in the immediate vicinity of the proposed port facility. Any potential interaction with vessels would be more likely to occur in shipping channels in the southern Chesapeake Bay, areas that are already heavily trafficked. . 1 1.3.1.2 Bald Eagles One bald eagle nest was identified in 2002 approximately 2.5 miles east-southeast of the proposed port facility within Hoffler Creek Wildlife Preserve, but was destroyed during Hurricane Isabel in September 2003. Eagles are most vulnerable to disturbance early in the nesting period, i.e., during courtship, nest building, egg laying, incubation, and brooding (roughly the first 12 weeks of the nesting cycle). DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-27 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Disturbance during this critical period may lead to nest abandonment and/or chilled or overheated eggs or young (USFWS, 1987). The largest recommended buffer zone around eagle nest sites in the CBR has a radius of 1,320 feet (1/4 mile). Even if eagles should eventually return to occupy this nest site, it is unlikely that any noise resulting from construction and operation activities will impact nesting at this location given its 2.5 mile distance from the proposed expansion site. 1.3.1.3 Piping Plover/Least Tern The first confirmed nesting pair of Piping Plover at Craney Island was reported in 1989. Observations of breeding pairs in 1994 and 1995 found that nests were placed mostly on the island's western side (5 nests) with one nest on the northern shore and one on the eastern side of the island on the eastern side of the center cell. No nesting pairs have been observed since 1997. Least tern nests have been documented on the east dike of CIDMMA. According to Dr. Ruth Beck (College of William and Mary), least terns are more tolerant of human activity than other tern species and therefore may not be easily deterred from the site. Development of the east cell and the new port facility is not expected to impact any nest sites at CIDMMA. Phase I of port construction would commence as soon as an eastward expansion to support this area is complete; therefore, no nesting or feeding habitat would be impacted during the initial phase of port development. After Phase I of the port facility is constructed and in operation, it is unlikely that the birds would colonize the expansion area due to the high degree of mechanical and human disturbance associated with operation of the port facility. Therefore, ultimate Build-Out of the proposed port facility is not expected to impact piping plover habitat. As these birds are highly mobile and can easily avoid construction activities, no accidental takings during the construction process would be expected. VDGIF recommends project coordination with the state and the USFWS to avoid impacts to the piping plover. USFWS indicates that “...Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), which is Federally-listed as a threatened species, nested at Craney Island from 1989 to 1997. The habitat conditions currently appear marginal for this species, and an active management program would probably be needed to attract these birds to the site in the future” (USFWS Planning Aid Report, EIS, Appendix A). 1.3.1.3 Marine Mammals According to the Virginia Marine Science Museum, dolphins and Atlantic right whales are sometimes involved in collisions with commercial, military, and recreational vessels each year throughout the CBR. Encounters with harbor porpoises are less common. Development of the proposed port facility will cause an unavoidable increase in the number of vessels making calls to the Hampton Roads area, thus increasing the potential number of vessel encounters with marine mammals. However, marine mammals are mobile and would have an opportunity to seek other feeding areas away from the port facility, thus avoiding increased opportunity for collision and injury. 1.3.1.5 Conclusions No other impacts to Federally- or state-listed endangered or threatened species, species of concern, or other species cited by the VDCR and VDGIF are anticipated from cell construction or terminal development/operation. The initial phase of port development would commence immediately following island development. Mechanical and manmade activities associated with port operation would likely deter these species from inhabiting the adjacent island expansion areas. Following port Build-Out, none of the species mentioned in Part III are likely to inhabit the port facility. Existing nesting and feeding areas on the CIDMMA should not be impacted. Agency coordination will be conducted to ensure impacts to these species are avoided. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-28 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 1.4 AQUATIC BIOTA 1.4.1 CIDMMA Expansion 1.4.1.1 Essential Fish Habitat The 1996 amendments to the MSFCMA require Federal agencies to consult with NMFS regarding the potential effects of the action on essential fish habitat (EFH), which is defined as those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Step 1 of the consultation process was accomplished by notifying NMFS that this EIS was being prepared (meeting with NMFS on September 25, 2002). Step 2 is the preparation of an EFH Assessment by the Federal agency proposing the action. The EFH Assessment includes: (1) a description of the proposed action; (2) an analysis of the effects of the action on EFH and associated species; (3) the Federal agency's views regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and (4) a discussion of proposed mitigation, if applicable. Step 3 of the consultation process is completed after NMFS reviews the draft EIS for which NMFS provides EFH conservation recommendations during the established comment period. The fourth and final step in the consultation process is the Federal agency's response to the EFH Conservation Recommendations within 30 days. Step 2 is presented in this section. ^ IOCIMIO Disnin (1) Description of proposed action: The project will involve the dredging of a 50-foot-deep access channel. There will be a permanent loss of open water and benthic habitat within the 580- acre cell footprint (See Draft EIS, Section II). 4 Figures (2) Analysis of the effects of the action on EFH: The Elizabeth River and vicinity contains Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for egg, larvae, juveniles and/or adults life stages of 11 species. EIS, Section III describes the species and at which life stage EFH has been determined by the NMFS in the vicinity of the project. It is notable that one species, sandbar shark (Charcharinus plumbeus), is designated as having a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC), which is described in regulations as a subsets of EFH that is rare, particularly susceptible to human- induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally-stressed area.. The total HAPC for the sandbar shark in the lower Chesapeake Bay is approximately 89,000 acres of open water, including the lower James River and Hampton Roads, which constitutes approximately 33 percent or 29,500 acres of the total. The permanent loss of aquatic habitat within the 580 acre cell footprint represents less than one percent of the total HAPC area. Short-term increases in turbidity and settlement associated with dredging may be detrimental to sensitive eggs, larvae, and juvenile life stages in the localized area, however, the increase in suspended sediment associated with the dredging activities is on the order of background concentrations in the Elizabeth River, and within natural short-term variability of background concentrations. 5 dio. D-AN----- D (3) Department of the Army's views regarding the effects of the action on EFH: Adverse effects on EFH species due to construction will largely be temporary and minimal, with some permanent effects related to loss of bottom area and open water in the cell footprint. It is highly unlikely that any adverse effects will be caused from dredging activities due to the nektonic mobility of the EFH designated species. Rip-rap placed on the dikes is likely to attract species that are normally associated with reef structures, species that are commonly found around estuarine inlets, and 0 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-29 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV species that seasonally migrate along the coast (Van Dolah, R.F., et al. 1987). A study of breakwaters at West Harbor, Ohio reported increases in the number of fish eggs and larvae on and near breakwaters after construction (Manny, B.A., et al., 1985). The West Harbor study also concluded that high levels of turbidity and suspended particulate matter at the time of breakwater construction and channel dredging had no lasting detrimental effects in biota near the mouth of West Harbor. Similar effects of these two studies are expected in the project area. The Corp's assessment of the project lead to a determination that the project will not have an adverse effect on EFH; and, therefore, expanded EFH consultation is not required. (4) Discussion of proposed mitigation: Every measure will be pursued to avoid and minimize effects. Compensation for benthic and open water habitat lost will involve sediment remediation, wetlands restoration, and oyster restoration, which will provide fisheries habitat benefits to EFH designated species. Existing estuarine and marine EFH within the proposed project area would be subject to minimal impacts as a result of port development and operation. High-energy wakes from large vessels have the potential to increase shoreline erosion. However, in this case, impacts resulting from wave action should be minimal, since the affected shoreline in the Norfolk Harbor, including the proposed terminal, would be protected by manmade structures. The eastern shoreline is already stabilized by manmade structures of the Norfolk Naval Base and NIT. 1.4.1.2 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation The proposed CIDMMA eastward expansion lies almost entirely within an SAV Exclusion Zone (CBP, March 2002). A SAV exclusion zone is an area defined as never supporting SAV historically nor able to support SAV now or in the future. A small part of the northern portion of the proposed eastward expansion does lies outside the SAV Exclusion Zone. This area does not lie within the Tier III SAV distribution goal, which represents a return of SAV to its historical distribution in the Chesapeake Bay, to a depth of 6 feet in areas capable of supporting SAV growth (CBP, 1992). The water depth in the area is about 12 feet deep. Within the Chesapeake Bay, SAV currently cannot grow below 3 feet deep in most areas and is not found growing in 12 feet of water near the mouths of the James and Elizabeth Rivers, which are known for their high TSS and limited light penetration. SAV has not been found in the area historically and, based on TSS and water depth, will not be found in the project area in the future. According to the 2004 Aerial Flight update (Orth, 2004), the nearest SAV beds to CIDMMA are found along the north shore of Hampton Roads Harbor between Newport News Creek and Salter Creek, approximately 4 nautical miles (northeast) from the existing CIDMMA (Figures III-6 and III-7). Year 2004 area estimates for those beds were approximately 15.3 acres. There are no SAV beds located near the proposed port facility. Therefore, no impacts to SAV are anticipated either as a result of dredging, cell construction, or port development or operation. 1 1.4.1.3 Benthos Public oyster grounds (Baylor grounds) are located within the vicinity of CIDMMA, namely Public Oyster Ground Number 1 (Norfolk County), which surrounds the existing CIDMMA on the west, north, DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-30 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV and east sides. Public Oyster Grounds Numbers 2 and 3 are found in the mouth of the Elizabeth River near CIDMMA. These oyster grounds are depicted in Figure III-10. The USACE, Norfolk District, funded a VIMS study of the impact of the eastward expansion of the CIDMMA on the abundance, biomass, and diversity of benthic species (Seitz and Lipcius, 2002). They concluded that the area of the CDDMMA eastward expansion had significantly lower bivalve density, diversity, and abundance than the adjacent deep-water habitats or shallow-water habitats in the Craney Island-Lafayette River (CI-LR) system. The CIDMMA eastward expansion zone also had significantly lower mean bivalve biomass than the shallow-water habitats in the CI-LR system. Bivalve biomass within the expansion area also constituted a small fraction of the biomass within the general area. Because of this extremely low bivalve biomass and because the sampled bivalves were very small juveniles, it was concluded from this study that the CIDMMA expansion area is not likely to be a significant feeding ground for the blue crab or demersal fish. ----- Detailed information related to benthic sampling sites east of the CIDMMA and in the Lafayette River system, along with the sampling methodology, and analyses is available in EIS, Appendix E. There will be a temporary loss of benthic infauna from dredging associated with dredging the ship access channels to and from the terminal. Some natural recovery of benthic infauna is expected to occur over a 5-year period; however, periodic maintenance dredging in isolated shoals will slow complete recovery of these bottom areas. Off-site and out-of-kind mitigation has been identified as compensation for the losses and changes in the benthic community structure (see the synopsis of potential mitigation alternatives contained in EIS, Appendix B). There will be a loss of approximately 580 acres of estuarine bottom habitat used by fish, shellfish, crabs, and bottom dwelling organisms. In addition, a loss of about 580 acres of open water above the estuarine bottom habitat will also occur. Based on the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity, the impact area is generally poor quality and exhibits degraded conditions. No commercially significant quantities of clams and oysters are in the impact area. In addition to the habitat loss, the biological productivity of the benthic macrofauna and meiofauna in the impact area will be lost, along with the zooplankton productivity in the water column. Mitigation of the loss of about 580 acres of open water will partially occur via the widening and deepening of adjacent berthing areas for the Terminal which will provide an equivalent cross-sectional area of open water. Off-site and out-of-kind mitigation is proposed (EIS, Appendix B) to mitigate the effects of bottom habitat loss and open water effects to finfish, crabs, and bottom-dwelling organisms. Mitigation alternatives presented in the mitigation plan that have been developed to compensate for lost functional values include: oyster habitat restoration, wetland restoration, contaminated sediment remediation, riparian buffers/conservation areas, bird management, and shoreline stabilization. | 1 As mentioned previously for certain fish species, rip-rap placed on the dikes is likely to attract other benthic species that are normally associated with reef structures. Many types of vertical structures provide the complex habitat architecture needed by a diverse group of invertebrates to survive and grow. An example is the invertebrate-fish community characteristic of oil rigs, which in some instances provide the only regional habitats for certain species of corals, other invertebrates, algae, and fish. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-31 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV The "rough" structure provided by rip-rap on the exterior of the dikes at the proposed Craney Island expansion, especially given the large area of the dike surface, is likely to provide an extremely diverse and productive community, and serve as a nursery and feeding area for many fishes and invertebrates, including the blue crab. Other options may be investigated during PED to provide an ecologically- friendly surface on the dikes thereby helping to offset a portion of the benthic habitat that is lost. 1.4.2 Other Flora and Fauna The 55-foot deep water that would be adjacent to the proposed container terminal would provide sufficient clearance to minimize sediment suspension due to ship maneuvering. Therefore, significant increases in turbidity are not expected that could impact populations of phytoplankton, macro-algae, and zooplankton near the proposed port facility. Submerged portions of the wharf facility and rip-rapped areas associated with the port could benefit macro-algae and sessile animals by providing attachment sites, thereby allowing them to colonize these structures. 1.4.3 Terminal Development 1.4.3.1 Fish and Essential Fish Habitat Existing estuarine and marine EFH within the proposed project area would be subject to minimal impacts as a result of port development and operation. High-energy wave trains from large vessels have the potential to increase shoreline erosion. However, in this case, impacts resulting from wave action should be minimal since the affected shoreline in the Norfolk Harbor, including the proposed terminal, would be protected by manmade structures. The eastern shoreline is already stabilized by manmade structures at the Naval Station Norfolk and NIT. Two to three percent of the containers currently handled at VPA terminals are placarded as containing hazardous materials (VIT, December 2004). Events involving hazardous materials are uncommon, but are of concern due to the EFH in the area. Potential impacts will be reduced by the use of spill prevention and response plans, BMP's, and treatment of stormwater (see Part III, Section 1.0). Port development and operation is not expected to imperil any fish species or notably reduce species diversity within the fish community. 1.4.3.2 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is found in salinities of 10-35 ppt and is the SAV species of most concern in Hampton Roads. According to the 2000 Aerial Flight update (Orth, 2004), the nearest beds to the proposed port facility are found along the north shore of Hampton Roads between Newport News Creek and Salter Creek, over 4 miles away from the proposed CIDMMA eastward expansion. Year 2004 area estimates for those beds were approximately 42 acres. There are no SAV beds located near the proposed port facility. Therefore, no impacts to this resource will occur either as a result of port development or operation. 1.4.3.3 Benthos Comparison of the results for the Elizabeth River watershed to the Chesapeake Bay Benthic Restoration Goals shows that the macrobenthic communities of the Elizabeth River can be characterized as having lower than expected species diversity and biomass, abundance levels generally higher than reference DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-32 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV conditions, and species composition with levels of pollution indicative species higher than reference conditions and levels of pollution sensitive species lower than reference conditions (Dauer, 2001). Port development and operation are not expected to cause long-term, adverse impacts to the benthic communities. Dredging activities will temporarily impact benthic communities; however, all dredging activities needed for port development and operation would be completed as part of the proposed CDMMA eastward expansion and other proposed harbor channel improvements, not as a result of the proposed container terminal construction. . 1.4.3.4 Other Flora and Fauna The 55-foot-deep channel adjacent to the proposed container terminal will provide sufficient clearance to minimize sediment suspension due to ship maneuvering. Therefore, significant increases in turbidity that could impact populations of phytoplankton, macro-algae, and zooplankton near the proposed port facility are not expected. Submerged portions of the wharf facility and rip-rapped areas associated with the port could benefit macro-algae and sessile animals by providing attachment sites, thereby allowing them to colonize these structures. 1.5 WETLANDS AND SUBAQUEOUS BOTTOMS > ! 1.5.1 Dredging and Cell Construction As noted in Section III, some wetlands are located within the interior portion (cells) of the CIDMMA. These wetlands will not be impacted by the proposed east expansion. No wetlands are present between the existing perimeter dike and rip-rap shoreline at CIDMMA and the Norfolk Harbor Channel to the east. Therefore, no vegetated wetland impacts are anticipated within the east expansion footprint or the adjoining access channel areas. Bottom habitat in the dredged area will be modified as the water depth will be increased from 3-4 meters (m) to approximately 16 m. This may alter the fish use of the area by potentially favoring pelagic adults in lieu of smaller juveniles. Crab harvesting activities would be precluded. The resident benthic invertebrate community in the dredged area will be temporarily eliminated until a new assemblage repopulates. Repopulation typically occurs within a few months to a year. However, the character of the new benthic habitat may be altered. Sediment scouring and deposition associated with ship propeller wash may impact the habitat suitability. In addition, future maintenance dredging of isolated shoals may result in additional periodic impacts to the benthic community. 1.5.2 Terminal Development No wetland impacts will occur during terminal construction since the port facility will be developed on a newly constructed dredged material containment cell. Also, no wetlands are located between the proposed terminal and Craney Island Reach; therefore, dredging activities required to provide access to the facility would not impact wetlands. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-33 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 1.5.2.1 Rail Spur and Road Access Corridors Access roads for the port facility will connect to the proposed VDOT Craney Island Connector between the current CIDMMA and the proposed port facility. The access roads are within the proposed port facility footprint and the CIDMMA; therefore, the proposed access road corridors are not expected to impact existing wetlands at the CIDMMA. A proposed rail corridor would connect the port facility to both the Norfolk Southern and CSX. The final rail corridor location has not been determined. However, as currently envisioned, the rail corridor would be located within the cleared ROW of VDOT's connector highway from CIDMMA to VA Route 164. The rail corridor would then continue west paralleling VA Route 164 to 1-664, then continue south along 1-664 to the Norfolk Southern and CSX railways in Suffolk. If the final rail corridor substantially deviates from this route, then the wetland impact analysis will be updated as part of supplemental NEPA documentation prepared by the VPA prior to port facility construction. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that VDOT would construct the access rail corridor from the port facility to the Norfolk Southern and CSX railways within existing road ROW's. Wetlands within the VDOT ROW's would be maintained as emergent or shrub-scrub wetlands; therefore, constructing the rail corridor within the ROW should result in impacts only to maintained emergent or shrub/scrub wetlands. As part of the HRC Study FEIS, detailed wetland delineation was completed to include the connector highway from VA Route 164 to CIDMMA and the proposed 1-664 expansion corridor from VA Route 164 to 1-64 (VDOT, 2001). Table IV-11 provides an inventory of wetlands potentially impacted by the proposed CIDMMA connector highway and 1-664 roadway expansion and, therefore, potentially impacted by the proposed rail corridor (see Figures IV-2 to TV-6). Direct and indirect impacts to wetlands resulting from construction and operation of the proposed VDOT road corridors were evaluated. Indirect impacts include shifts in vegetative communities, E&S deposition, or hydrologic alterations. Wetland impacts would occur from construction and operation of the rail corridor within the VDOT CIDMMA connector highway and the 1-664 expansion corridor from the intersection of VA Route 164 to 1-64. However, portions of the rail corridor could be realigned to minimize wetland impacts. Although extensive measures would be taken to minimize wetland impacts to the extent practicable, unavoidable wetland impacts may occur through project implementation. Proposed compensation for unavoidable losses of vegetated wetlands would be coordinated with appropriate Federal and state agencies. The wetland mitigation would provide for no net loss of wetland acreage and function. The following potential mitigation measures could be implemented to compensate for wetland impacts from port facility development. Implementation of BMP's during clearing and construction (i.e., erosion control, stormwater runoff control, etc.); Implementation of construction techniques that minimize impacts, i.e., slope steepening (minimizes footprint area); DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-34 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 0 0 Proper installation and use of drainage and crossing structures to minimize impacts to existing wetland hydrology, i.e., to avoid connection of currently isolated wetlands; Acquisition and development of management plans for existing, off-site wetlands for conservation easements/areas, including restoration of degraded wetlands; Creation and management plan development of off-site wetlands for conservation easements/areas. 0 i Table IV-11. CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION PROJECT POTENTIAL WETLAND IMPACTS - VDOT WETLAND INVENTORY Wetland Type (1) ID Number (2) Type of Impact PEMIA 6-2 Indirect (bridged) EZEMIN 6-4 Indirect (bridged) EZEMIN 6-5 Indirect (bridged) PFO 7-2 Direct (encroach) PFO 7-6 Direct (encroach) 7-7 PSS EZEMIN 7-7 Indirect (bridged) Indirect (bridged) Direct (encroach) ។ PEM 7-13 PEM 9-2 N/A ** PFO 9-5 Direct (encroach) EZEM 10-1 Indirect (bridged) EZEM 11-1 Indirect (bridged) Source: HRC Study FEIS (VDOT, 2001) (1) Wetland classification based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1992). (2) See Figures IV-2 to IV-6 : The HRC Study FEIS evaluated functions and values for the wetlands impacted by the proposed VDOT CIDMMA connector highway and the 1-664 corridor expansion (VDOT, 2001). The USACE Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) 2.0 was utilized to assess the functions and values of the impacted wetlands (Adamus et al., 1987). WET estimates the probability that particular functions will occur in a wetland area and provides insight into the importance of those functions. WET is a broad-based approach to wetland evaluation and is based on information about predictors of wetland functions to include: groundwater recharge/discharge, floodflow alteration, sediment stabilization, sediment/toxicant/nutrient retention, production export, wildlife diversity/abundance, aquatic diversity/abundance, and recreation and uniqueness/heritage. These wetland functions are defined in Table IV-12. The wetlands within the va DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-35 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV I CIDMMA connector highway and 1-664 corridor expansion were assigned a qualitative probability rating of high, moderate, or low for the wetlands capacity to provide a function. Table IV-13 provides WET results for the wetlands that may also be impacted by the proposed access rail corridor, if located within the roadway ROW. Estuarine wetlands were not evaluated by VDOT for groundwater recharge/discharge and floodflow alteration, due to differences in the hydrologic functions they provide (VDOT, 2001). 1.5.2.2 Mudflats The shoreline of the Elizabeth River in the project vicinity has been substantially impacted by industrial development. Few mudflats remain in the vicinity of the proposed port, and most of the remaining areas are inter-tidal mud flats that are protected from wind and wave erosion. An estuarine inter-tidal mud flat is located across the Elizabeth River from the proposed port facility. This mud flat is located at the mouth of the Lafayette River, approximately 1.25 miles east of Craney Island Reach. Wave action and sediment suspension may be generated by ship traffic associated with the port facility; however, due to the large reach between the channel and the mud flat, impacts are anticipated to be minimal to nonexistent. The proposed rail spur crossing of Craney Island Creek would also cross an estuarine inter-tidal mud flat. A bridge would be constructed over the mud flat; therefore, direct impacts would occur at the location of the piers and indirect impacts, such as increased sedimentation, may result during bridge construction. Implementing best management practices during construction would minimize impacts to the mud flat. 1.5.2.3 Subaqueous Bottom As part of the CIDMMA expansion, all dredging activities needed for port development and operation, including the area between the navigation channel and proposed wharf, would be completed regardless of port development. Consequently, dredging impacts to subaqueous bottom would not be attributable to port development. Ć The proposed 55-foot deep Federal channel to accommodate deep draft ships would provide sufficient clearance to minimize impacts from sediment suspension. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-36 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-12. WETLAND EVALUATION TECHNIQUE (2.0) EVALUATION FACTORS Tidal Wetlands Sediment Stabilization - Shoreline Anchoring Gradual bank slope; Heavy persistent vegetation; No signs of erosion; Lack of fetch and boat wake - Freshwater Wetlands Groundwater Discharge/Recharge Seeps and springs abundant; Located within a floodplain; Water permanence; Suitable substrate for infiltration; Amount of wetland cdge; Persistent vegetation Flood flow Alteration - Flood Storage Broad floodplain storage, abandon channels, and/or depressions; Frequently flooded; Shallow channel; Evidence of overbank flooding; Heavy woody vegetation Sediment Stabilization Heavy persistent vegetation; Slow water velocitics; No signs of erosion; Lack of fetch Sediment /Toxicant Nutrient Retention Wildlife Diversity and Abundance Visual observations of wildlife; Adjacent to tidal flats, channels, and forests; Saltgrass and/or saltbush communities present; Invasive and nuisance species not present Production Export - Food Chain Support Dense submergent vegetation; Long detention time; Detritus export unrestricted Sediment /Toxicant Nutrient Retention 9 Heavy persistent vegetation (woody and herb); Heavy persistent vegetation (woody and Located near source of sediment and toxicants; herbs); Located near source of sediment and No signs of erosion or pollution; Size of toxicants; No sign of erosion or pollution; Size wetland in relations to water volume; Long of wetland in relations to water volume; Long detention time; Sheet flow (vs. Channel flow); detention time; Sheet flow (vs. Channel Flow):) Shallow water depth (<2fect) Shallow water depth (2 feet) Production Export - Food Chain Support Aquatic Diversity and Abundance Dense submergent vegetation; Long Visual observation of aquatic life; Tidal hydroperiod; High primary productivity; creeks, channels, and depressions present; Detritus export unrestricted High plant diversity and interspersion; No signs of pollution Wildlife Diversity and Abundance Recreation and Uniqueness/Heritage Visual observations of wildlife; High plant Ecologically rare wetland type for region; diversity and interspersion; Multiple strata; Public or private conservation area; Research Low human disturbance; Surrounding of educational facility; Public parks (trails, landscape forested boardwalks, etc.): Hunting and/or fishing opportunities available Aquatic Diversity and Abundance Visual observations of aquatic life; Permanent open water (fish habitat); Seasonal ponding (amphibian habitat); High plant diversity and interspersion; Low human disturbance; No sign of pollution, Landscape undeveloped Recreation and Uniqueness Ecologically rare wetland type for region; Public or private conservation area; Research or educational facility; Public park (trails, boardwalks, etc.); Hunting and/or fishing opportunities Source: Hampton Roads Crossing Study FEIS (VDOT, 2001) DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-37 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-13. VDOT WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT FOR WETLANDS ALONG PROPOSED CRANEY ISLAND CONNECTOR HIGHWAY AND SELECTED PORTIONS OF 1-664 Groundwater Rechargel Discharge Sediment Toxicanu Flood flow Sediment Nutricat Alteration Stabilization Retention Wildlife Diversity Abundance Production Export Aquatic Diversity Abundance Recreation & Uniqueness Heritags ID Number * Wetland Type 6-2 PEMIA low low moderate moderato moderate low low low E2EMIN NA NA high high high moderate moderate low 6-5 E2EMIN NA NA moderate high high moderate moderate low 7-13 PEM2C low low low low low high/moderate high/moderate low 9-5 PFOIA low low moderate moderate low low low low 10-1 ELEM high moderate high moderate moderate low 11-1 EZEMIN high moderate high moderate moderate low Source: Hampton Ronds Crossing Study FEIS (VDOT, 2001) • See Figures 5-1 60 5-5. Data were not collected for wetlands 7-2 (PFO), 7-6 (PFO), and 7-7 (EZEMIN, PSS). Information was not available for Wetland #9-2. 1.6 SANCTUARIES AND REFUGES Hoffler Creek Wildlife Preserve, located approximately 2.5 miles west of the proposed project area, consists of 142 acres of wetlands, dense forest, and a saltwater lake. The preserve is located on the shores of Hoffler Creek in northwest Churchland, within the city of Portsmouth. The preserve provides habitat for numerous native plant and animal species, both aquatic and terrestrial (Hoffler Creek Wildlife Foundation, 2002). The preserve is inland from the Hampton Roads Harbor, and, therefore, would not have a view of the proposed port facility. No impacts to this preserve are anticipated from port development or operation. Compensatory mitigation will involve wetland and aquatic habitat protection and restoration at Ragged Island Wildlife Management Area, a state managed wildlife refuge located in the lower James River. Oyster restoration is proposed in Hoffler Creek, adjacent to the Hoffler Creek Wildlife Preserve. Details are provided in EIS, Appendix B. Other sanctuaries and refuges located in the region are at least 10 miles away from the CIDMMA eastward expansion area. Therefore, port development and operations are not expected to impact these resources. 1.7 TRANSPORTATION The analysis of surface transportation impacts is based on the following assumptions: Craney Island Marine Terminal will be built, along with a connector road to Route 164 and connecting rail service to the Route 164 corridor. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-38 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 1 The third HRC may be completed in the next 10-20 years. It should be noted that this significant regional transportation initiative is complementary to the Craney Island terminal project, though it is not required for the success of the Craney Island terminal project. Trucks traveling into and out of the region would continue to follow the existing routes through the major gateways. Programmed and planned improvements along the major interstate and state highways most traveled by trucks into and out of the Hampton Roads region would be completed. Approximately 63 percent of the container freight handled by the Craney Island terminal would be transported by truck at initiation of Phase I in 2016, declining to 40 percent by projected Build-Out in 2050. The new rail corridor, which will be a VDOT project, is in the planning stages, and the route has not yet been finalized. However, it is currently envisioned, and this analysis assumes that the route and ultimate tie-in point will follow the cleared ROW's for the Craney Island Connector highway and existing VA Route 164 and 1-664 corridors to the maximum extent possible. If the final rail corridor substantially deviates from this route, then the transportation impact analysis would be updated as part of supplemental NEPA documentation prepared by the VPA prior to port facility construction. 1.7.1 Trip Generation In order to determine the potential impacts of vehicular and vessel traffic associated with the operation of the new terminal, it is necessary to determine the future trip generation, i.e., the number of daily trips generated by the proposed project. The traffic forecasts for the proposed terminal were estimated by Moffatt & Nichol on behalf of the VPA in November, 2004. In making these projections, it was estimated that additional annual throughput of 300,000 TEU's (2017 - Phase 1) to 2,500,000 TEU's (2050 - Build-Out) would be handled by VPA at the Craney Island terminal as shown in Table IV-11. generation results for truck trips and total trips (trucks and employee trips) for Phase I through Build-Out conditions are also presented in Table IV-14. 1 The truck traffic projections assume that approximately 63 percent of the container freight handled by the Craney Island terminal would be transported by truck at initiation of Phase 1 in 2017, declining to 40 percent by projected Build-Out in 2050. The bulk of the remaining cargo would be transported to and from the terminal via railroads, and a small amount would be carried by barge. It was assumed that all truck traffic at the new terminal would be made up of trucks with three or more axles. a Another traffic increase that is expected for the area will be generated by the new APM Maersk terminal. Although no previous study has been done to specifically quantify expected Maersk traffic, Moffatt & Nichol estimated truck trips in the same manner done for Craney Island Marine Terminal based on APM/Maersk capacity statements. The Maersk Terminal will be opened in two phases, in 2008 and 2010. Table IV-15 shows those estimates. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-39 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Estimates were conducted only through 2018, since reliable information was not available for expected long-term throughput changes. As is explained below, the year 2018 will be used as a consistent comparison point. Together, the proposed Craney Island Marine Terminal and the Maersk Terminal may generate 3,200 truck trips per day in 2018. 1.7.2 Projected Daily Traffic As shown in Tables TV-16 and IV-17, the proposed CIDMMA Terminal and the new APM/Maersk terminal are together expected to generate approximately 3,200 truck trips on average per day in 2018. That number is expected to increase and reach approximately 7,500 truck trips on average per day by Build-Out in 2050. However, as the percent of cargo that moves by rail increases, there will be gradual declines in the number of truck trips from the two terminals. Average day truck trips are anticipated to decrease to 6,000 by 2050. Total trips per day calculations are also included to count terminal employees arriving to and departing from the terminals, but truck trips are the focus of this analysis. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS. 1A Page IV-40 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXP ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 1 Table IV-14. CRANEY ISLAND TRUCK TRAFFIC ESTIMATES 8 E1 A TIOCIMIO DI... 2026 Year Annual Throughput (1) (TEU) Average Day Truck Trips (2) Total Trips 2017 300,000 858 1,502 2018 600,000 1,697 2,341 2019 600,000 1,678 2,322 2020 600,000 1,659 2,303 2021 600,000 1,640 2,284 2022 600,000 1,621 2,265 2023 782,500 2,089 2,833 2024 975,000 2,573 3,417 2025 1,350,000 3,519 4,563 1,350,000 3,477 4,521 2027 1,725,000 4,388 5,632 2028 1,725,000 4,333 5,577 2029 1,900,000 4,713 6,057 2030 2,100,000 5,142 6,586 2031 2,300,000 5,559 7,103 2032 2,500,000 5,964 7,608 2033 2,500,000 5,884 7,528 2034 2,500,000 5,805 7,449 2035 2,500,000 5,726 7,370 2036 2,500,000 5,647 7,291 2037 2,500,000 5,568 7,212 2038 2,500,000 5,489 7,133 2039 2,500,000 5,410 7,054 2040 2,500,000 5,331 6,975 2041 2,500,000 5,252 6,896 2042 2,500,000 5,173 6,817 2043 2,500,000 5,093 6,737 2044 2,500,000 5,014 6,658 2045 2,500,000 4,935 6,579 2046 2,500,000 4,856 6,500 2047 2,500,000 4,777 6,421 2048 2,500,000 4,698 6,342 2049 2,500,000 4,619 6,263 2050 2,500,000 4,540 6,184 Source: Moffatt and Nichol, 2004 (1) Total annual CIT throughput. The throughput growth forecast is from 2004 and is limited by available capacity. (2) Average daily truck trips are the total of truck arrivals and truck departures to and from the terminal. 4 Fiqures 5 list of Pranarare h References DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-41 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Estimates were conducted only through 2018, since reliable information was not available for expected long-term throughput changes. As is explained below, the year 2018 will be used as a consistent comparison point. Together, the proposed Craney Island Marine Terminal and the Maersk Terminal may generate 3,200 truck trips per day in 2018. 1.7.2 Projected Daily Traffic As shown in Tables IV-16 and IV-17, the proposed CIDMMA Terminal and the new APM/Maersk terminal are together expected to generate approximately 3,200 truck trips on average per day in 2018. That number is expected to increase and reach approximately 7,500 truck trips on average per day by Build-Out in 2050. However, as the percent of cargo that moves by rail increases, there will be gradual declines in the number of truck trips from the two terminals. Average day truck trips are anticipated to decrease to 6,000 by 2050. Total trips per day calculations are also included to count terminal employees arriving to and departing from the terminals, but truck trips are the focus of this analysis. S Ś DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-40 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-14. CRANEY ISLAND TRUCK TRAFFIC ESTIMATES ! Year Annual Throughput (1) (TEU) Average Day Truck Trips (2) Total Trips 2017 300,000 858 1,502 2018 600,000 1,697 2,341 2019 600,000 1,678 2,322 2020 600,000 1,659 2,303 2021 600,000 1,640 2,284 2022 600,000 1,621 2,265 2023 782,500 2,089 2,833 2024 975,000 2,573 3,417 2025 1,350,000 3,519 4,563 2026 1,350,000 3,477 4,521 2027 1,725,000 4,388 5,632 2028 1,725,000 4,333 5,577 2029 1,900,000 4,713 6,057 2030 2,100,000 5,142 6,586 2031 2,300,000 5,559 7,103 2032 2,500,000 5,964 7,608 2033 2,500,000 5,884 7,528 2034 2,500,000 5,805 7,449 2035 2,500,000 5,726 7,370 2036 2,500,000 5,647 7,291 2037 2,500,000 5,568 7,212 2038 2,500,000 5,489 7,133 2039 2,500,000 5,410 7,054 2040 2,500,000 5,331 6,975 2041 2,500,000 6,896 2042 2,500,000 5,173 6,817 2043 2,500,000 5,093 6,737 2044 2,500,000 5,014 6,658 2045 2,500,000 4,935 6,579 2046 2,500,000 4,856 6,500 2047 2,500,000 4,777 6,421 2048 2,500,000 4,698 6,342 2049 2,500,000 4,619 6,263 2050 2,500,000 4,540 6,184 Source: Moffatt and Nichol, 2004 (1) Total annual CIT throughput. The throughput growth forecast is from 2004 and is limited by available capacity. (2) Average daily truck trips are the total of truck arrivals and truck departures to and from the terminal. 5,252 D Dabarannnn DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-41 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-15. APMMAERSK TERMINAL TRUCK TRAFFIC ESTIMATES Year ar Annual Throughput (TEU) (1) Average Day Truck Trips (2) Total Trips 2008 300,000 858 1,502 2009 300,000 849 1,493 2010 600,000 1,678 2,322 2011 600,000 1,659 2,303 2012 600,000 1,640 2,284 2013 600,000 1,621 2,265 2014 600,000 1,602 2,246 2015 600,000 1,583 2,227 2016 600,000 1,564 2,208 2017 600,000 1,545 2,189 2018 600,000 1,526 2,170 Source: Moffatt and Nichol, 2004 (1) Total annual APM/Maersk Terminal throughput. The throughput forecast is from published APMMaersk statements. (2) Average daily truck trips are the total of truck arrivals and truck departures to and from the terminal. C 1.7.3 2018 Traffic Forecasts and Levels of Service The projections of future year background traffic, i.e., traffic not generated by the proposed project, were obtained from the "Hampton Roads Crossing Study” FEIS and the “Congestion Management System for Hampton Roads, Virginia 2001.” The background traffic volumes in the year 2018 were interpolated for roads not evaluated in the HRC study by using the growth rates between the projected year 2006 and year 2021 volumes reported in the CMS report. The analysis of port traffic is based on the year 2018 conditions, rather than conditions in the year 2050 as VDOT plans roadway improvements using a 20- year planning horizon. Thus, the roadway and traffic conditions in the year 2050 are unknown at this time. Therefore, an analysis year of 2018 was chosen because programmed and planned improvements for this period are known, and potential impacts on these improvements from the Recommended Plan can be evaluated. Table IV-16 illustrates the projected traffic volumes and the corresponding volume-over-capacity (V/C) ratios with and without the proposed Third Harbor Crossing project. The Third Harbor Crossing project would be built near CIDMMA, and although neither project is dependent on the other, the roadways included in the TISA are the same since they are used by trucks transporting freight into and out of the region. Figure II-9 shows the proximity of the Third Harbor Crossing, the proposed Craney Island terminal, and other planned VDOT projects. The V/C ratio for the No Action and Recommended Plan is based on the provision of additional travel lanes as proposed in the 2001 - 2004 TIP and 2021 RTP. Table IV-17 presents a Level of Service (LOS) summary. For a specific road, the V/C ratio provides an analysis of the intensity or degree of congestion. The higher the V/C ratio, the more congestion can be expected. V/C ratios translate to LOS categories A through F, which each provide a unique condition of DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-42 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV traffic congestion. LOS D is the level or condition where favorable traffic operations are on the verge of becoming unfavorable. Levels of service E and F are considered unacceptable. 1.7.4 Trip Distribution The distribution of terminal trips on the roadway network is a key element in the assessment of traffic impacts from the proposed terminal. For this study, the distribution and assignment of trips to and from the study area roadways are based on information in the “Regional Freight Movement” report. The distribution of traffic generated by future workers employed at the Craney Island terminal is based on data on worker place of residence (Martin Associates, 1999). ! 1.7.5 Roadways An extensive analysis of existing, 2006, and 2021 roadway networks in the Hampton Roads region was completed by the HRPDC for the 2001 CMS report. The analysis of the future roadway network was based on the programmed and planned improvements included in the Hampton Roads TIP and 2021 RTP. The analysis identified several congestion problems associated with both existing and future roadway networks. Based on the results of the analysis, by the year 2021 Hampton Roads is anticipated to have similar congestion levels as those experienced today but with an expanded road network. The analysis of future traffic conditions under the Recommended Plan was completed using similar methodology employed in the HRC Study. The average daily traffic volumes for the year 2018 under the HRC Candidate Build Alternative 9 were used as the baseline from which to assess impacts of the proposed project. For roads that were not analyzed in the HRC Study but were listed as being used for regional freight movement, the 1995 average daily traffic levels reported in the freight movement report were projected to 2018 by interpolating the CMS year 2021 ADT estimates. Truck and employee trips anticipated to be generated by the Recommended Plan were then added to the 2018 baseline, and the year 2018 volume over capacity ratios were computed for each of the major roadways that may be affected by the Recommended Plan. or! V If the Third Harbor Crossing is not constructed before 2017, it is anticipated that the new connector highway between the Craney Island terminal and VA Route 164 will be completed independently and prior to the construction start date for the Craney Island terminal. Thus, trucks and other vehicles will be able to follow the existing and planned major highway system in traveling to and from the Craney Island terminal during the construction period. As a result, no significant impacts on the local street network are anticipated during construction of the terminal. D DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-43 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-16. NO-BUILD AND PROPOSED ACTION ADT AND V/C RATIO 2018 ADT No-Build (1) 2018 Pk Hr Per lane Vol. (2) 2018 Pk Hr V/C (3) Proposed Action 2018 ADT 2018 Pk Hr Per lane Vol. 2018 Pk Hr V/C Crossings 1.44 98,000 143,000 2,450 1,788 1.44 0.90 98,100 143,000 2,458 1,788 0.90 75,000 1,875 0.96 77,000 2,065 0.97 1-64 Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel 1-664 Monitor Merrimac Memorial Bridge-Tunnel New Crossing (I-664 - VA 164 connection) New Crossing (I-564 - VA 164 connection) U.S. 17 James River Bridge Increase in # of trips from No-Build Alternative 89,000 2,225 1.13 89,250 2,230 1.13 44,000 1,100 0.65 1,100 0.65 44,000 2,350 2,038 0.91 0.91 Peninsula 1-64 (I-664 to Mercury Blvd.) 1-664 (1-64 – Downtown Newport News) Jefferson Avenue (1-664 – Mercury Blvd.) 163,000 136,000 33,000 2,050 1,713 1,700 164,000 137,000 33,000 0.67 0.76 550 0.63 550 0.63 Southside - 1-64 (1-564 - Rt. 44) 171,000 2,850 1.31 171,250 2,140 0.98 1-64 (1-464-1-664) 107,000 1,783 0.79 107,500 1,791 0.80 VA 164 Connection 39,000 975 0.53 40,000 1,000 0.54 VA 164 Western Freeway (USCG - Bay 63,000 1,575 0.79 64,000 1,598 0.80 Blvd.) Rt. 264 (Newtown Rd. – Witchduck Rd.) 182,000 2,275 1.07 182,300 2,278 1.07 Hampton Blvd. (Lafayette River - 35,000 583 0.69 35,000 583 0.69 Midtown Tunnel) 1-264 Downtown Tunnel 93,000 2,325 1.37 93,000 2,325 1.37 U.S. 58 Midtown Tunnel 41,000 2,050 1.28 41,000 2,050 1.28 U.S. 460 32,400 540 0.28 32,692 543 0.28 U.S. 58 to North Carolina 28,000 700 0.36 28,090 702 0.36 U.S. 17 to North Carolina 15,875 794 0.41 15,935 797 0.41 U.S. 13 to North Carolina 14,900 745 0.39 14,967 748 0.38 VA 168 26,900 673 0.35 27,200 677 0.35 (1) Year 2018 No Build data are from Hampton Roads Crossing Study FEIS Table 4-2 data on Candidate Build Alternative 9. (2) Peak Hour Per Land Volumes = (ADT/number of lanes) * .10 (3) V/C (volume-over-capacity) ratio calculated for conventional lanes of traffic only, does not include projected HOV traffic volumes. Range of per lane capacity = 1,600 – 2,250 for interstate facilities, Midtown Tunnel, James River Bridge and VA Route 164. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-44 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-17. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CATEGORIES LOS V/C ratio range A 0.00 - 0.04 B 0.05 -0.16 С 0.17 -0.32 D 0.33 -0.57 E 0.58 -0.99 F >1.00 Source: AASHTO, 1994; HRPDC, 2001. Description Free-flow operations Reasonably free-flow operations Stable operations Borderline unstable Extremely unstable Breakdown A review of the data presented in Table IV-16 reveals that adding 3,200 truck trips to most roadways will not change the anticipated roadway conditions. Both 1-64 and VA Route 164 on the Southside are anticipated to handle slightly more traffic if the Craney Island terminal is built, but the overall LOS on these roadways is expected to be the same as it would be if Craney Island terminal is not built. Thus, no significant adverse impact on traffic conditions is anticipated from operation of the Craney Island terminal. 1.7.6 Rail Traffic Under the No Action alternative, rail traffic would increase slightly above present conditions to accommodate the projected container increase. Assuming an estimated maximum annual throughput of about 2.3 million TEU's, which could be accommodated by the existing VPA terminals (with planned improvements) and the planned Maersk terminal, an average of about two additional train trips per day would be anticipated. This estimate assumes that annual throughput of 2.3 million TEU's would be about 1.1 million TEU's more than current levels (based on Hampton Roads container forecast) and that 25 percent of the forecasted container increase is transported by rail. The traffic forecasts for the proposed terminal were estimated by Moffatt & Nichol Engineers on behalf of the VPA (Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, 2002). In making these projections, it was estimated that additional annual throughput of 300,000 TEU's (2017 - Phase 1) to 2,500,000 TEU's (2050 – Build-Out) would be handled by the Craney Island terminal. Daily rail projections show an increase in daily rail TEU's from 279 to 3,425 TEU's between initiation of Phase I (2017) and Build-Out (2050) conditions. The train traffic projections assume that approximately 34 percent of the container freight handled by the Craney Island terminal would be transported by rail at initiation of Phase 1 in 2017, increasing to 50 percent by projected Build-Out in 2050. The bulk of the remaining cargo would be transported to and from the terminal via trucks. For comparison, previous studies have estimated that approximately 25 percent of the cargo is transported into and out of the region by rail (HRPDC, 1998). Estimating that one train is capable of transporting 400 TEU's, average train traffic would increase by 425 trains per year or by slightly more than one train per day at initiation of Phase I. The 400 TEU train capacity estimate is based on trip generation methods used in recent USACE studies conducted for the Port of Charleston, South Carolina. Build-Out conditions at the Craney Island terminal would result in an DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-45 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV estimated 2,450 additional train trips per year, or approximately 2,000 more trips than for Phase I. This increase would generate an average of five to six train trips per day above what is anticipated for Phase I. It is anticipated that the existing rail network will be able to accommodate this increase in rail traffic, particularly in view of the decrease in coal shipments attributable to a decline in the export of coal from the region to Europe and other countries (Old Dominion University, 2001). 1.7.7 Navigation and Terminal Facilities 1.7.7.1 Vessel Traffic The Hampton Roads container forecast projects significant growth; however, the spatial distribution of this growth is unknown and cannot be projected. Under the No Action alternative, cargo vessel traffic would likely increase to accommodate TEU levels projected in the near-term. However, as discussed in the “Port Description" section, the combined capacity of the existing VPA terminals (with planned improvements) and the planned Maersk terminal would be exceeded by demand in the 2016 timeframe. Two scenarios are possible. Under the first scenario, which is considered unlikely, container vessels would enter the port and "park," assuming there is sufficient capacity available in one of the Federal anchorage areas in the Hampton Roads region, and remain there until a berth becomes available at one of the existing terminals. Under the second scenario, which is considered far more likely, shipping lines seeking to avoid delays in loading and unloading of cargo would call on other ports. The traffic forecasts for the proposed terminal were estimated by Moffatt & Nichol Engineers on behalf of the VPA in November, 2004. Based on vessel call data associated with these forecasts, and using a capacity of 4,500 to 6,500 TEU's per vessel, the proposed project would result in an additional 470 vessel calls to the Port of Hampton Roads in 2018 when throughput is 600,000. By the year 2050 under Build- Out conditions and throughput of 2,500,000, some of these vessels will be replaced with "mega-ships” carrying 8,000+ TEU's in the Pacific Trade lanes. As a result, an additional 300 vessel calls are projected based on a capacity of 6,500 to 10,000 TEU's per vessel. Thus, it is projected that the Build-Out configuration of the Craney Island terminal would generate 770 vessel calls per year. This represents a 55-percent increase in current (year 2002) container/RORO vessel traffic. According to the Virginia Pilots, the anticipated increase in vessel traffic of from 9 to 15 weekly calls under Phase I and Build-Out, respectively, could be accommodated and would not be expected to significantly affect safety in the harbor (Virginia Pilots Association, April 2002a). In addition, the trends in recent years of reduced coal exports and larger cargo ship sizes are factors that should reduce cumulative effects on total vessel traffic in the Port of Hampton Roads. 1.7.7.2 Terminal Facilities As part of the VPA's implementation of its 2040 Master Plan, the existing terminals operated by the VPA are being improved to the extent practicable to increase their efficiency in handling and transporting cargo. In addition, the final phase of Maersk's proposed development will be completed and fully operational by 2007. As a result, the three upgraded and improved VPA terminals and the proposed Maersk terminal are expected to be able to accommodate the projected increase in container TEU's up to the year 2017. After this time, the capacity of these facilities would not be sufficient to meet the projected demand. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-46 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Under the proposed project, the three existing VPA terminals, the proposed Maersk terminal, and the proposed CIDMMA container terminal will continue to operate. Private terminals throughout Hampton Roads are expected to continue to operate much as they do today. Normal business transition of such facilities, such as expansion, may occur. 1 The analysis of impacts under the No Action and Recommended Plan indicates that, because of its proximity to existing or planned major interstate transportation routes (see Figure II-9), the construction and operation of the Craney Island terminal will have minimal impacts on local streets and major highways as a result of increased truck traffic. Specifically, local streets will not be significantly affected, as trucks traveling to and from the Craney Island terminal in the short-term during construction and in the long-term during operation will access the site from a new connector highway to VA Route 164 and from there to 1-664 and 1-64. Although the existing and planned highway improvements will improve conditions on major highways, some congestion will remain in the future with or without the Recommended Plan. An average of six to seven additional trains per day would be needed to transport containers in and out of the Craney Island terminal under Build-Out conditions; however, significant impacts on existing railroads are not anticipated. It is anticipated that this projected rail capacity need will be fully addressed when developing the new rail corridor to connect the Craney Island terminal with existing rail lines. At Build-Out of the proposed Craney Island terminal, it is projected that an additional 770 vessel calls per year would occur, or 15 vessels per week. This additional vessel traffic can be accommodated and is not expected to significantly affect safety in the harbor. ! 1.8 UTILITIES r The proposed container terminal will require utility services for water, wastewater disposal, power, and telecommunications. This section characterizes each of these needs and the ability of local utilities to meet them based on existing and planned infrastructure. In general, existing utilities are expected to be able to meet the projected requirements. Little utility infrastructure currently exists on CIDMMA, so it will be necessary to add additional infrastructure to extend utilities (power lines, phone/cable lines, water mains, sanitary sewer lines, etc.) from the part of the city of Portsmouth south of CIDMMA to the vicinity of the proposed project. All such utility work will have environmental permitting requirements to protect wetlands, endangered species, water quality, etc. There will be temporary construction impacts associated with the utility expansion. 1.8.1 Water Supply At full Build-Out, water supply requirements for the proposed container terminal are estimated to be about 70,000 gpd, based on usage at the comparably-sized NIT. The demand will consist of standard commercial/office uses, irrigation for landscaping, and washing of vehicles and equipment. A minimum fireflow of 4,550 gpm at 20 psi residual would also be required. 1 The city of Portsmouth is the primary water supplier for the area of the proposed project. The city has stated that the Lake Kilby Water Treatment Facility has adequate treatment capacity to provide the DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-47 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV projected water demand (City of Portsmouth, April 2002). The city also stated that the existing water distribution system is "unlikely" to meet fire flow and pressure requirements, although a hydraulic modeling analysis would be necessary to make this determination. It is possible that a new elevated storage tank and associated pumps would be required to meet fire flow and pressure requirements. Additional infrastructure (water supply lines) would be required to deliver water from mains in the city of Portsmouth to the CIDMMA container terminal. Although additional infrastructure might be required, water supply demands could be met without adverse impacts to other water customers. 1.8.2 Wastewater At full Build-Out, wastewater treatment requirements for the proposed container terminal are estimated to be about 18,000 gpd, based on usage at the comparably-sized NIT. This will mostly consist of domestic- type wastewater from sinks and toilets, as well as wash water from wash racks. No other industrial wastewater will be generated at the terminal, and the facility will not accept wastewater discharges from ships. The HRSD is the utility that provides wastewater treatment services in the region of the proposed project, and currently treats wastewater from existing VPA container terminals. It is the policy of HRSD to meet all wastewater treatment requirements in the Hampton Roads area by expansion of pipelines or treatment capacity if needed. HRSD has provided a letter stating that the HRSD interceptors in the Portsmouth area have ample capacity to handle the projected flow and that the Nansemond Wastewater Treatment Plant in Suffolk has more than enough capacity to treat the projected flow (HSRD, April 2002). New sanitary sewer lines would be required to convey wastewater from the container terminal to sanitary sewers owned by the city of Portsmouth, which would convey the wastewater to the closest HRSD interceptor. 1.8.3 Energy Power requirements for Phase 1 of the CIDMMA container terminal are estimated to be about 400 kW, whereas power requirements at full Build-Out are estimated to be about 35 MW. Much of this power demand will be for operation of cranes and for lighting. Dominion Virginia Power is the primary provider of electric service in the region and has provided a written statement that electrical service is available to the project location (Dominion Virginia Power, April 2002). The existing Craney Island Substation can provide power to meet the requirements of Phase I, although some upgrades (i.e., a new transformer) will likely be required to meet the electricity demand at full Build-Out. The terminal is likely to have backup electric generators for emergency use. Virginia Natural Gas provides natural gas services in the region. Additional infrastructure would be required to extend gas lines from the city of Portsmouth to the CIDMMA container terminal. Gas requirements for the terminal and secondary development are likely to be relatively small. 1.8.4 Telecommunications Telecommunication services in the region are provided by several companies, including Verizon and Cox Digital Telephone. Cable and internet services are provided by Cox Digital Cable. As with other utilities, the new container terminal would require new cable lines and possibly radio/microwave relay towers. Telecommunications companies could provide services with no adverse impacts on the existing system. 1 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-48 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 1 1.8.5 Relocation of Existing Utilities A Navy fuel line that extends along the east side of the existing CIDMMA will have to be relocated for construction of the new cell. Planning for this action will occur during the PED Phase. An evaluation of environmental impacts associated with the fuel line relocation will occur in collaboration with the Navy during project planning and design and appropriate permitting activities will be undertaken at that time. Compliance with State and Federal regulations for this activity will minimize the potential for adverse environmental impact. C 1.9 WASTE MANAGEMENT 1.9.1 CIDMMA Expansion A TICCIAIO Dlannina 1.9.1.1 Solid Waste Construction of the proposed expansion cell will not produce significant quantities of waste. Any solid waste resulting from cell construction will be disposed of according to applicable state and Federal regulations. Therefore, no impacts are expected. 1.9.1.2 Hazardous Wastes and Materials Hazardous materials or fuel products associated with the activities conducted during the construction phase of the CIDMMA east cell are expected to be minimal. Contractors involved with the construction activities will be required to prepare emergency response plans and waste management plans for any hazardous materials required during the Construction Phase, although no other hazardous materials are expected to be encountered during the construction phase of the project. 4. Figures 1.9.2 Terminal Development 1.9.2.1 Solid Waste There are no firm estimates for solid waste that will be generated at the new terminal. Solid waste generated at existing facilities is minimal and handled by city or contract pick-up services. This solid waste consists of miscellaneous paper, as well as office and maintenance facility materials. Based upon this review, it appears that the proposed port will not significantly impact the area through generation of solid waste, as there are sufficient disposal facilities to handle generated solid waste. 5. List of Prenarere 1.9.2.2 Hazardous Materials Minimal amounts of hazardous materials handled at the terminal and hazardous waste generated at the terminal are expected. In accordance with USDOT guidelines on transporting hazardous materials, the terminal facility will comply with proper handling, storage, and transportation of cargo. Furthermore, efforts to prevent and control hazardous spills and releases will be maintained with the use of the VIT Safety Manual (Emergency Response Plan) and an SPCC, as noted below. In order to minimize potential for environmental impacts related to hazardous materials and waste, the Craney Island terminal will maintain compliance with Federal, state, and local regulations. VIT maintains the VIT Safety Manual, which contains an Emergency Response Plan for responding to Referannas DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-49 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV I hazardous materials releases. Upon observation of a hazardous material release, the cargo facility police will contact the local fire department to respond to the incident. Staff from the local fire department periodically tour the Hampton Roads Terminals to familiarize themselves with the facilities should an incident occur. In addition, the VIT currently has three on-call contractors that may be utilized by the responsible party for cleanup of hazardous releases. According to the VDEQ, several agencies should be contacted in the event of a hazardous materials release of reportable quantity, including: Extremely Hazardous Substance (EHS) Releases Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) Virginia Emergency Response Council (VERC) CERCLA Hazardous Substance Releases Authorities listed for EHS releases National Response Center (NRC) The reportable substances include CERCLA hazardous substances, air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, reaction products, petroleum products, mixture/trade-name products, hazardous waste, mining/mineral extraction waste, and naturally occurring substances. Emergency response equipment, including sand, kitty litter, and absorbents, will be maintained on-site to prepare for emergency situations associated with releases. C In addition to the VIT Safety Manual, which includes an Emergency Response Plan, a SPCC Plan is maintained for the VPA-owned terminals. The SPCC plan is intended to prevent environmental impact caused by hazardous material discharges from vessels and storage tanks. The SPCC contains information including proper transfer of tank contents, regular inspection, and personnel training. As mentioned in Part III, Section 1.9, Handling and Transport of Hazardous Materials, 49 CFR establishes guidelines for the transportation of hazardous materials and will be enforced on the site. The regulation sets guidelines on such items as the documentation, labeling, and storage of hazardous materials. 1.10 LAND USE 1.10.1 CIDMMA Expansion 1.10.1.1 Land Use The 580-acre east expansion of CIDMMA is not anticipated to result in the conversion of land use outside the limits of the eastward expansion and the existing CIDMMA. Construction of the east cell as described previously will take place primarily from the waters east of the existing CIDMMA, and staging areas would be on-site at CIDMMA, requiring temporary use of the adjacent Federal land. Currently CIDMMA operates consistent with a DMMP. Part of the plan calls for use of the existing north, center, and south containment cells to be rotated. Rotation allows for optimal drying of the dredged material within the facility. This will not change. Because the Recommended Plan calls for the east expansion > DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-50 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ! ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV cell to be constructed for future port terminal development, the cell will be rapidly filled, which consists of having dredged material placed into that cell as rapidly as possible without the expansion cell participating in the DMMP cell rotation for optimal drying. During cell construction, the existing CIDMMA and the Rehandling Basin will continue to operate as in the past, receiving dredged material from Hampton Roads Harbor and vicinity. r A review of the Portsmouth General Land Use Plan and the proposed plans for the project reveals that the proposed east cell or the container terminal facility appears to be compatible with the Land Use Plan designation of the industrial uses along the Elizabeth River. Therefore, no adverse impact is expected. i 1 1.10.1.2 Zoning The area of the eastward expansion of CIDMMA appears to be in a USG (U.S. Government) district or would be designated as such in the short-term while the dredged material management area is used for disposal of dredged material. As an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the VPA is not subject to local zoning ordinances; therefore, the CIDMMA will not have to be rezoned in order to develop either the proposed east cell or the container terminal. The city of Portsmouth, however, may choose to rezone the property from USG to either M-1 or M-2 as the site use changes from a USG facility to a container terminal operated by the VPA. Both the M-1 and M-2 districts allow terminal and maintenance facilities for motor freight transportation, as well as railroad transportation and warehousing. These districts also allow other transportation services such as arranging transportation of freight and packing and crating. The M-1 and M-2 zoning classifications would be consistent with the prevailing zoning of land along the Elizabeth River in the city of Portsmouth. No adverse impact is anticipated. ! 1.10.2 Terminal ( 1.10.2.1 Land Use The development of CIDMMA as a container terminal is not anticipated to result in the conversion of land use outside the limits of the eastward expansion. Direct impacts on land uses along the route of the proposed freight rail line are also not anticipated to be significant, as the route, although not finalized at this time, is expected to traverse the existing ROW's of the Craney Island Connector highway and existing VA Route 164 and 1-664. If the final rail corridor substantially deviates from this route, then the land use analysis would be updated as part of supplemental NEPA documentation prepared by the VPA prior to port facility construction. Future land use patterns were based on existing local land use and development plans and the city of Portsmouth 2005 Vision Plan. It was assumed that the area of direct influence on land use alterations extends approximately two miles from the point of access/egress. Moreover, the influence on future land use patterns is likely to be dependent upon the following factors: (1) available vacant land, (2) close access to the facility, and (3) proximate access to a limited access highway/freeway. Land use alteration and conversion would potentially include, but not be limited to: container/shipping related business office operations. Impacts from operation of the terminal, such as increased noise levels from truck and rail freight traffic to and from the terminal, are addressed in Section 1.12. In the short-term during construction, it is anticipated that staging areas would be on-site, requiring no temporary use of adjacent land. Travel to DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-51 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV and from the site by construction workers and trucks delivering supplies, equipment, and construction materials is anticipated to follow the existing and planned major highway system, thereby avoiding local streets and the indirect impacts on land use typically associated with such traffic. 1.11 NOISE 1.11.1 CIDMMA Expansion Noise impacts from diesel or electric-powered dredges will be localized in the specific area being dredged. In addition, dredging activities will occur at sufficient distances from sensitive receptors, such as protected bird species and human residential areas; thus, no excessive and out-of-character noise levels will be experienced. Therefore, no specific noise mitigation measures will be required. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the 580-acre eastward expansion will be localized in the specific construction area subjected to construction equipment and/or dredging. In addition, construction activities will occur at sufficient distances (i.e., greater than 1 mile away) from sensitive receptors, such as protected bird species and human residential areas; thus, no excessive and out- of-character noise levels will be experienced. Therefore, no specific noise mitigation measures will be required. 1.11.2 Terminal Development The FHA "Traffic Noise Model” (TNM) version 1.0b was used in the noise assessment to model future noise levels for the proposed port's Build-Out configuration. In a single model run, the TNM can calculate noise levels over multiple ground cover types, allow for trees and vegetation lines to be inserted at various heights and widths, model various noise barrier types, and allow a background noise input for general terminal noise emissions. C TNM was released in 1997 and updated in 1999 with the release of version 1.0b. This model has been used and improved by the FHA for over 20 years since the inception of its predecessor, the stamina/optima, in 1977. The model computes future noise levels by inputting many different parameters into individual model runs. The model uses its own internal database to compute noise sources using the 1994-1995 noise emission levels for several vehicle types. Heavy trucks and background noise from general port operations were used as the noise sources in the modeling. According to the model, heavy trucks consist of all cargo vehicles with three or more axles, and a general gross weight of more than 12,000 kg (26,400 Ibs.). TNM includes full-throttle noise emission levels for vehicles on upgrades and vehicles accelerating away from the traffic-control devices. The model combines these full-throttle noise emission levels with its internal speed computations to account for the full effect (noise emissions plus speed) of roadway grades and through traffic-control devices. TNM propagates sound energy between roadways and nearby receivers by taking the following factors into account: Intervening ground: its acoustical characteristics and its topography. Intervening barriers: walls, berms, and/or the combination of the two. Intervening rows of buildings. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-52 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV I Intervening areas of heavy vegetation. Various ground cover types such as grass, pavement, water, etc. These factors can be inserted into the model according to their specifications. In this assessment, noise results from the TNM were calculated in LAeqlh, the hourly A-weighted equivalent sound level (FHA, 1998). After all relevant variables were input, the model calculated the noise level at specified distances from the port activities. The model results were then compiled to prepare contour mapping of noise levels southwest across CIDMMA (Figure IV-7). A separate TNM analysis was performed to simulate noise levels to the east across the Elizabeth River. However, contour mapping was not prepared for this latter modeling analysis over water since residential areas to the east are at least 8,000 feet away. The primary source of noise will be from the heavy truck traffic along the western perimeter of the facility. In addition, a background noise 80 dBA source was added to simulate other activities on the port facility. Since NIT is comparable in size to the Build-Out configuration of the proposed Craney Island terminal, the background levels used in this evaluation are the same as in the “November 2000 Noise Study” conducted by Malcolm Pimie for VPA (Malcolm Pimnie, 2000). This was done to provide a conservative background noise level in the model of non-heavy truck traffic noise, such as loading and unloading of containers, berthing of container vessels, straddle carriers, and other machinery at the terminal. This estimate is consistent with noise levels generated from straddle carrier operations at NIT North Terminal and repair facilities located interior to the facility measured by Thomas Bragg and Associates (Thomas Bragg and Associates, 2000). ! 0 TNM version 1.0(b) does not include the ability to add noise levels generated in the model to existing background levels of the community. Therefore, the results depict the terminal noise level generated sources only. This analysis provides a clearer result of the facility impacts since the results are not masked by highly variable existing conditions. 1.11.2.1 Trucks The model is driven primarily by noise generated from the heavy trucks entering, stopping, and leaving the facility. These heavy trucks haul cargo containers to and from the port. Noise produced by these heavy trucks can be attributed to three major generating systems: rolling stock, such as tires and gearing; propulsion systems related to engine and other accessories; and aerodynamic and body systems. Noise levels will vary somewhat depending on vehicle speed and flow control devices (Canter, 1977). Information on terminal operations and truck traffic volumes needed to assure realistic noise levels for the analysis were obtained from Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, who prepared traffic projections on behalf of VPA (Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, April 2002). The terminal would operate on a 24-hour per day schedule; however, the gates may only be open for truck traffic from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, based on hours of operation at existing VPA terminals. As discussed in Section 1.7, terminal truck traffic projections were presented in peak and average daily format from the initiation of Phase I in 2013 to Build-Out in 2050. Only peak daily traffic counts for Build-Out, converted to peak hourly counts, were used in the FHA noise model. > J DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-53 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Peak hourly truck traffic volume was input into the model to predict container terminal noise impacts on CIMMA and the surrounding communities. Based on the traffic projections for the Craney Island terminal, 381 heavy trucks per hour at a speed of 15 miles per hour (mph) were used in the model. This hourly traffic estimate is considered conservatively-high and assumes that peak day truck traffic would be distributed over about a 12-hour period. No flow control devices were used, as the majority of the modeled roadway, the Port access road, is free of flow control devices. 1.11.2.2 Operations Major noise sources during operations would include cranes to load and offload container vessels, loaders to transfer containers to and from warehouses and onto trucks, rail cars, and miscellaneous vehicles and equipment to facilitate cargo movement. In addition to mechanical devices, movement of materials and equipment along with backup beepers also emit noise. As previously discussed, terminal operations noise was modeled as an 80 dBA background noise level. Modeled noise impact results are based on the cumulative sound level results from operations and heavy truck traffic at the proposed terminal. Noise level modeling results are presented in Table IV-18. Table IV-18. NOISE LEVEL RESULTS Build-Out Truck Traffic Distance from Port Facility and Terminal Operations Trains (feet) (dBA) (1) (dBA) (2) Over Land Over Water 100 66.7 71.0 82 500 53.4 59.8 69 1,000 46.4 54.1 62.2 2,000 39.9 47.9 55.9 4,000 36.0 41.1 52.4 6,000 31.5 36.9 47.7 8,000 28.1 33.7 44.3 (1) TNM results. (2) Train noise levels were calculated using a noise level of 87 dBA at 50 feet, which dissipates at a rate of 3 to 6 dBA for every doubling of distance. (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 1998) a 1.11.2.3 Trains It is envisioned that a double-track rail line would connect the proposed terminal to the mainline. The intermodal rail yard would have sufficient loading and storage to accommodate the anticipated cargo throughput. It was assumed that approximately six to seven (inbound or outbound) trains would occur per day, with three locomotives per train. The train length would range between 5,000 and 7,000 feet. The trains would move at a rate of approximately 20 mph on the mainline closer to the terminal and slower within the yard. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-54 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 1 Noise from a freight train pass-by is produced by a combination of two distinct elements: noise emitted by the locomotive and noise emitted by the freight cars. Locomotive noise is dominated by the exhaust components located atop the engine. Engine noise is dependent on engine load (power setting) and is independent of speed. Locomotive noise is also dominated by low frequencies. Freight car noise is dominated by the wheel/rail interaction. At close distances, the contribution of both the engine and cars are identifiable. Acoustical calculations were performed to estimate noise from freight trains. According to Parsons Brinckerhoff's “Rail Feasibility Study” conducted for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, typical noise levels of a freight train are about 87 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the train (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 1998; Wyle Laboratories, 1973). The sound will dissipate at a rate of 3 to 6 dBA for every doubling of distance. Therefore, while a train traveling at the terminal will emit high sound levels, the levels will have dissipated considerably when they reach sensitive receptors in the neighboring communities. Noise level calculations for trains are presented in Table III-18. . 3 ! Some land uses are considered sensitive to noise. Sensitive receptors are land uses associated with indoor and/or outdoor activities that may be subject to stress and/or significant interference from noise. These sensitive land uses often include residential dwellings, mobile homes, hotels, motels, educational facilities, and libraries. Industrial and commercial land uses are generally not considered sensitive to ambient noise. V The closest sensitive receptors to the proposed terminal location are the residential neighborhood of Edgewater in Norfolk, approximately 8,000 feet to the east across the Elizabeth River, and Churchland High School and Churchland Park (expansive recreational area), both located in Portsmouth, approximately 9,000 feet to the southwest. The Edgefield and Merrifields subdivisions and Rivermill Townhouses are located in Portsmouth about 10,000 to 11,000 feet southwest of the proposed terminal boundary. Cinnea r Noise levels in the area are expected to increase from 2002 levels because of projected increased development in the area. Modeled future noise levels show an increase in ambient noise levels along the eastern boundary of CIDMMA, directly adjacent to the proposed port. However, the noise modeling results presented in Table III-18, indicate that, under proposed terminal Build-Out conditions, noise levels from operations, heavy truck traffic, and trains will not adversely affect any sensitive receptors, due to the large distances (8,000 feet or more) between the proposed port footprint and the closest sensitive receptors. Furthermore, no residential areas will be exposed to sound levels that approach the FHA noise abatement criterion of 67 dBA for “Activity Category B.” ) 1.12 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES 1.12.1 CIDMMA Expansion Visual experience is dependent upon the pattern of the land (the topography), the pattern of water bodies, vegetation, and manmade development. The topography in the study area is relatively flat. Elevated structures are easily visible due to the slight relief. Conversely, viewers can generally see long distances 3 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-55 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV from locations that are only slightly higher than the surrounding area. The Hampton Roads water body separates most viewers from the existing CIDMMA and the proposed expansion area. In order to assess projects impacts, the following rating scale (and definitions) was used to determine the degree of change in a particular viewshed: No Impact – The project will not be visible to viewers of the facility; thus, no impacts would - Occur. . Low Impact – The view of the proposed facility will produce a low impact if a view of the facility is partially obstructed; if the visual resources in the viewshed are of minimal quality; if there are other sources of visual intrusions in the viewshed; or if there is little or no visual contrast between the proposed facility and the existing landscape unit. Medium Impact – The view of the proposed facility will produce a medium impact if the facility produces an obvious change in the viewshed; or if there is a moderate contrast between the proposed facility and the existing landscape unit. High Impact – The view of the proposed facility will produce a high impact if the facility is located in the foreground of the viewshed resulting in a strong contrast with the surrounding landscape unit; if the facility alters the distinctive qualities of the viewshed; or if the proposed facility is located within areas of visual diversity. Viewsheds for this project were based on the locations from which the proposed east expansion can be seen (i.e., areas within view of the existing CIDMMA). Within each viewshed, particular views are indicative of the character of the viewshed. Potential viewers identified in the study area are primarily residents in Norfolk and Portsmouth waterfront neighborhoods. Based on the above, the impacts of the east cell expansion on the area's visual and aesthetic resources will range from no impact to low impact due to: 1.) the distance between the proposed site and the viewer(s) of the east cell; 2.) the fact that the existing CIDMMA obstructs most views of the proposed expansion site, especially from land; and, 3.) the imperceptible visual difference between the proposed expansion and the existing (adjacent) 2,500-acre CDMMA, when viewed from most distances across the water or landscape. According to Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) records, several architectural resources have a viewshed of the proposed port facility (VDHR, March 2002) (VDHR correspondence included in appendices). However, the viewsheds for these properties would not be impacted by development of the port facility. As discussed in Section III (historic and archaeological resources), the architectural resources are currently surrounded by naval and industrial development, and most are currently used to support industrial or military activities. In addition, none of the identified architectural resources appear to have been evaluated for eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (VDHR, March 2002). DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-56 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 1.12.2 Terminal 7 Indav 1.12.2.1 Ambient Light Levels The proposed terminal facility would result in an increase in nighttime ambient light levels resulting from general lighting and security lighting at the property boundaries of the container terminal. The port facility would also receive light reflections off of surrounding water bodies. Viewsheds for residential communities should not experience increases in nighttime ambient light levels from operation of the proposed port due to the distance of those areas from the port boundary. Nightglow impacts are also expected to be minimal due to the already existing nightglow characteristics from industrial sites and bridges in the area. Waterfront properties in the Edgewater residential neighborhood, especially properties without a vegetative buffer, may experience increased nighttime ambient light levels due to port operation; however, this community currently experiences nightglow impacts from nearby port terminals. A. USFWS Planning 1.12.2.2 Construction Impacts Construction of the terminal facility would occur in phases; however, the first phase of the terminal would provide the most significant alteration to viewsheds of the project area. Initial construction would change the viewshed of sensitive receptors from an unvegetated dredged material containment area to an industrial facility. Further northward expansion of the port facility would continue to alter the viewshed, but to a lesser degree, since the viewshed would already have been compromised by Phase I port development. The proposed port facility is a container facility that, when completely built out, will consist of container yards, several container vessel berths with 20 cargo cranes, and support facilities. Changes in the visual character of the proposed port facility area would not likely affect nearby industrial properties. 4. Figures 1.13 RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL USE OF WATERS 1.13.1 CIDMMA Expansion and Terminal Development 1.13.1.1 Commercial Shipping Traffic forecasts and associated vessel call data for the proposed terminal were estimated by Moffatt & Nichol Engineers on behalf of the VPA (Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, April 2002). As forecasted, the Craney Island terminal would generate an additional 470 vessel calls to the Port of Hampton Roads by 2018, when the Craney Island terminal throughput is expected to reach 600,000 TEU's, with a further 300 vessel calls at Build-Out in 2050. This represents a 55 percent increase in current (year 2002) container/RORO vessel traffic. According to the Virginia Pilots, the anticipated increase in vessel traffic from 9 to 15 weekly calls under Phase I and Build-Out, respectively, could be accommodated and would not be expected to significantly affect safety in the harbor (Virginia Pilots Association, April 2002). 5. List of Pranarers 1.13.2.2 Commercial Fishing The Elizabeth River and waters surrounding the proposed eastward expansion and port facility serve as habitat for commercially-important species including blue crab, Atlantic croaker, and other commercial fish species. A moderate amount of commercial fishing, including the use of gill nets, occurs in the area 6 References DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-57 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV adjacent to the east side of the existing CIDMMA for spot, croaker, and striped bass (VMRC, April 2002). Blue crabs are harvested from the waters to the east of CIDMMA for the local seafood market and export from the Chesapeake Bay area. Dredging would be required to provide foundation conditions for the proposed east cell construction and create access channels. These dredging activities, including the area between the navigation channel and proposed wharf at the east cell expansion site, would be completed regardless of port development and would provide 55-foot deep inbound and outbound channels to accommodate deep draft ships. Localized impacts on commercial fishing may occur due to port operations since vessel traffic would prevent the area from being fished. In particular, some local commercial gill netting and crabbing activities may be relocated outside of the proposed channel area. The loss of benthic habitat due to project construction is expected to have a negligible effect on commercial fishing in Chesapeake Bay and vicinity. Benthic species of commercial importance, such as hard clams, Mercenaria mercenaria, were almost totally non-existent in the project footprint in recent surveys. Biomass per unit area of open bottom in the proposed project impact area is low. The limited . commercial crabbing and fishing that occurs in the project impact area is expected to relocate to adjacent areas within the adjoining tributaries and Chesapeake Bay. 1.13.1.3 Recreational Boating and Fishing Recreational boating and fishing in the Hampton Roads Harbor will grow commensurate with projected population growth in the region. Organized boating events would continue to be conducted in similar fashion as today; traffic due to this type of activity would also be expected to increase in direct relation to the number of recreational vessels. Vessel traffic caused by recreational fishing cannot be predicted due to seasonal or periodic changes due to fluctuations in supply or demand for seafood products, the impact of disease or invasive species, and other natural phenomena. ç The 580-acre east cell expansion will displace all recreational boating and fishing within the boundaries of the cell's footprint. Again, mitigation will be provided to enhance and restore fish habitat and feeding areas. Mitigation efforts are anticipated to result in a more diverse and abundant recreational fish population than that displaced by the CIDMMA expansion. Rip-rap placed on the dike surfaces will provide attachment surfaces for fish food organisms and associated feeding areas for fish. An increase in commercial traffic may result in increased conflicts between commercial vessels and recreational boats in the Craney Island Reach of Hampton Roads between the proposed container terminal and the mouth of the Elizabeth River. These potential conflicts would likely result in the voluntary displacement of recreational boaters to other areas of Hampton Roads as they seek less congested areas, especially in the case of recreational boaters traveling across the Craney Island Reach and the Norfolk Harbor Reach to arrive at their destinations. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-58 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 1 1.14 ECONOMICS 1.14.1 CIDMMA Expansion - Direct, Indirect and Induced Impacts The no-action alternative will have direct, indirect and induced impacts in the local and regional economies. Direct impacts consist of employment and the purchase of goods and services required to construct an eastward expansion. For users of the eastern expansion, direct impacts are created as these users dredge berthing areas, access channels, marinas or private docks at reduced dredging costs both in the immediate short-term and the long-term. > 5 Indirect impacts include the effect on other industrial and service sectors of the economy caused by the direct activity of the eastern expansion. These include the impacts resulting from off-site businesses providing the expansion or users of the expansion with services, materials, machinery or other resources necessary to support their original dredging needs. 3 ! Induced impacts are the result of the re-investment of the direct and indirect impacts into the local and regional economy through successive rounds of inter-industry and household spending and re-spending. For example, spending by an individual directly employed by a dredge operator becomes new income for businesses that, in turn, pay wages to employees, invest or re-spend what they earn. Successive rounds of spending create more sales revenues, jobs, personal income, and tax earnings. 1 Not withstanding the effects of the construction costs of the eastern expansion on the local and regional economies, the overall degree of the direct, indirect and induced impacts will be relatively minor. The eastern expansion provides a service to the dredging community that is already available, albeit at a slightly lower cost due to shorter pipe lengths. This beneficial direct impact will end in the short-term as the eastern expansion is rapidly filled. The long-term beneficial direct impact will begin to occur in 2025 as the increased capacity is realized and ocean disposal can be avoided for approximately 3 years. The indirect and induced impacts would be expected to follow suit with the direct impacts in their timing and longevity. 1 Construction of an eastward expansion will have direct, indirect and induced impacts in the local and regional economies. Direct impacts consist of employment and the purchase of goods and services required to construct an eastward expansion. For users of the eastern expansion, direct impacts are created as these users dredge berthing areas, access channels, marinas or private docks at reduced dredging costs both in the immediate short-term and the long-term. Indirect impacts include the effect on other industrial and service sectors of the economy caused by the direct activity of the eastern expansion. These include the impacts resulting from off-site businesses providing the expansion or users of the expansion with services, materials, machinery or other resources necessary to support their original dredging needs. > , Induced impacts are the result of the re-investment of the direct and indirect impacts into the local and regional economy through successive rounds of inter-industry and household spending and re-spending. For example, spending by an individual directly employed by a dredge operator becomes new income for businesses that, in turn, pay wages to employees, invest or re-spend what they earn. Successive rounds of spending create more sales revenues, jobs, personal income, and tax earnings. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-59 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Not withstanding the effects of the construction costs of the eastern expansion on the local and regional economies, the overall degree of the direct, indirect and induced impacts will be relatively minor. The eastern expansion provides a service to the dredging community that is already available, albeit at a slightly lower cost due to shorter pipe lengths. This beneficial direct impact will end in the short-term as the eastern expansion is rapidly filled. The long-term beneficial direct impact will begin to occur in 2025 as the increased capacity is realized and ocean disposal can be avoided for approximately 3 years. The indirect and induced impacts would be expected to follow suit with the direct impacts in their timing and longevity. 1.14.2 Terminal Development - Direct, Indirect and Induced Impacts Port activity generates direct, indirect, and induced impacts in the local and regional economies. Direct impacts consist of employment and purchases of goods and services required to move cargo through the port, produce goods that are shipped via the port, or build new port facilities. The direct impacts include the initial round of spending generated by the port industry, port user industries, and port capital spending. For port users, direct impacts are generated as industries sell exported or imported goods or use them in production. Port industry direct impacts are created as revenues are earned from handling and transporting cargo through VPA facilities. To describe it another way, the direct impacts are the initial sales revenue, employment, personal income, and state and local impacts created from Hampton Roads' port users and port industry import/export activities through the VPA's port system. All direct impacts are economic catalysts for creation of indirect and induced impacts. Indirect impacts include the effect on other industrial and service sectors of the economy caused by the direct activity of the port. These include the impacts resulting from off-site businesses providing port user and port industry firms with services, materials, machinery or other resources necessary to support their original port-related activities. This includes the economic activity between industries supported by the purchase of supplies, services, labor, and other inputs. Induced impacts are the result of the multiplier or ripple effect. The multiplier effect occurs when direct and indirect impacts are re-injected into the local and regional economy through successive rounds of inter-industry and household spending and re-spending. For example, spending by an individual directly employed by a terminal becomes new income for businesses that, in turn, pay wages to employees, invest, or re-spend what they earn. Successive rounds of spending create more sales revenues, jobs, personal income, and tax earnings. 1.14.3 Measurements of Economic Benefit The economic impact on the Hampton Roads region and the Commonwealth of Virginia consists of employment, sales revenues, income, and taxes. This analysis reports direct impacts as well as indirect and induced impacts for these measurements. Employment is the most important indicator from the perspective of growth and development requirements within the region. It is employment that drives the population growth estimates, generating the most impact in the built environment. Income resulting from employment is a measure of the support for growth and development that would occur within the region during the analysis period. Wages, in combination with manufacturing and spin-off development, would create value within the region, ultimately generating income and real estate taxes to help fund the services and improvements necessary to sustain this level of growth and development along with an acceptable standard of living. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-60 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Wages received by employees are spent on housing, food, clothing, and other required living expenses. Subsequently, these expenditures serve as income to those providing services to households. Subsequent expenditures continue to multiply as long as they are captured within the region. The port's economic impact on the Nation is calculated by identifying transportation cost savings that would be generated by building a Craney Island terminal. If the terminal is not built, the Port of Virginia expects to experience significant capacity shortfalls by 2015. Cargo bound for Norfolk would need to be re-routed to alternate ports, which, in many cases, would incur additional landside transportation costs. 1.14.4 Terminal Operation The economic impacts of the construction, operation, and related distribution center activity generated by the proposed CIDMMA container terminal have been estimated using input-output multipliers developed by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The multipliers used reflect national averages, rather than a Virginia-specific impact in terms of employment, output, and income resulting from changes in demand due to each phase of the project. The projections in terms of economic impact resulting from the full Build-Out of the Craney Island terminal site are conceptual in nature. ! Construction of the four phases of CIDMMA, with total estimated construction costs of $1.28 billion, is expected to provide direct and indirect employment for more than 1,100 individuals in construction and other industries over the 20-year construction period (2013-2032), generating earnings of approximately $734 million and $1.4 billion in final output to the economy. m Phase One Operations are projected to be fully underway by 2018, and demand for CIDMMA, measured in TEU's, is projected to be 600,000 TEU's. This throughput would generate an estimated 8,000 new jobs located at the terminal and throughout the transportation sector, $250 million in annual income, and $730 million in average annual output throughout the state (Employment and dollar figure estimates averaged over 2013-2032 study period) (Moffat & Nichol, 2004). Another 10,000 jobs, $300 million in annual wages, and $1 billion in total annual output would be produced downstream in the supply chain due to distribution center activity spurred on by the development of CIDMMA. Income taxes derived from this payroll are estimated at approximately $113 million. The full Build-Out condition of CIDMMA is currently projected for the year 2032. At that point, demand for Craney's facilities is projected to reach 2.5 million TEU's, resulting in increased local benefits over the 50-year study period. Annual averages will be 27,000 permanent jobs throughout Virginia's economy, $870 million in earnings, and $2.5 billion in average annual output. These jobs are at the terminal and in the inland transportation system sector. Port-oriented distribution centers add an additional 25,000 jobs, $788 million in annual earnings, and $2.7 billion in output. Resulting income taxes are estimated at approximately $155 million. Development of a new container terminal at CIDMMA and the resulting benefits to the local and regional economy are also likely to have a beneficial effect on the real estate market and property values in the city of Portsmouth as well as other communities in the region. For instance, a decline in existing home sales in the region during the year 2000 has been associated with a slowing regional economy (HRPDC, 2001). An improvement in the economy associated with the proposed Craney Island terminal would likely lead to an increase in demand for new and existing homes. This increased demand would contribute to an J DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-61 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV increase in home prices and property values that will benefit owners of real property and, indirectly, the city of Portsmouth through increased tax revenues associated with higher property values. This increase is not likely to be offset by any other impacts, such as increased noise levels and/or truck and rail traffic, as increased truck traffic would be primarily limited to existing and planned major highways and the new rail line connection, while not finalized, would strive to stay within the median or ROW's of the CIDMMA connector highway and existing VA Route 164 and 1-664. In the short-term, construction of the Craney Island terminal will result in the creation of almost 1,200 jobs during all four phases of construction. Earnings from employment during all four phases of construction are estimated at approximately $734 million. Expenditures for materials, equipment, and labor will generate approximately $1.4 billion in total output to the local and regional economy. In the long-term, the annual operation of the Craney Island terminal would have a positive impact on the Hampton Roads region and the Commonwealth of Virginia by generating over 13,000 direct jobs, 14,000 indirect jobs, and another 25,000 jobs from distribution center activity. It is anticipated that some of the indirect jobs would be new positions. It is anticipated that increased revenue and activity from operation of the Craney Island terminal would also provide for continued employment of individuals already working in sectors of the local and regional economy that presently benefit from port activity in the Hampton Roads region. It is anticipated that direct and indirect employment generated by CIDMMA operations will provide average annual earnings of $870 million and $2.5 billion in total output and that distribution center operations will add another $788 million in wages and $2.7 billion in total output. C The local economy, the Commonwealth, and the Nation will also benefit from increased generation of local sales taxes from purchases made as a result of the new terminal, workers directly employed by the terminal, and workers indirectly employed by businesses in the region. Payroll taxes are estimated at approximately $84 million per year from port operations and inland transportation and another $71 million from the distribution centers. 1.15 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 1.15.1 CIDMMA Expansion and Terminal Development The proposed CIDMMA expansion and port development would not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority communities. The site for these proposed activities is located within a portion of the city of Portsmouth with a smaller minority population much less than the overall minority population for the city and a smaller minority population than the Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News MSA. a The city of Portsmouth has a much higher percentage of residents in poverty and has a significantly lower median household income than both the Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News MSA and the Commonwealth. However, based upon the analysis conducted for this assessment, it was determined that activities associated with the proposed alternative would not have significant adverse impacts on low- income communities within the city of Portsmouth. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-62 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV No minority or low-income residents will be displaced by development of the new cell or terminal. The proposed access roads servicing the terminal will be sited entirely within the expansion area of CIDMMA, and the proposed rail corridors providing access to the port facility will likely be located within existing VDOT ROW's; therefore, the road and rail corridors should not displace minority or low- income residents. C Some minor and short-term adverse impacts to various environmental resources are expected to occur from project construction; however, long-term benefits to the community are anticipated due to potential employment opportunities and increased demand for local services. Therefore, no further environmental justice analysis appears warranted. 1.16 PUBLIC SAFETY 1.16.1 CIDMMA Expansion and Terminal Development The HRPDC has projected that the population of Portsmouth will decline until the year 2011. From 1980 to 2000, the population of Portsmouth declined by about 4,000 persons (see Section 18.0). As a result, no substantial increase in public services, including fire protection, law enforcement, and emergency medical services would be expected. Beyond the year 2011, as the demand for public services increases, additional paid and volunteer firefighters, law enforcement officers, and emergency medical personnel will be required. More equipment and stations will also be needed. Forecasting future public safety services requires thorough analysis of the local provider's capacity including evaluation of fire alarm facilities, analysis of the water supply system, fire department training, manpower, equipment, and station facilities. Analysis of response time is also an important consideration when evaluating the need for additional public safety facilities and personnel. The need for emergency medical services should be based upon the response time of available units, the level of professional training of the emergency service personnel, as well as the type of transport vehicles and equipment available. 1 The development and operation of the new cell and terminal are not anticipated to adversely affect, or to be affected by, various elements of public safety in the project area. It is anticipated that residential, commercial, and industrial growth would continue into the future consistent with any growth projections. This would result in a commensurate growth in public safety services in the project area. This situation is expected to be adequate to serve the new cell and terminal facilities. Development and operation of the terminal would not affect hurricane evacuation. Fire protection, law enforcement, and other public services and infrastructure would continue to expand in response to the projected regional growth in the Hampton Roads area. In order to provide adequate protection to support this growth, additional staffing of these services would be required to maintain the current levels of service in the vicinity of the proposed terminal, whether or not the facilities are constructed. The efficiency of hurricane evacuation routes is dependent on growth and would be affected on a cumulative basis as the region continues to develop regardless of the terminal. D 3 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-63 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 1.17 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1.17.1 CIDMMA Expansion No historical/cultural resources have been identified in the approximately 580-acres to be filled, nor in the adjacent berthing area and access channels for the terminal; thus, no impacts to such resources are anticipated in these areas. No mitigation measures are required for these areas. However, no identification of cultural resources have been carried out for the areas that would be affected by the overall mitigation plan that currently includes wetlands restoration, sediment clean-up, and oyster reef restoration at various locations throughout the Elizabeth and James Rivers. In the next phase of this study, additional studies will be necessary to determine if there are any such resources at the mitigation sites, what the effects on such resources will be, and what historical/cultural resources mitigation, if any, will be necessary. 1.17.2 Terminal Development Several architectural resources were identified within a 1-mile radius of the proposed port facility; however, none of the properties would be directly impacted by development of the port facility. The architectural resources identified by VDHR include three sites in the city of Norfolk: Maritime Terminals Numbers 6, 7, and 8 at the Norfolk Naval Base; the Norfolk and Western Grain Elevator Complex located at the Sewells Point Terminal, just south of the Norfolk Naval Base; and NIT. The Norfolk and Westem Grain Elevator Complex was constructed in the early 1920's and consists of a large grain elevator or "headhouse,” a gantry, silos, railroad tracts, pier, and warehouses. The Sewells Point Terminal is typical of industrial construction during this time and does not possess significant design associations that would meet Criterion C of the eligibility criteria for inclusion on the NRHP (VDHR, June 2001). Other architectural resources identified within a 1-mile radius of the project site include the following sites located in the city of Portsmouth, just south of the project area: Craney Island Fuel Terminal in the Norfolk Harbor and five buildings located on the Craney Island Naval Fuel Depot. According to VDHR, none of these sites appear to have been evaluated for eligibility for inclusion on the NRHP (VDHR, March 2002). The sites are surrounded by naval and industrial development, including Naval Station Norfolk, NIT, PMT, Lambert's Point Coal Terminals, and the U.S. Naval Supply Center. Most of these architectural resources are currently used to support industrial or military activities. The proposed port facility and immediate access roadways will be constructed on manmade land comprising CIDMMA; therefore, no cultural resources would be impacted by construction of the port facility or immediate access roadways. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the proposed rail corridor would be located within the VDOT roadway ROW to the maximum extent practicable. The final rail corridor location has not been determined. However, as currently envisioned, the rail corridor would be located within cleared ROW of VDOT's connector highway from CIDMMA to VA Route 164. The rail corridor would then continue west paralleling VA Route 164 to 1-664, then continue south along 1-664 to the Norfolk Southern and CSX railways near the Hampton Roads Airport in Suffolk, VA. If the final rail corridor substantially deviates from this route, then the historic and archaeological resource impact analysis would be updated as part of supplemental NEPA documentation prepared by VPA prior to port facility construction. The Cultural Resource Group of Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. (Berger), conducted an intensive cultural resources survey of the crossing alternatives proposed in the VDOT HRC Study FEIS (Berger, DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-64 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 2001), which is included as an appendix to the VDOT FEIS (VDOT, 2001). Crossing alternatives evaluated in the study include the CIDMMA connector highway and expansion of 1-664 from VA Route 164 to 1-64. The study, based on background research and field evaluations, concluded that the CIDMMA connector highway would not impact cultural resources eligible for inclusion or listed on the NRHP (VDOT, 2001). Therefore, it can be assumed that construction of the rail spur within the CIDMMA connector highway ROW would likewise not impact cultural resources eligible for inclusion or listed on the NRHP. From the CIDMMA connector highway, the proposed rail spur would continue west within the existing VA Route 164 ROW. When constructed in the late 1980's, the VA Route 164 freeway was designed to support eastbound and westbound rail corridors within the median. No reports are on file with VDHR for cultural resource investigations associated with construction of the VA Route 164 freeway in Portsmouth, Virginia (VDHR, April 2002). VDOT was also unable to locate information regarding any cultural resource investigations completed for the VA Route 164 freeway (VDOT, April 2002). If present, archaeological resources within the VA Route 164 median would likely have been impacted by road construction. No historic structures are located within the VA Route 164 median. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources within the VA Route 164 median, if present, are assumed to be negligible. At the intersection of VA Route 164 and 1-664, the proposed rail corridor would continue south within the 1-664 ROW to connect with the Norfolk Southern and CSX railways. This portion of 1-664 was also evaluated in the VDOT HRC Study FEIS. Based on the results of the intensive cultural resources survey, one possibly significant archaeological site (Site 44CS244) and a previously recorded cemetery (Site 44CS93- Old New Hope Cemetery) lie adjacent to 1-664 (VDOT, 2001). Site 44CS244 contains both prehistoric and historic components and is located in the city of Chesapeake. Use of the Old New Hope Cemetery in the city of Chesapeake dates from the 1920's to the present. Based on current conceptual engineering design, these sites would be avoided, and impacts would not occur (VDOT, 2001). Therefore, it can be assumed that construction of the rail corridor within the VDOT 1-664 ROW would also not impact cultural resources eligible for inclusion or listed on the NRHP. No temporary or permanent impacts to cultural resources are anticipated from construction of the proposed port facility, access roads, or rail corridors. However, prior to final design of the port facility, access roads, and rail corridor, the SHPO would be consulted to determine additional information needs regarding historic resources in the project vicinity. ) 1.18 SECONDARY GROWTH 1.18.1 Residential Growth The majority of the 568 persons estimated to be employed under full Build-Out of the CIDMMA container terminal will likely already reside within the Hampton Roads region. Some of the 250 administrative staff may not already reside in the region and would, therefore, relocate to the region. Nevertheless, the number of relocations is not anticipated to be significant and would likely be accommodated by the existing housing stock in the region. Additionally, the estimated 3,890 indirect and induced jobs that may result from direct employment and sales generated by the CIDMMA facility are D J DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-65 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV expected to be filled by existing residents in the region. Therefore, operation of the CDMA container facility is not anticipated to generate significant new residential development within the region. 1.18.2 Commercial Development The additional jcbs and sales generated by the CIDYVA container terminal are anticipated to generate additional jobs and revenue in several sectors of the local and regional economy. Existing commercial establishments are expected to be the beneficiaries of a majority of this increased econcmic activity. However, it is anticipated that new establishments would be built in the study area Some of these new businesses are likely to be accommodated by existing vacant/underutilized or planned commercial facilities in Portsmouth and throughout the region. Other commercial or industrial development could occur on existing brownfields, which in Newport News are contributing more and more to redevelopment of that city. While the magnitude of commercial development resulting from the Craney Island terminal is uncertain, any new commercial development is likely to have a beneficial impact on the city of Portsmouth through the creation of additional jobs, potential reduction in the unemployment rate, and increase in retail sales and other tax revenues. The beneficial impacts would be realized in the short-term during new construction of renovation of existing facilities and in the long-term through continued operations of commercial facilities. 1.18.3 Industrial Development As stated previously, the additional jobs and sales generated by the CIDMMA container terminal are anticipated to generate additional jobs and revenue in several sectors of the local and regional economy. Other related industries are expected to be the beneficiaries of a majority of this increased economic activity. However, it is anticipated that new industrial activity, such as warehousing would be generated in the study area. Some of this activity is likely to be accommodated by existing or planned industrial development in Portsmouth and throughout the region. Other industrial development could occur on existing brownfields, which in Newport News are contributing more and more to redevelopment of that city. Although the magnitude of industrial development resulting from the Craney Island terminal is uncertain, any new development or redevelopment of existing industrial property or facilities is likely to have a beneficial impact on the city of Portsmouth through the creation of additional jobs, potential reduction in the unemployment rate, and increase in sales and other tax revenues. The beneficial impacts would be realized in the short-term during new construction or renovation of existing facilities and in the long-term through continued operations of industrial facilities. Operation of the proposed container terminal is not anticipated to have a significant adverse affect on population growth or associated residential development, as most jobs that would be created at the Craney Island terminal, or at other businesses indirectly benefiting from the Recommended Plan, are expected to be filled by workers already living in the region. A beneficial effect on commercial and industrial development, however, is anticipated, as new businesses or expanded businesses that would serve the Craney Island terminal are likely to be located at existing facilities or on redeveloped sites. This development would benefit the region in the short-term through the generation of construction jobs related to new construction or facility renovation work. In the long-term, the region will benefit from increased employment, the purchase of goods and services, and the tax revenues generated by this development. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-66 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 1.19 COASTAL ZONE RESOURCES AND PERMITS 7 indav In accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program (VCRMP), the proposed project has been evaluated for consistency with coastal development policies. Application submission for appropriate permits will ensure compliance with VCRMP and the Coastal Zone Management Act. The VDEQ serves as the lead agency for Virginia's networked coastal zone management program. VDEQ will evaluate the findings of this DEIS, based upon the USACE consistency determination that the USACE will obtain and comply with all approvals from agencies administering the applicable enforceable policies, as well as comments received from coastal management agencies. VDEQ will then comment as to whether the findings of this document regarding the proposed project are consistent with the Virginia Coastal Program. All applicable water and/or wetland permits have not been applied for at the time of the preparation of this DEIS but will be obtained prior to construction. These may include, but may not necessarily be limited to, a VDEQ Virginia Water Protection permit pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, a VMRC permit for encroaching on state bottom pursuant to Title 28.2 and 62.1 of the Code of Virginia, an USACE Section 404 of the CWA permit, and local Wetlands Board Permit. A USEWS Plannina 1.20 SAND BORROW FOR DIKE CONSTRUCTION 4 Finures In order to construct the dikes, sand will be dredged from offshore borrow areas by hopper dredge. Once transported to the eastward expansion site, the material will be offloaded using a self-contained offshore transfer station buoy ("SCOTS buoy"). The Atlantic Ocean Channel is designated as the primary source of material for dike construction, with Thimble Shoal and Cape Henry Channels as secondary sources. It has been a long-standing policy of the USACE to use dredged material in a way that is of benefit to local, state, and Federal interests in the vicinity of navigation projects. In particular, this means using dredged material of suitable quality and quantity for construction, placement on nearby shorelines and beaches, or other beneficial uses. Significant quantities of material suitable for dike construction are expected to be available in these channels. As mentioned previously, ESA Section 7 consultation has been completed for dredging in these channels. Environmental impacts related to dredging in these channels have also been addressed in project specific NEPA documents (Table IV-19). After specific engineering and design information is developed during PED, and sand requirements are more specifically identified, unaddressed impacts, if any, may be handled in a Supplemental EIS. 1.21 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS A cumulative effects assessment (CEA) of the eastward expansion of the CIDMMA (including terminal development) was prepared for the Norfolk District, USACE, by the University of Oklahoma (Canter, 2004). A multi-step methodology developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was used as the framework for the study. Three primary work elements were involved: (1) reconnaissance visits to the Norfolk District and the CIDMMA; (2) the procurement, evaluation, and summarization of more than 50 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-67 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV pertinent reference documents and materials; and (3) the preparation of the CEA report. Pertinent text from the report is provided below, while the entire CEA document is contained in EIS, Appendix C. Table IV-19. NEPA DOCUMENTS AND BORROW AREAS Report and NEPA Date Placement Site Borrow Site(s) Identified Document VB BEHP - Feasibility FEIS: 19 Va. Beach Ocean bottom offshore Report and EIS September. between 49th and Chesapeake Bay off Lynnhaven 1972 89th streets Inlet Thimble Shoal Channel 23 August • Va. Beach Eastern portion of Thimble (Maintenance Dredging), 1973 Shoal Channel FEIS (maintenance material) VB, VB Erosion Control 1 August 1975 Va. Beach Thimble Shoal Channel FEIS (maintenance material) VB BEHP - Phase I HD 99-216 Va. Beach Offshore VB oceanfront GDM and Supplemental dated 1986; between 49th and Atlantic Ocean Channel EIS Supplement 1, 89th streets FEIS:22 February 1985 Final Supplement 1, 14 June 1985 Va. Beach Atlantic Ocean Channel Norfolk Harbor and East end of Thimble Shoal Channel Channels, Deepening and Disposal, FEIS VB BEHP - Phase 2 January 1989 Va. Beach Thimble Shoal Channel GDM between 49th and 89th streets VB BEHP - Phase 1 1994 Va. Beach Thimble Shoal Channel General Reevaluation between 49th and Report, EA (1) 89th streets Limited Reevaluation 1997 Va. Beach Truck-haul from upland between Rudee Report (Beach borrow site Nourishment Project) Inlet and 49th street Final EIS, Baltimore 1981 • Beneficial Cape Henry, York Spit, and Harbor and Channels uses when Rappahannock Shoal - VA available Channels Deepening, MD and VA (1) EA deals with storm water drainage modifications and ESA Section 7 consultation for sea turtles - - DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-68 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Cumulative effects refer to the impacts (effects) on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFA's) regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts (effects) can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). This definition encompasses the following implications relative to the CEA study: 7 Index The action refers to the construction and completion of an eastward expansion of the CIDMMA on about 580 acres of shallow bottom habitat (the expansion includes the construction of containment dikes, and the filling of the new cell to an elevation of about 12.0 feet above the MLW level) and the subsequent construction and operation of a marine terminal. For those cumulative effects that need to be addressed, it is necessary to consider the direct and indirect effects of past, present, and RFFA's on the affected resources, ecosystems, and human communities (past actions can include those in the area prior to and during the construction and use of the CIDMMA, as well the 40 [+] years of placement of dredged material at the CIDMMA; present actions include those involving on-going dredging and materials placement in the CIDMMA and other projects that are under construction in the area; and RFFA's include those beyond mere speculation but within the time frame for analysis). A. USFWS Planning The respective actions may have been, or will be, the result of decisions made by various governmental levels (Federal, state, or local) or the private sector; further, such actions may be on or nearby the CIDMMA, or off-site (the key issue is that common resources, ecosystems, or human communities are being affected). 4. Figures а Five RFFA's of particular relevance to this study are the deepening of the inbound lanes of the Norfolk Harbor Channel and the Craney Island Channel from 45 to 50 feet to accommodate larger container ships; the VPA proposed construction and operation of a new marine terminal on the eastward expansion of the CIDMMA; the VDOT proposed Third Crossing of the Hampton Roads area; the Ecosystem Restoration Program for the Elizabeth River; and the construction and operation of a new marine terminal by APM Terminals, Inc. 5. List of Preparers 1.21.1 Cumulative Effects Issues Identified During Scoping The USACE Feasibility Study of the eastward expansion of the CIDMMA has included at least 24 public meetings involving persons and groups with various interests and expertise. The total includes four stakeholder meetings, five meetings of a NEPA Technical Committee, and 15 meetings of a Mitigation Subcommittee of the NEPA Technical Committee. These meetings included extensive discussions that are associated with the scoping process as delineated within the NEPA regulations of the CEQ. Details related to the scoping meetings are in Appendix A of the CEA document. A central theme in many of the discussions related to the need for a CEA study. The following items reflect the manner in which the issues related to cumulative effects were articulated: 6. References - DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-69 4368-010 1 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV il A comprehensive EIS should be prepared to address connected actions, cumulative actions, and cumulative effects. A piecemeal approach wherein multiple EIS's are prepared without referring to other nearby actions would not provide the best approach from an environmental management perspective. The environmental effects of multiple current and future projects in the vicinity of the eastward expansion of the CIDMMA should be considered together. Examples of these other projects include dredging of the inbound portion of the Norfolk Harbor Channel to a depth of 50 feet (by the USACE), construction and operation of a major marine terminal on the completed expansion cell (by the VPA), construction and operation of a second marine terminal about 1.5 to 2.0 miles south of the CIDMMA (by APM Terminals, Inc.), construction and use of a Third Crossing bridge-tunnel project (by the VDOT), and implementation of sediment cleanup and wetland restoration projects in the Elizabeth River Basin (by the Elizabeth River Ecological Restoration Program). The environmental impact study of the eastward expansion of the CIDMMA should encompass the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on specific resources such as, but not limited to, water quality, benthos, fisheries, protected species, birds, and wetlands. • Hydrodynamic modeling should be used as a tool to explore the effects of single and multiple projects on various important hydrodynamic parameters in the Hampton Roads area. Mitigation measures for the direct effects of the eastward expansion of the CIDMMA should be developed. Such measures could also be utilized, in a collaborative manner with other agencies and parties, to systematically provide opportunities for mitigating cumulative effects on specific resources and ecosystems. 1.21.2 Cumulative Effects Assessment Methodology The 11-step CEA methodology published in 1997 by the CEQ was the basis for the CEA study (CEQ, 1997). Following is the explanation of each step, modified as appropriate for the CIDMMA CEA study. Steps 1-4 relate to scoping for cumulative effects, Steps 5-7 to describing the affected environment, and Steps 8-11 to determining the cumulative environmental consequences. Step 1: Identify the significant cumulative effects issues associated with the proposed action and define the assessment goals. This step focused on the experienced impacts of the CIDMMA, the anticipated impacts of the phased construction of the eastward expansion for a port facility, and the typical impacts of marine terminals during the receipt and movement of goods. The focus was on those resources, ecosystems, and human communities that have been or will be impacted by the “proposed action.” Step 2: Establish the geographic scope for the analysis. The geographic scope is dependent on the affected resources, ecosystems, and human communities within the vicinity of the DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-70 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV CIDMMA. Further, it was necessary to utilize different boundaries for some of the impacted items. Both localized and regional boundaries were considered as appropriate. 7 Index Step 3: Establish the time frame for the analysis. The time frame is to include the past, present, and future. A possible historical (past) boundary (or reference point) would be just prior to construction of the CIDMMA. Historical trends, up to the current time, for the impacted resources, ecosystems, and human communities were examined. The future time boundary encompassed the anticipated lifetime of the CIDMMA (to approximately 2030), as well as the complete Build-Out for the VPA's Craney Island terminal (2050). 1 Step 4: Identify other actions affecting the resources, ecosystems, and human communities of concern. Other actions include past actions, present actions, and RFFA's, regardless of whether these actions have been or will be done by governmental agencies or the private sector. Some RFFA's may be difficult to identify with any specificity due to uncertainties related to approvals, funding, etc. Many of the reference documents and materials delineate historical and current actions, while others are related to RFFA's. Examples of RFFA's include VDOT's Third Crossing of the Hampton Roads area, the proposed containership terminal by APM Terminals, Inc., and continued projects associated with the Elizabeth River Ecological Restoration Program. The output of this step included several tables that summarize various pertinent actions. A. USFWS Planning 4. Figures Steps 5 and 6: Characterize the resources, ecosystems, and human communities identified in Steps 1 through 4 in terms of their response to change and capacity to withstand stresses. Further, characterize the stresses affecting these resources, ecosystems, and human communities and their relation to regulatory thresholds. Considerable information on the conditions of these environmental categories, their current stress, and their relation to regulatory thresholds and requirements have been accumulated via special studies sponsored by the USACE, and related documents by the USACE, VPA, VDOT, and Virginia environmental departments. The major effort associated with Steps 5 and 6 involved the extraction and summarization of existing information from those various reports. . 5. List of Preparers Step 7: Define a baseline condition for the resources, ecosystems, and human communities. The words "baseline condition" can be used in three ways in an impact study: (1) to define the conditions of pertinent resources, ecosystems, and human communities at an "historical reference date and as reflected by trends" to the current date; (2) to define the "current conditions” (such as done in the Description of the Environment section in EIS's, with the current conditions reflective of historical cumulative effects); and (3) to define the "future without the proposed action conditions” based upon forecasting of changes over the future time period within the analysis. Descriptive information was assembled on conditions reflective of an "historical reference date and trends." Steps 5 and 6 above relate to "current conditions.” The “future without the proposed action conditions” is summarized in conjunction with Step 9 below. 6. References DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-71 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 1 C Step 8: Identify the important cause-and-effect relationships between human activities and resources, ecosystems, and human communities. These relationships were addressed by identifying and describing common pathways or connections between the CIDMMA eastward expansion and the construction and operation of the proposed port facility, related past, present, and RFFA's, and the affected resources, ecosystems, and human communities. This step is related to Steps 1 and 4 above. The cause-and-effect relationships have been qualitatively described and displayed as appropriate. Step 9: Determine the magnitude and significance of cumulative effects. It would be desirable to quantify all of the cumulative effects; however, such data were not available for many issues. In most cases, qualitative descriptions of cumulative effects were prepared based upon field studies, related reports, as well as professional judgment. The significance of the cumulative effects was determined by considering historical, current, and forecasted conditions for the affected resources, ecosystems, and human communities, along with relevant regulatory thresholds and professional judgment. Step 10: Modify or add alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant cumulative effects. The current Feasibility-level study has already examined several expansion locational alternatives. Further, the design features and operational practices of the CIDMMA have been and are focused on avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating associated direct effects. Also, it should be noted that the proposed main terminal already includes a number of design, construction, and operational measures that are focused on avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Accordingly, summaries of these existing and planned efforts have been prepared for these steps. Further, of particular note are the mitigation planning efforts of the Mitigation Subcommittee of the NEPA Review Team. • Step 11: Monitor the cumulative effects of the selected alternative (proposed action) and adapt management. Extensive monitoring of the physical-chemical and biological environment is already conducted at the CIDMMA and in the general vicinity, in conjunction with related programs of other Federal and state agencies. If significant potential cumulative effects are identified, then a coordinated monitoring program for selected indicators will be recommended, along with a protocol for identifying and implementing adaptive management strategies. 1.21.3 Identification of Past, Present and Future Actions Past, present, and future actions that may have a potential cumulative effect when considered along with the Recommended Plan have been summarized in the following table. More detailed information on the projects contained in the following table, as well as other existing and continuing projects and actions, current project and actions, and proposed projects and potential future projects is contained in the CEA report. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-72 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-20. PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS CONTRIBUTING TO CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 7 Index Chapter with detailed information (1) Action Past Present Future 1 CIDMMA х х х 2 • Continuing use of existing 3 cells (1) • Eastward expansion (2) X (M) 2,7 X 4 PostAuthorization Norfolk District Projects • Navigation channel deepening and anchorages - constructed (3) • Navigation channel deepening and anchorages - not yet constructed (4) • Maintenance dredging (5) A. USFWS Planning х х 4 х X X 4 channel deepening and Navigation Planning maintenance dredging (6) X (H) 4 X х х 4 х х X 4 х X 5 Water-related laws, regulations, and programs (7) Other existing and continuing projects in the area (8) APM Terminals (new marine terminal) (9) Elizabeth River Ecological Restoration Program • Sediment cleanup (10) • Wetland restoration (11) 4. Figures х х 5 x x ş х х 5 Pinner's Point Flyover (highway bridge and connector) (12) х х 5 i 5. List of Pranarara 9 CIDMMA Terminal (VPA) (13) X (M) 6 Third Crossing of Hampton Roads Area (VDOT) (14) X (M) 6 Pre-Authorization Norfolk District Studies (five on beneficial uses of beach-quality dredged material, and X (L) 6 one on a city dredging and water management plan) (15) Midtown Tunnel Project (VDOT) (16) X (L) 6 Virginia Intermodal Transportation Center (17) X (L) 6 (1) Refers to full report, EIS, Appendix C. Notes: The actions are numbered (1) through (17). Past denotes actions from mid-1950's to 1999, present denotes actions in general time period from 2000 to 2005, and future denotes actions from 2006 to 2050. In the future column, H denotes high likelihood of occurrence, M denotes medium, and L denotes low. No "occurrence code” indicates the continuation of a past and/or present action. Dala...... DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-73 4368-010 " CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 1.21.4 Results of Cumulative Effects Assessment A total of 17 types of actions were identified as contributing to cumulative effects in the Hampton Roads area, including the Elizabeth River Basin. These actions include those that have occurred since the mid- 1950s, are now taking place, or are anticipated to occur in the future to the year 2050. The 17 types of actions include: (1) continuing use of the 3 existing cells at the CIDMMA; (2) an approximate 580-acre eastward expansion of the CIDMMA (the potential proposed action); (3) historical navigation channel deepening and provision of anchorages; (4) presently authorized channel deepening and anchorages (not yet constructed); (5) continuance of maintenance dredging for navigation; (6) planning for future channel deepening and maintenance dredging; (7) water-related laws, regulations, and programs; (8) other existing and continuing industrial and military projects and facilities in the local area; (9) a new marine terminal (APM Terminals, Inc.); (10) sediment cleanup and (11) wetland restoration components of the Elizabeth River Ecological Restoration Program; (12) Pinner's Point Flyover; (13) CIDMMA Terminal (proposed by the VPA for construction on the eastward expansion area of the CIDMMA); (14) the Third Crossing of the Hampton Roads area (a bridge-tunnel connector); (15) pre-authorization studies by the Norfolk District of the USACE; (16) the Midtown Tunnel Project; and (17) the Virginia Intermodal Transportation Center. The previous table delineates the respective time periods (past, present, and/or future) for the 17 actions. The cumulative effects of these 17 types of actions have been addressed in the CEA report for water quality, hydrodynamics, air quality, noise, biological resources (including benthic habitat in the approximate 600-acre eastward expansion area for the CIDMMA), protected species and critical habitat, recreation (boating and fishing), aesthetics, cultural resources, and socioeconomics (including area traffic and environmental justice). In the absence of appropriate monitoring and mitigation efforts, potentially significant adverse cumulative effects could occur on water quality, benthic habitat, and protected species and critical habitat. Beneficial cumulative effects are anticipated for the socioeconomic conditions of the Hampton Roads area. The proposed action, when considered in the context of past, present, and future activities, can be expected to contribute to the overall cumulative effects to specific resources. Some of these cumulative effects can be considered positive, such as increased employment opportunities and increased economic benefits to the local, regional, state, and national economies. However, other cumulative effects, such as impacts to aquatic resources, if not successfully mitigated, would be considered in a negative context. The construction and operation of the CIDMMA east cell and subsequent construction and operation of the marine terminal will affect in a cumulative fashion, some in a positive way and some in a negative way, the resources and ecological components addressed in this EIS. On balance, the potential cumulative effects associated with this proposed project are not expected to be substantial. 1.22 MITIGATION The potential environmental consequences of the Recommended Plan have been described in detail in the preceding paragraphs of Part IV. Table IV-21 titled “Craney Island Expansion - East Expansion" summarizes those environmental impacts and identifies the impact categories for which mitigation will be undertaken. The USACE and the VPA have developed an integrated and comprehensive mitigation DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-74 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV program to reduce the potential impacts of the Recommended Plan, and the details of that mitigation program are contained in the Appendix B to this EIS. The elements of the proposed mitigation activities are summarized below. 7 Index 1.22.1 Background In accordance with CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and with ER 1105-2-100, Policy and Planning Guidance for Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies (Planning Guidance Notebook), the project-related adverse environmental impacts (i.e., impacts to fish and wildlife resources) have been avoided or minimized to the extent practicable, and a mitigation plan has been developed to compensate for remaining unavoidable significant adverse impacts. A Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analysis (CECA) has been performed to identify the most cost-effective plan(s). A. USFWS Planning The compensatory mitigation plan was developed with input from a Mitigation Subcommittee consisting of representatives from 12 Federal and State agencies and 3 local interest groups. The committee convened on 15 occasions between June 2002 and May 2005. The CE/CA resulted in a total of 22 plans that were determined to be cost effective, including three “Best Buy” plans. The selected mitigation plan is one of the “Best Buy” plans. 4. Figures Using data from existing studies, and those performed specifically for this feasibility investigation, the Mitigation sub-committee was tasked with assessing the degree of habitat impact associated with the 580- acre fill, formulating mitigation ratios to replace or to increase the ecological function and productivity of the area lost, and developing a conceptual mitigation plan comprised of various tidal and sub-tidal habitats. A "landscape approach” was used to establish physical connectivity between various mitigation sites and to establish ecological synergy. Application of this approach also maximizes productivity and ensures long term viability of each of the sites. Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) methodology was used to quantify the loss in habitat productivity from the proposed CIDMMA expansion and to provide a scale for a mitigation project that would compensate for the estimated loss in ecosystem services and production at the appropriate trophic levels. This information was used to conduct the CE/CA. 1 5. List of Preparers a The USACE and VPA used this information and the committee's input to develop and present a “Draft Conceptual Mitigation Plan” at subcommittee meetings in February 2005. The plan considered in-kind relatedness, proximity to impact site, publicly recognized value of the habitat type, risk long term viability, ability to restore lost ecological functions, and the habitat productivity lost and productivity supplied by each mitigation option to replace the loss. Subsequent meetings in May 2005 resulted in modifications to the conceptual plan and the development of a "Draft Consensus Mitigation Plan.” This consensus plan, also known as the locally preferred plan (LPP), consists of approximately 20 acres of oyster reef restoration, 56 acres of wetland restoration, and 411 acres of bottom sediment restoration (Table IV-22). Figures IV-8 and 9 depicts the locations of the proposed sites in the Elizabeth River and their relationship to each other. In the Lower James River, the plan proposes wetland and aquatic habitat restoration at the Ragged Island Wildlife Management Area and oyster restoration at Hoffler Creek (Figures IV-10 and 11). In addition, it is estimated that 10 acres of eroding salt marsh will be protected from permanent loss over the next 20 years. Figure IV-12 shows other restoration projects in the Elizabeth River demonstrating connectivity to the proposed mitigation plan. 6. References DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-75 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV I This mitigation plan amounts to a slightly greater amount of production than is estimated to be lost from project construction, and is distributed among the three major mitigation measures, which include including oyster reefs restoration, wetlands restoration, and sediment clean-up and restoration. Of the three “Best Buy” plans identified in the CE/ICA, the LPP was selected as the recommended and fully justified mitigation plan. The recommended mitigation plan is acceptable, efficient (cost-effective), omplete, and supported by the non-Federal local sponsor (VPA), and also by other State and Federal agencies, such as the USEPA, USFWS, NOAA, and VIMS, and non-profit organizations such as the Elizabeth River Project, who also provided input into the development of the LPP. In conclusion, the Mitigation Subcommittee, along with the USACE and VPA, has identified specific feasible mitigation options. The USACE has used CE/CA to evaluate the options and has identified a “Best Buy” plan that fully compensates for the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project. During plan development, every effort was made to accommodate the diverse input of the stakeholders involved in this process. The recommended “Draft Consensus Mitigation Plan”, which is based on three years of stakeholder involvement, scientific study, and thorough analysis of all data and information collected, proposes 487 acres of compensatory mitigation in the form of large scale ecosystem restoration at a total cost of approximately $50 million. Upon successful completion, the mitigation plan will replace important habitat and ecological functions in the lower James and Elizabeth River estuaries and will provide compensation for the water column and benthic productivity lost from the proposed expansion of CDMMA. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page IV-76 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION I ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV wwvia SMIJSNI V Table IV-21. CRANEY ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AREA - EAST EXPANSION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION !S V Potential Impacts and Issues Proposed Mitigation so11lu(1) JU O! TY vosovora Minor and expansion cell With Mitigation y suvuorojoa containment dikes would be provided by proper design and Residual Impact construction methods and by removal of surficial bottom muds from basal area of dike 4368-010 Minor Residual Page IV-77 proposedCRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION . WATER QUALITY Navigation Improvements Turbidity and depressed DO could exceed Dredge methods employed will include use of a hydraulic Minor Residual Impact water quality criteria set by VDEQ during cutterhead or hopper dredge to minimize and localize the construction. DRAFT EIS generation of turbidity and settable solids. Monitoring of pre-dredging testing. (1) Mitigation includes avoidance, minimization, and/or compensation. DO during construction. Potential release of toxic levels of trace Dredging will take place in "virgin" (i.e., previously Potential Minor Residual Impact materials and synthetic organic undredged) bottom areas. Elevated contaminant levels will be fully determined with contaminants during construction. expected to be negligible - will be verified through pre- pre-dredge testing of sediments. sediments. dredging testing. Expansion Cell Construction levels expected to be negligible - will be verified through “” , Potential release of toxic levels of trace Dredging/excavation will take place in "virgin” (i.e., Potential Minor Residual Impact materials and synthetic organic previously undredged) bottom areas. Elevated contaminant will be fully determined with Residual Impacts GEOLOGY Navigation Improvements; Expansion Cell Construction Slope Instability Slope stability of channel side-slopes Impact Terminal Development & Operation No significant geological impacts. None footprint. Alteration of Bottom Topography. None proposed contaminants during construction. pre-dredge testing of NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-21. CRANEY ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AREA - EAST EXPANSION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION (Cont'd) Impacts and Issues Proposed Mitigation (1) Potential Residual Impacts Expansion Cell Construction (continued) Confined dredged material cell effluent. Pump effluent through existing CIDMMA. Monitor water With Mitigation - Minor quality effluent and adjust retention times. Provide Residual Impact. mitigation alternatives that contribute water quality benefits (i.e., oyster restoration, wetlands restoration, sediment clean-up, etc.). Terminal Development & Operation Spills from ships. Increases in shipping traffic are commercial container ships With Mitigation Minor - low incident of hazardous materials. Response plans Residual Impact implemented by WATER QUALITY (cont'd) Terminal Development & Operation (contd) Refueling of ships. No fuel will be transferred from the terminal to ships. With Mitigation Minor Refueling from barges must be performed in accordance Residual Impact. with USCG regulations. Stormwater - The potential surface runoff A stormwater runoff system will be designed to reduce the With Mitigation - Minor into river/harbor would increase. potential for unrestricted runoff. A facility-wide SWP3 will Residual Impact. be implemented. Compliance with Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations. Implementation of BMP's. Sediment suspension from ship traffic. Proposed 50- to 55-foot deep channels will provide Minor/Insignificant Residual sufficient clearance to avoid sediment resuspension. Impact (1) Mitigation includes avoidance, minimization, and/or compensation. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page IV-78 4368-010 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV . Table IV-21. CRANEY ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AREA - EAST EXPANSION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION (Cont'd) I Impacts and Issues Proposed Mitigation (1) Potential Residual Impacts BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Navigation Improvements Loss of benthic infauna from dredging Off-site and out-of-kind mitigation for losses and changes in Significant, but short-term. site(s) with some recovery in deeper benthic community structure (see below). With Mitigation Minor channel in less than 5 years. Periodic Residual Impact. redisturbance with maintenance. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont'd) Expansion Cell Construction Loss of approximately 600 acres of Off-site and out-of-kind mitigation has been proposed and With Mitigation Minor estuarine bottom habitat used by fish, will be implemented to mitigate the effects of bottom habitat Residual Impact shellfish, crabs, and bottom dwelling loss and open water effects to finfish, crabs, and bottom- organisms. dwelling organisms. Mitigation alternatives will Finfish - limited feeding area - primarily compensate for lost functional values and include: oyster a migratory pathway; Crabs – primarily a habitat restoration; wetland restoration; sediment clean-up; migratory pathway, not a nursery area; riparian buffers/conservation areas; bird management plan; Bottom Dwelling Organisms - Benthic shoreline stabilization; etc. Index of Biotic Integrity abundance, 3 diversity, biomass) - 3 of 5 stations degraded commercially-valuable species (clams, oysters) not a significant component (1) Mitigation includes avoidance, minimization, and/or compensation. - DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page IV-79 4368-010 sebujejo '9 sjejedesd JO ISIT'S sejn!: 't Buļuueld SMESNY хәрul 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-21. CRANEY ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AREA - EAST EXPANSION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION (Cont'd) - Impacts and Issues Proposed Mitigation (1) Potential Residual Impacts BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont'd) Expansion Cell Construction (cont'd) Loss of 600 acres open water. Widening and deepening adjacent berthing access With Mitigation Minor Residual channel will provide equivalent X-sectional area of Impact. open water. Off-site and out-of-kind mitigation will be implemented to mitigate open water effects to finfish, crabs, and other aquatic species. Terminal Development & Operation The potential for toxic spills and surface A stormwater runoff system will be designed to With Mitigation Minor Residual runoff into the river/harbor would reduce the potential for unrestricted runoff. Impact. increase. (See Water Quality – stormwater) Introduction and proliferation of exotic National Invasive Species Act of 1996 and Virginia Minor/Insignificant Residual Impact. species. regulations (4 VAC 20-395) require foreign vessels to file a Ballast Water Control Report with VMRC and exchange ballast water 200 nautical miles from shore. Incorporate Oyster shell into riprap levee surfaces. AIR QUALITY Navigation Improvements Estimated emissions from construction Electrification of the diesel-powered dredge would Potentially significant, but short-term. activities above threshold levels reduce emissions but would not decrease the prescribed by general conformity number of significant impacts. Utilization of low regulation of 100 tons/yr for Nox and sulfur fuels on the diesel dredge would reduce for both VOC's and NOx for Build-Out impacts over 3 times. condition. (1) Mitigation includes avoidance, minimization, and/or compensation. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page IV-80 4368-010 11 Page IV-81 4368-010 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-21. CRANEY ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AREA - EAST EXPANSION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION (Cont'd) Impacts and Issues Proposed Mitigation (1) Potential Residual Impacts Expansion Cell Construction Estimated emissions from construction Electrification of the diesel-powered dredge would Potentially significant, but short-term. activities above threshold levels reduce emissions but would not decrease the prescribed by general conformity number of significant impacts. Utilization of low regulation of 100 tons/yr for Nox and sulfur fuels on the diesel dredge would reduce for both VOC's and NO, for Build-Out impacts over 3 times. condition. Terminal Development & Operation Estimated emissions from terminal | New SIP for Hampton Roads ozone maintenance Potentially significant. facility above threshold levels prescribed area is expected in 2005-2007. Demonstrate that by general conformity regulation of proposed terminal will conform with future SIP's 100 tons/yr for Nox and for both VOC's for the Hampton Roads region. Purchase of air and NOx for Build-Out condition. credits to offset effects. High pollutant levels and substantial Reduce operational emissions by use of distillate oil Potentially significant. emissions associated with cargo ships; in maneuvering vessels and the use of clean fuels long-term violations to air quality for on-dock equipment. Purchase of air credits to guidelines may occur. These would also offset effects. occur if the project were not constructed. NOISE Navigation Improvements Dredging activities will be far enough None required. Minor/Insignificant Residual Impact. away from receptors that noise will pose no significant effect. Expansion Cell Construction Construction will not affect any sensitive None required. Minor/Insignificant Residual Impact. receptors due to great distance (more than 1 mile) between source of noise and closest sensitive receptor. (1) Mitigation includes avoidance, minimization, and/or compensation. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Xəpul 2 usoscuosd ju 18!T'S sajnb!t buļuueld SMSN V ------- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-21. CRANEY ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AREA – EAST EXPANSION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION (Cont'd) Impacts and Issues Proposed Mitigation (1) Potential Residual Impacts. NOISE (cont'd) Terminal Development & Operation Cumulative noise levels from operations, None required. Minor/Insignificant Residual Impact. truck traffic, rail, and intermodal yard will not affect any sensitive receptors due to great distance (>1 mile) between source and closest sensitive receptor. PUBLIC SAFETY Terminal Development & Operation Because of isolated location, facilities on VPA will implement and upgrade fire protection With Mitigation - Minor Residual Impact. the containment cell will require state-of- services as necessary and include storage tanks with the-art protection measures and additional foam injection systems. Security staff will be security. employed as necessary. SOCIOECONOMICS Navigation Improvements; Expansion Cell Construction & Operation; Terminal Development & Operation Short-term: Revenue generated by None required. Beneficial. construction activities will provide benefit to the local communities in the way of increase of sales tax revenue, sale of goods, etc. Employment of approx. 15,000 people during 4 phases of construction. Long-term: 570 direct jobs at terminal facility and 3,900 indirect jobs in the region. Under full Build-Out: $900 million of annual output to local economy. (1) Mitigation includes avoidance, minimization, and/or compensation. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page IV-82 4368-010 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-21. CRANEY ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AREA - EAST EXPANSION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION (Cont'd) Impacts and Issues Proposed Mitigation (1) Potential Residual Impacts. Navigation Improvements; Expansion Cell Construction & Operation; Terminal Development & Operation (continued) Displacement of commercial crabbers. Provide mitigation options that enhance standing With Mitigation - Minor Residual Impact. stocks of crabs (i.e., wetlands, sediment remediation, oyster reefs). HYDRODYNAMICS Navigation Improvements; Expansion Cell Construction & Operation; Terminal Development & Operation 3-D Hydrodynamic modeling indicates no Mitigation (avoid/minimize) involved With Mitigation - Minor Residual Impact. significant effects to circulation, comprehensive evaluation of alternatives and sedimentation, salinity, currents, and tidal selection of the construction alternative that had the flushing with east cell expansion. least amount of effects (i.e., east expansion). RECREATION Navigation Improvements; Expansion Cell Construction & Operation; Terminal Development & Operation Permanent loss of 580 acres of open Provide mitigation that will enhance recreational Adverse but not significant. water will displace recreational fishing, fishing and fish stocks. Wetlands, clean sediments, boating activities. and oyster reefs. Potential reduction in fishing activities in Construct fish habitat, feeding and foraging areas in With Mitigation - Minor Residual Impact. the harbor. harbor and lower bay. CULTURAL RESOURCES Navigation Improvements No temporary or permanent impacts to None required. Minor/Insignificant Residual Impact. cultural resources are anticipated. No historical/cultural resources have been found to be located within project area. 1. Mitigation includes avoidance, minimization, and/or compensation. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page IV-83 4368-010 - r VIJUI v ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-21. CRANEY ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AREA - EAST EXPANSION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION (Cont'd) Impacts and Issues Proposed Mitigation (1) Potential Residual Impacts. Expansion Cell Construction & Operation No temporary or permanent impacts to None required. Minor/Insignificant Residual Impact. cultural resources are anticipated. No historical/cultural resources have been found to be located within project area. Terminal Development & Operation No temporary or permanent impacts to None required. Minor/Insignificant Residual Impact. cultural resources are anticipated. No historical/cultural resources have been found to be located within project area. AESTHETICS Navigation Improvements Minimal visible effects, except possibly None required. Minor/Insignificant Residual Impact. during dredging Expansion Cell Construction; Terminal Development & Operation A permanent loss of 580 acres of open Vegetation and landscaping measures, coupled with Adverse but not significant. water would be replaced by a dredged the painting of buildings would help facilities blend material placement site, then a terminal into the surrounding landscape. facility. UTILITIES - WATER SUPPLY, WASTEWATER, ENERGY, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS Expansion Cell Construction Utilities already in place for existing None required. Minor/Insignificant Residual Impact. dredged material containment facility. Minor utilities upgrades may be required. 1 - Mitigation includes avoidance, minimization, and/or compensation DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page IV-84 4368-010 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV L Table IV-21. CRANEY ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AREA - EAST EXPANSION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Xopul (Cont'd) Soins Potential 20 1 -SN 'Y exclusion vuruurid , where appropriate, and dredge operation controls will avoid and minimize sea o turtle impacts. Expansion Cell Construction Construction activities involving Selected use of dredging equipment will avoid With Mitigation - Minor Residual Impact. dredging, dike construction, and filling impacts to sea turtles. Upland activities will be could potentially impact protected species carefully coordinated to avoid impacts to any or their habitat. 4368-010 endangered/threatened birds and their habitat. Define and observe buffer areas near nesting species. Bird habitat development and improvement opportunities will be pursued in Bird Page IV-85 Management Plan. (1) Mitigation includes avoidance, minimization, and/or compensation. CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION DRAFT EIS Impacts and Issues Proposed Mitigation (1) Residual Impacts UTILITIES - WATER SUPPLY, WASTEWATER, ENERGY, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS (cont'd) Terminal Development & Operation At full Build-Out water supply Implement methods to minimize water Minor/Insignificant Residual Impact. requirements estimated to be about consumption and optimize efficient use of new 70,000 gpd. The city of Portsmouth supplies and reclaimed water. contacted and can supply required demand. Other utilities can be supplied. PROTECTED SPECIES & CRITICAL HABITAT Navigation Improvements Dredging activities could impact Selected use of dredging equipment and sea turtle With Mitigation - Minor Residual Impact. endangered/threatened sea turtles. devicesNORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA •••••••0 °•°•. SMI ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-21. CRANEY ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AREA - EAST EXPANSION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION (Cont'd) Impacts and Issues Proposed Mitigation (1) Potential Residual Impacts Terminal Development & Operation Bird use CIDMMA could be Upland activities will be carefully coordinated to With Mitigation - Minor Residual Impact. impacted. Increased ship traffic may avoid impacts to any endangered/threatened birds potentially affect sea turtles, but mobility and their habitat. Bird habitat development and should allow them to avoid ships or seek improvement opportunities will be pursued. foraging areas away from port facility. Mitigation may involve development of a long-term bird management plan for CIDMMA and vicinity. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Expansion Cell Construction & Operation; Terminal Development & Operation Executive Order 12898, Environmental Port facility located within a portion of Portsmouth Minor/Insignificant Residual Impact. Justice. with a minority population much less than overall minority population in the city. Site road and railways within existing VDOT ROW's. Avoid impact to minority or low-income residents. VESSEL TRANSPORTATION Terminal Development & Operation Additional 572 vessel calls to the port by Coordination with USCG and Virginia Pilots Minor/Insignificant Residual Impact. year 2016, and 468 calls by year 2050 at Assoc. to maintain safe and efficient navigation. full Build-Out. Total 988 vessel calls per Channel deepening and widening to accommodate year. A 17-percent increase in vessel vessels. traffic. (1) Mitigation includes avoidance, minimization, and/or compensation DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page IV-86 4368-010 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV 4368-010 Table IV-21. CRANEY ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AREA – EAST EXPANSION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Page IV-87 (Cont'd) CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Impacts and Issues DRAFT EIS Potential Proposed Mitigation (1) in rail traffic. (1) Mitigation includes avoidance, minimization, and/or compensation. . . Minor/Residual Impacts GROUND TRANSPORTATION Terminal Development & Operation Because of its proximity to existing or None requiredInsignificant Residual Impact. planned major interstate transportation routes, the construction and operation will have minimal impacts on local streets and major highways as a result of increased truck traffic. Specifically, local streets will not be significantly affected, as trucks traveling to and from terminal in the short-term during construction and in the long-term during operation will access the site from new connector highway to VA Route 164 and from there to I-664 and I-64. No significant effects on railroads. Five to None required - Existing rail network will be able Minor/Insignificant Residual Impact. six additional trains per dayto accommodate increases NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV - Table IV-21. CRANEY ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AREA – EAST EXPANSION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION (Cont'd) Impacts and Issues Proposed Mitigation (1) Potential Residual Impacts SECONDARY GROWTH Expansion Cell Construction; Terminal Development & Operation Potential population growth or associated Jobs at terminal will likely be filled by people Beneficial. residential development. already living in the area. New or expanded businesses will be located at existing facilities or on redeveloped sites. Development would benefit the region in short-term with construction jobs and in the long-term with increased employment, purchase of goods and services, and tax revenues generated Project related vehicles will use existing or planned Minor Residual Impact. major interstate transportation routes. Trucks can access major highways without going through residential areas. (1) Mitigation includes avoidance, minimization, and/or compensation. by development. Increased traffic. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page IV-88 4368-010 T i ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IV Table IV-22. CONSENSUS MITIGATION PLAN FOR CRANEY ISLAND EXPANSION - MAY 26, 2005 Location Acreage Unit Cost Mitigation Type Sediment Restoration Total Cost $33,200,000 SBR. Elizabeth River 411 0.6 Lamberts Point Wetlands Shotmeyer Paradise Creek Park (Peck) Elizabeth River Terminals Mainstem Elizabeth River S. Br. Elizabeth River S. Br. Elizabeth River S. Br. Elizabeth River 1 5 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $ 150,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 5 Jones and Gilligan Creek St. Julians Annex (40 ac) S. Br. Elizabeth River S. Br. Elizabeth River 10 30 $250,000 $250,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 7,500,000 Oyster/Clam Restoration Hoffler Creek Oyster Reef Elizabeth River - All Branch Hoffler Creek/James River 15 1 $150,000 $150,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 150,000 CI Bird Long-term Management Plan $ 150,000 James/Elizabeth River Wetland Oyster/Clam $250,000 $150,000 Ragged Island 4/4 $ 1,600,000 Total 487 $50,250,000 S Acres of Sediment Restoration = 411 Acres of Wetland Restoration = 56 Acres of Oyster Reef/Clam Restoration = 20 S Last Revised: 9/1/05 ago DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION Page IV-89 4368-010 co 7 Indav 4. Figures [ A USFWS Planning 5. List of Preparers Figures : 6. References 5) Figure IV-1 250 200 150 2016 Terminal Emissions 2008 Regional Emissions 100 50 0 VOCs NOX COMPARISON OF 2016 TERMINAL EMISSIONS AND 2008 PROJECTED INVENTORY FOR HAMPTON ROADS A хәрит 2 sjejedesd JO IS!7 'S Buruueld SMSN V Tons/dag səJUəjəjəy '9 . por th i . PEN 6-2 ! EZEM 6-4 E2EM 6-4 CRANY ISLAND CREEK CUANDORO 5 List of Prenarers E2EM -6-5 Propsed Craney Island Connector Highway Legend: ZZ E2EM Site PFO Site PEM Site od PSS Site [ Verified Upland Source: Hampton Roads Crossing Study FEIS, VDOT, March 2001 6 References WETLANDS ALONG THE PROPOSED VDOT CRANEY ISLAND CONNECTOR HIGHWAY Figure IV-2 1 1 word 7 Index 9868 D-0 7-2 C Connector Highway Propsed Craney Island A. USFWS Planning Western Freeway PEM 7-13 PSS 7-7 ELEM 77 [ Legend: ZZ E2EM Site $88 PFO Site A PEM Site PSS Site [ Verified Upland 5. List of Preparers Source: Hampton Roads Crossing Study FEIS, VDOT, March 2001 6 References WETLANDS ALONG THE PROPOSED VDOT Figure IV-3 CRANEY ISLAND CONNECTOR HIGHWAY } (164) 17 State Route 76 NOV N 7 Index 2225 1-664 . 1 11 pro 95 PFC A. USFWS Planning 2235 SANOTTE ham Rt. 659 MUS KEM -2 cum assero 2245 Pughsville Rd. 1-664 2030 Legend: 5. List of Preparers Apso VIZ E2EM Site PFO Site PEM Site od PSS Site L! Verified Upland 2260 Source: Hampton Roads Crossing Study FEIS, VDOT, March 2001 6. References WETLANDS ALONG SELECTED Figure IV-4 PORTIONS OF 1-664 1 1-664 2265 7 Indav GUM ROAD 2270 A USEWS Plannina PORTSMOUTH BOULEVARD 2275 10-1. EZEM 16-1 ELEM 104 E2M 2280 5. List of Prenarere Legend: WIZ E2EM Site XX PFO Site PEM Site PSS Site U Verified Upland 2285 Reler NIP Source: Hampton Roads Crossing Study FEIS, VDOT, March 2001 Figure IV-5 WETLANDS ALONG SELECTED PORTIONS OF I-664 1141 E2EM Dock Landing Road 7 Index OV ca 1-664 A. USFWS Planning w [ nu 5. List of Preparers Legend: 460 IZ E2EM Site PFO Site MI PEM Site po PSS Site U Verified Upland 58 6. References 13 Source: Hampton Roads Crossing Study FEIS, VDOT, March 2001 www.o Figure IV-6 WETLANDS ALONG SELECTED PORTIONS OF 1-664 TO U.S. ROUTE 13, 58, & 460 Craony 7 Index 28.1 44.3 31.5 47.7 36.0 52.4 69.0 A. USFWS Planning US ARMY DISPOSAL ARA 8000 FT. 6000 FT. 4000 FT. 2000 FT. 1000 FT. 500 FT. Ten Crany island NASAL SUPPLY CENTER Yogefiel ES NAVAL SUPPLINTEN RTSMOUTH Crea IDE es 5. List of Preparers WAV win Pines Merrifield PORTSMOUTH Legend: Build Out Truck Traffic & Terminal Operations (dBA) Trains (dBA) 0 0.5 1 Miles INSALADNI CRANCY (SLAND REACH 8ARETH Lambert Lamberts Pa 0.25 Kingman Source: - USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Map, Norfolk North, VA 6. References NOISE CONTOUR MAP Figure IV-7 1 | Craney Island Consensus Mitigation Plan Southern Branch, Elizabeth River LEGEND $1 S5 Sediment Remediation/Restoration Opportunities 67 Acres $4 Sophie Wetlands Restoration Areas 57 Acres W5 볼 ​W3 Oyster Reef Creation, Site Shown = 2 Acres Total Oyster Reef Creation Proposed - 15 Acres W6 S2 Total River Restoration Area 411 Acres W2 S3 W4 KEY TO SITES: W2 - Former Exxon Site W3 - Paradise Creek Park W4 - Elizabeth River Terminals W5 -Jones and Gilligan Creeks W6 - St. Julians 31 - Wycoff S2 - Republic S3 - Money Point S4 - Paradise Creek S6 - Scuffletown Creek - - - MITIGATION SITE: SOUTHERN BRANCH, ELIZABETH RIVER Figure IV-8 nor vuſuutid SMESN V sjejedesd jo is!7'S səbəjeje 9 Figure IV-9 Craney Island Consensus Mitigation Plan Lamberts Point Wetlands Restoration Area and Craney Island Bird Management Planning Area W1 44 W1 LEGEND Craney Island Bird Management Plan Elizabeth River W1 Lamberts Point Wetlands Restoration Area 1 Acre LAMBERTS POINT WETLANDS RESTORATION AND CRANEY ISLAND BIRD MANAGEMENT PLAN səguajejod 9 svejedesd JO ?S!7 ' buruueld SMESN лора Figure IV-10 хәрит Craney Island Consensus Mitigation Plan Ragged Island Wetlands Area, Oyster Reef Creation and Clam Bed Restoration James River Elizabeth River Craney Island LEGEND Oyster Reef Creation & Clam Bed Restoration A Total Area - Acres Wetlands Restoration Area RAGGED ISLAND WETLANDS AND CLAM BED RESTORATION AND OYSTER REEF CREATION AREAS sjejedəid Jo S!7 9 duļuueld SM=SN V səbuejejod 9 4 Craney Island Consensus Mitigation Plan Hoffler Creek Oyster Reef Creation Site and Craney Island Bird Management Plan Elizabeth River 0 LEGEND Craney Island Bird Management Plan Hoffer Creek Oyster Reef Creation Site 1 Acre HOFFLER CREEK OYSTER REEF CREATION AND CRANEY ISLAND BIRD MANAGEMENT PLAN Figure IV-11 sjejedesd JO ĮSIT'S buļuueld SM-Sn 'Y Xəpuj -IQTAIau o C 1 1 Craney Island Consensus Mitigation Plan Connectivity With Other Restoration Areas LEGEND ☆ Consensus Mitigation Plan O Restored Oyster Reefs Proposed Sediment Clean-Up Proposed or Restored Wetlands Areas EIS Figure IV-12 CRANEY ISLAND CONSENSUS MITIGATION PLAN CONNECTIVITY WITH EXISTING RESTORATION AREAS Figure IV-12 xopuj 2 sjejedesd JO IS!7 'S buļuueld SMS v səbəjejo 9 Ć 3 5556 036 097228 5. List of Preparers A. USFWS Planning 7 indav List of Preparers --- 1 6. References ) 3 5556 036 097228 PART V LIST OF PREPARERS 7. Index This document was prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Virginia Port Authority with support from Malcolm Pimnie, Inc., environmental scientists, engineers, and consultants. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Name Craig L. Seltzer A:n. A. USFWS Planning David M. Schulte A Education and Experience Primary Responsibilities. M.S. Oceanography, B.A. NEPA Team Leader; EIS Biology Preparation and Oversight; 27 years USACE Civil Mitigation Plan Works Planning and NEPA Development Compliance M.S. Marine Biology Document Review; Air 8 years Natural Resources Quality Analysis, Management, USACE Civil Mitigation Plan Works Planning and NEPA Development Compliance B.A. Sociology Document Review; Cultural 31 years USACE Civil and Historical Resources, Works Planning and NEPA Social Effects Compliance B.S. Economics, M.A. Economics - Cost Economics Effectiveness/Incremental 2 years Private Sector Cost Analysis, Mitigation economics, 1 year USACE Plan Development Civil Works Planning Helene W. Haluska Mitigation Analysis Jennifer A. Spencer Moffatt & Nichol Name Michael T. Crist, P.E. Education and Experience Primary Responsibilities B.S. Civil Engineering, Port Concept Development, M.S. Structural Engineering Technical and Engineering 15 years consulting on Review heavy civil works projects B.S. Civil Engineering, Port Background, M.B.A. Economics, and 9 years of environmental, , Transportation tasks port and planning projects Barbara Bodenstein, E.I.T. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 6. References Page LOP-1 4368-010 LIST OF PREPARERS Moffatt & Nichol (cont'd) Name Ira Brotman, P.E. David Cruz, P.E. Johnny Martin, P.E John Headland, P.E. Education and Experience Primary Responsibilities B.S. Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Design and M.S. Civil Engineering Review 13 years of coastal related projects A.S. Architectural Port Planning and Concept Engineering Development B.S. Civil Engineering, Hydrodynamic Analysis M.S. Civil Engineering - Peer Review Water Resources Concentration 12 years of coastal and hydraulic engineering projects B.S. Civil Engineering, Navigational Safety M.S. Civil Engineering Analysis Peer Review 25 years of port and coastal engineering projects B.S. Civil Engineering, Geotechnical Design and M.S. Geotechnical Review Engineering 11 years consulting on heavy civil works projects B.S. Civil Engineering - Port - Inland Connectivity, Transportation Competitive Economics and Concentration, MBA Benefits of Alternate 20 years of railroad industry Routings experience B.S. Industrial Engineering, Economic Benefits Analysis M.S. Industrial Engineering - M&N Lead 30 years of transportation economic analysis William Wheaton, P.E. Doug Rubin Lloyd Thompson DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page LOP-2 CRANEY ISLA EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 3 5556 036 097228 1 LIST OF PREPARERS David Miller & Associates 7. Index Name Jerry Diamantides, Ph.D Education and Experience B.A. and M.A. Economics Ph.D. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics 16 years of benefit -cost analysis and valuation of natural resources Primary Responsibilities Analysis of Economics Benefits - Lead, Mitigation Plan Formulation Technical Review i 1 Virginia Port Authority | A. USFWS Planning Name Jeffrey Florin, P.E. Primary Responsibilities Non Federal Partner Project Manager Education and Experience B.S. Civil Engineering, M.S. Civil Engineering 30 years Planning, Design, and Construction including Environmental Assessments, EIS and related documentation to support various projects B.A. Economics M.A. Marine Affairs M.B.A. 15 years Environmental, Port and Coastal Planning Projects Heather Wood Environmental Concept Design, Mitigation Plan Development, and Technical Review Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. W. Bruce Aitkenhead ! Senior Scientist, technical review and NEPA document editing B. S. Fisheries Biology M.S. Oceanography 33 years Environmental Sciences and NEPA Compliance B. S. Biology MEM Environmental Management 20 years Water Resources and NEPA Compliance Paul Peterson Project Manager for EIS preparation (Marine Terminal), technical evaluation and editing DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 6. References Page LOP-3 4368-010 LIST OF PREPARERS Primary Responsibilities Terminal EIS preparation USACE/MPI Document Merge NEPA document graphics and editing Air Quality Noise Sampling and Impact Evaluation Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (con't) Name Education and Experience. Kristian Dorken M.A.Sc. Civil Engineering 4 years Water Resources and Groundwater Management Ben Salter M.S. Biology 4 years Environmental Sciences and NEPA Compliance Travis Comer M.S. Environmental Science 2 years Wetlands and Environmental Studies Joel Cohn M.S. Civil Engineering 12 years Air Quality Compliance and Permitting. Greg Richter B.S. Public Affairs 5 years Environmental Sciences and Regulatory Compliance Rich Gilmour M.S. City and Regional Planning 21 years Planning and NEPA Compliance Clifton Bell, P.E. B. S. Geology M. S. Environmental Engineering 15 years environmental investigation and regulatory compliance Susan Murdock B.A. Biology 18 years NEPA Compliance, Threatened and Endangered Species, and Environmental Studies. Kate Sweeney B. A. Biology M. A. Biology 13 years environmental sciences and NEPA compliance Socioeconomics; Transportation Water Quality; Utilities Threatened and Endangered Species Wetlands; Historic Resources; Aesthetics; Environmental Justice DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page LOP-4 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 3 WORDEONUN 5556 036 097228 1 - A. USFWS Planning 7 Index References 1 6. References 3 5556 036 097228 PART VI 7. Index REFERENCES Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain, Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young, 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, CK, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 206 pp. plus appendices. Barnard, Thomas A., Jr., 1975. City of Hampton Tidal Marsh Inventory. Special Report No. 60 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. October 1975. A. USFWS Planning Barnard, W.D., 1978. Prediction and Control of Dredged Material Dispersion Around Dredging and Open-water Pipeline Disposal Operations. Technical Report DS-78-13, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, CK, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 102 pp. Beck, R., 2002. Personal communication with Dr. Ruth Beck, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. March 19, 2002. Beck, R., 2005. Personal communication with Dr. Ruth Beck, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. January 14, 2005. Berger (The Cultural Resource Group of Louis Berger, Inc.), 2001. Cultural Resources Survey: Hampton Roads Crossing Study; Candidate Build Alternatives 1, 9 & 2. VDOT Project No.: 0064-114- F12, PEIOR, PPMS No., 12834. VDHR File No.: 93-0238. May 2001. ALI.... Birdsong, R.S., R.L. Bedenbaugh, and R.D. Owen, 1984. Fin Fish Seasonality and Utilization of Hampton Roads and the Entrance Channel. Old Dominion University, Applied Marine Research Laboratory, Norfolk, Virginia. Boesch, D.F., 1971. Distribution and Structure of Benthic Communities in a Gradient Estuary: Ph.D. Dissertation at Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. Marvin L. Wass, Chairman Boon, J.D. and R..J. Byme, 1975. Hampton Bar Dredging Project, Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. Borrow Site, Monitor of Turbidity and Sedimentation. Final Report, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 46 pp. Boon, J.D. and G.R. Thomas, 1975. Report on Environmental Effects of the Second Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Construction: Sediment Distributions and Bottom Characteristics. Contract Report, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 51 pp. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page R-1 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION REFERENCES Boon, J.D., H.V. Wang, S.C. Kim, A.Y. Kuo, and G.M. Sisson, 1999. Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic-Sedimentation Modeling Study. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. Prepared for the Virginia Department of Transportation as a Technical Appendix to Hampton Roads Crossing Study. Boon, J.D., H.V. Wang, S.C. Kim, A.Y. Kuo, and G.M. Sisson, 2001. Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic-Sedimentation Modeling Study, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area Expansion Study. Byrd, M.A., 1991. Peregrine Falcon. In: Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. Coordinated by K. Terwilliger, Nongame and Endangered Species Program, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. pp. 499-500. Byrne, R.J., C.H. Hobbs, III, and R.A. Gammisch, 1982. Report to the Coastal Erosion Abatement Commission, Commonwealth of Virginia Concerning the Inventory of Sand Supplies in the Southern Chesapeake Bay. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia Byrne, R.J., A. Kuo, R. Mann, J. Brubaker, E. Ruzecki, P. Hyer, R. Diaz, and J. Posenau, 1987. New Port Island: An Evaluation of Potential Impacts on Marine Resources of the Lower James River and Hampton Roads. Special Report No. 283 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. Cairns, W.E. and I.A. McLaren, 1980. Status of the Piping Plover on the East Coast of North America. 1980. Canter, L., 2004. Cumulative Effects Assessment of the Eastward Expansion of the Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area (CIDMMA). Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District on April, 2004. Canter, L., 1977. Environmental Impact Assessment. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Cerco, C.F. and A.Y. Kuo, 1981. Real-Time Water Quality Model of the Elizabeth River System. Special Report No. 215 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 104 pp. Chen, H.S., 1978. Hydrodynamic and Biogeochemical Water Quality Models of Hampton Roads. Special Report No. 147 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 147, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. pp. 1-74. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page R-2 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 3 5556 036 097228 REFERENCES Chesapeake Bay Program, 1992. SAV Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Technical Synthesis. Annapolis, MD. 7. Index Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD), 2002. Personal communication with Doug Beisch, CBLAD. April 2, 2002. Chesapeake Bay Program, 2002. Proposed and Existing SAV Exclusion Zones (draft map). City of Portsmouth, 2002. Letter from A. Travis Quesenberry (Assistant Director, Portsmouth Department of Public Utilities) to Malcolm Pirnie. April 24, 2002. Council on Environmental Quality, 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President, January 1997. A. USFWS Planning Cox, J. Lee, 1999. Phase 1 Remote Sensing Survey, Hampton Roads Crossing Study XE 1438, Hampton-Norfolk, Virginia. Prepared by Dolan Research, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Dauer, D.M., 2000. Benthic Biological Monitoring Program of the Elizabeth River Watershed (1999). Prepared for Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Tidewater Regional Office. Old Dominion University, Department of Biological Sciences, Norfolk, Virginia. Dauer, D.M., 2001. Benthic Biological Monitoring Program of the Elizabeth River Watershed (2000). Prepared for Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Tidewater Regional Office. Old Dominion University, Department of Biological Sciences, Norfolk, Virginia. Dauer, D.M., 2002. Benthic Biological Monitoring Program of the Elizabeth River Watershed (2001) with a Study of Paradise Creek. Prepared for Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Tidewater Regional Office. Old Dominion University, Department of Biological Sciences, Norfolk, Virginia. Dauer, D.M. and R.M. Ewing, 1984. Macrobenthic Communities of the Lower Chesapeake Bay. Old Dominion University, Department of Biological Sciences, Norfolk, Virginia. Dauer, D.M. and R.M. Ewing, 1986. Macrobenthic communities in the vicinity of Craney Island. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. Old Dominion University, Department of Biological Sciences, Norfolk, Virginia. David Miller & Associates, 2004. DRAFT - Benefits Analysis: Craney Island Eastward Expansion Feasibility Study. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. Nov 15, 2004 Dominion Virginia Power, 2002. Letter from Randall Wright (Chuckatuck Office, Dominion Virginia Power) to Malcolm Pirnie. April 23, 2002. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page R-3 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION REFERENCES Elizabeth River State of the River, 2003. The Elizabeth River Project, Portsmouth, Virginia. Monitoring activities provided by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Tidewater Regional Office. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), 2002. The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck® - Craney Island Expansion. March 2002. Fang, C.S. 1975. Oceanographic, Water Quality and Modeling Studies for the Outfall from a Proposed Nansemond Waste Water Treatment Plant. VIMS. Gloucester Point, VA. Federal Highway Administration (FHA), 1974. The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use. Prepared by Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. of Cambridge, Mass. for the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Offices of Research and Development. Federal Highway Administration (FHA), 1998. Traffic Noise Model User's Guide. Version 1.0. U.S. Department of Transportation. Final Report. Francese, R., 2001. Personal communication with Michele Cleland (USACE), Hampton Shoreline Protection Project. Fraser, J.D., D.A. Buehler, G.D. Therres, and J.K.D. Seegar, 1991. Bald Eagle. In: S. L. Funderburk, S. J. Jordan, J.A. Mihursky, and D. Riley, eds., Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources. Chesapeake Bay Estuary Program, USFWS, Annapolis, Maryland. pp. 21-1 to 21-9. Geer, P.J., 2000. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for the Route 164 Pinners Point Connector. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. June 1, 2000. Hampton Roads Maritime Administration (HRMA), 2001. Port of Hampton Roads Annual 2001. Hampton Roads Maritime Administration (HRMA), 2002. Port of Hampton Roads Annual 2002. Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC), 1998. Hampton Roads 2020 Economic Projections. June 1998. Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC), 1998. Intermodal Management System, Regional Freight Movement, Hampton Roads, Virginia. April 1998. Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC), 1999. Regional Stormwater Loading Study: Proposed Regional Monitoring Program and Program Effectiveness Indicators. Prepared by CH2MHill for HRPDC Regional Stormwater Management Committee (Cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth and Virginia Beach). DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page R-4 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 3 5556 036 097228 REFERENCES Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC), 2001. Congestion Management System for Hampton Roads, Virginia. June 2001. 7. Index Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC), 2001. 2001 HRPDC Economic Outlook. July 2001. Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC), 2001. Hampton Roads 2021 Regional Transportation Plan, Technical Document and Technical Document Appendices. July 2001. Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC), 2002. Personal communications with Camelia Ravanbakht (Principal Transportation Engineer, HRPDC). April 25 and 26, 2002. Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD), 2002. Letter from Ross E. Schlobohm (Chief of Planning, HRSD) to Malcolm Pimnie. April 12, 2002. A. USFWS Planning Haven, D.S. and P.C. Kendall, 1981. The Shellfish Resource in the Vicinity of the Proposed Bridge- Tunnel for 1-664: Conducted for the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, Projects 0664-121-102, RW-201 and 0664-061-102, RW 201. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. Heltzel, S.B. and M.A. Granat. 1988. Lower James River Circulation Study, Virginia; Evaluation of Craney Island Enlargement Alternatives. Tech. Rpt. HL-88-8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Mitination Analysis Hershner, C.H., J.D. Boon III, H.V. Wang, 2002. A Statement of Developing a Water Quality Model in the Lower James. VIMS, Gloucester Point, VA. Hoffler Creek Wildlife Foundation, 2002. Available at http://www.hofflercreek.org. Hurley, L., 1991. Field Guide to the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation of the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland Tidewater Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Estuary Program, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District. Klauda, R.J., S.A. Fischer, L.W. Hall, Jr., and J.A. Sullivan, 1991a. Alewife and Blueback Herring. In: S.L. Funderburk, S.J. Jordan, J.A. Mihursky, and D. Riley, eds., Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources, Second Edition. Habitat Objectives Workgroup, Living Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Solomons, Maryland. Klauda, R.J., S.A. Fischer, L.W. Hall, Jr., and J.A. Sullivan, 1991b. American Shad and Hickory Shad. In: S.L. Funderburk, S.J. Jordan, J.A. Mihursky, and D. Riley, eds., Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources, Second Edition. Habitat Objectives Workgroup, Living Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Solomons, Maryland. Kuo, A.Y., R.J. Bymne, J.M. Brubaker, and J.H. Posenau, 1988. Vertical Transport Across an Estuary Front. In J. Dro kers and W. van Leussen, eds., Physical Processes in Estuaries, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, Germany. pp. 93-109. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page R-S 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION REFERENCES Kuo, A.Y., R.J. Byre, P.V. Hyer, E.P. Ruzecki, and J.M. Brubaker, 1990. Practical Application of Theory for Tidal-Intrusion Fronts. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering. 116(3): 341-361. Land, M.F., P.J. Geer, C.F. Bonzek, and H.M. Austin, 1995. Juvenile Finfish and Blue Crab Stock Assessment Program Bottom Trawl Survey Annual Data Summary Report Series. Special Report, No. 124, Volume 1994. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. Lowery, W.A., M.T. Mathes, and P.J. Geer, 2000. Juvenile Fish and Blue Crab Stock Assessment Program Bottom Trawl Survey, Annual Data Summary Report. Special Report, No. 124, Volume 1999. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2000. Norfolk International Terminals Noise Study. Prepared for the Virginia Port Authority. November 2000. Mann, R., 1996. Personal communication. Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). Mann, R., 1999. The Current Status of the Rapa Whelk in the Chesapeake Bay. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. April 1999. C Mann, R. and J.M. Harding, 2000. Variability in Larval Development of Veined Rapa Whelk Rapana venosa from Chesapeake Bay, USA: Implications for Ecological Success in Local Habitats. June 2000. a Mann, R., 2002. Fishery Independent Standing Stock Surveys of Hard Clam Populations in the Chesapeake Bay and a Comparison with Continuing Estimates from Fishery Dependent Data. Annual progress report for Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC)-NOAA project #NA07FU0535. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia, and Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Newport News, Virginia. Manny, B.A., D.W. Schloesser, C.L. Brown, and J.R. French, III, 1985. Ecological Effects of Rubble- Mound Breakwater Construction and Channel Dredging at West Harbor, Ohio (Western Lake Erie). Technical Report EL-85-10, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, CK, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 30 pp. Mansfield, K., E. Seney and J. Musick. 2002. An Evaluation of Sea Turtle Abundances, Mortalities and Fisheries Interactions in the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, 2001. National Marine Fisheries Service. NEFSC. Woods Hole, Massachuses. Contract #: 43-EA-NF-110773. Marshall, A. S., 1974. Structural and Functional Analysis of Eelgrass Fish Communities. Thesis. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page R-6 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION NCES REFERENCES Ication of kineering. Martin, Julia H., 1988. Estimates of the Population of Virginia Counties and Cities: 1986 and 1987. Center for Public Service. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. September 1988 7. Index 9 5 Stock Special ience, Martin Associates, 1999. The Economic Impact of the Port of Virginia on the Commonwealth, Executive Summary. Prepared for the Virginia Port Authority. September 21, 1999. 1 1 1 Medved, R.J. and J.A. Marshall, 1981. Feeding Behavior and Biology of Young Sandbar Sharks, Carcharhinus plumbeus (Pisces, Carcharhinidae), in Chincoteague Bay, Virginia. Fishery Bulletin 79. pp. 441-447. me Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, 2002. Vessel Call Data, Manpower Projections, Equipment Demand, and Traffic Projections for Proposed Craney Island Terminal. Prepared on behalf of the Virginia Port Authority. April 17, 2002. A. USFWS Planning Moffat & Nichol Engineers, 2004. DRAFT - Economic Impact Study: Craney Island Marine Container Terminal. Prepared on behalf of the Virginia Port Authority. November 24, 2004. - Moffat & Nichol Engineers, 2004. Memorandum - Eastward Expansion of Craney Island Construction Assumptions. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. November 12, 2004. Montgomery, R.L., and G.L. Raymond, 1982. Overview of Corps Research Program on Dredging Contaminated Sediments. Management of Bottom Sediments Containing Toxic Substances: Proceedings of the 8th U.S./Japan Experts Meeting, Tokyo, Japan. Mitigation Analysis Murdy, E., R. Birdsong, and J. Musick, 1997. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Neilson B. N., and C. S. Fang. 1975. A Hydrographical and Water Quality Study During the Construction of Second Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel. A Report to the Virginia Department of Highways. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 1 Nichols, M.M. and M.M. Howard-Strobel, 1991. Evolution of an Urban Estuarine Harbor: Norfolk, Virginia, Journal of Coastal Research, 7(3). 745-757. Old Dominion University Regional Studies Institute, 2001. The State of the Region: The Port of Hampton Roads. Office of Statistical and Economic Analysis, 2002. Vessel Calls at U.S. Ports 2000. January 2002. Orth, R.J., D.J. Wilcox, L.S. Nagey, A.L. Owens, J.R. Whiting, and A. Serio, 2004. Preliminary Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and the Coastal Bays. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page R-7 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION REFERENCES Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 2000. Phase I Archaeological Remote Sensing Survey East of the Craney Island, Elizabeth River, Virginia. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. Parsons Brinckerhoff, 1998. Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. Prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, City of Madison, Dane County. Chapter 5. September 1998. Priest, W., 1981. A Study of Dredging Effects in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Special Report No. 247 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. Ranasinghe, J.A., S.B. Weisberg, D.M. Dauer, L.C. Schaffner, R.J. Diaz, and J.B. Frithsen, 1993. Chesapeake Bay Benthic Community Restoration Goals, VERSAR, Inc., Report to USEPA, CBLO, and Maryland Governor's Council on Chesapeake Bay Research Fund and Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 49 pp. w/Appendix. Schueler, T.R., 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Prepared for the Washington Metropolitan Water Resources Planning Board. 275 p. Seitz, R.D., and R.N. Lipcius, 2002. Impact of the Craney Island Extension on Abundance, Biomass, and Diversity of Dominant Benthic Species. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. January 29, 2002. pp. 23. Setzler-Hamilton, E.M., 1991a. White Perch. In: S.L. Funderburk, S.J. Jordan, J.A. Mihursky, and D. Riley, eds., Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources, Second Edition. Habitat Objectives Workgroup, Living Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Solomons, Maryland. > Setzler-Hamilton, E.M., 1991b. Striped Bass. In: S.L. Funderburk, S.J. Jordan, J.A. Mihursky, and D. Riley, eds., Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources, Second Edition. Habitat Objectives Workgroup, Living Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Solomons, Maryland. Silberhorn, G.M., 1981. York County and Town of Poquoson Tidal Marsh Inventory. Special Report No. 53 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. May 1981. Silberhorn, G.M., and S. Dewing, 1989. City of Portsmouth Tidal Marsh Inventory. Special Report No. 299 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1990. Groundwater Protection Handbook for Southeastern Virginia. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page R-8 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION REFERENCES Southworth, M.J., J.M. Harding, and R. Mann, 2000. Abundance of Small Predatory Gastropods in Relation to Lower Chesapeake Bay Oyster Populations. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia. April 2000. 7. Index nt Springer, S., 1960. Natural History of the Sandbar Shark Eulamia milberti. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Bulletin 61. pp. 1-38. 1 C Stern, E.M., and W. B. Stickle, 1978. Effects of Turbidity and Suspended Material in Aquatic Environments: Literature Review, Technical Report D-78-21. Prepared by the University of Wisconsin and Louisiana State University for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, CK, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Thomas Bragg and Associates, 2000. Noise Exposure Analysis Report. Vandeventer Black, LLp. Norfolk, Virginia. A: ... A. USFWS Planning Thumann, A. and R.K. Miller, 1990. Fundamentals of Noise Control Engineering. 2nd ed. The Fairmont Press. Lilburn, Georgia. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, Final Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Norfolk District, 1990. Main Report, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, Long-Term Disposal (Inner Harbor). Norfolk, Virginia. June 1990. Mitination Analysis U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2005. Hydrodynamic Modeling Final Report Executive Summary. Available at http://www.nao.usace.army.milgis/craneyee/index.asp. Viewed January 14, 2005. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Norfolk District, 2002. Internal memorandum prepared by Doug Stamper. April 23, 2002. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Norfolk District, 2000. Formulation Analysis Notebook: Elizabeth River Basin, Virginia: Elizabeth River Environmental Restoration--Feasibility Investigation. 173 pp. w/Appendices. U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Economic Statistics Division, Small Estimates Branch, 2001. County Estimates for Median Household Income for Virginia: 1998. Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/stcty/c98_51.htm. Last Revised December 20, 2001. U.S. Census Bureau, Public Information Office, 1990. Census 1990. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/decennialdata.html#1990. Viewed August 2, 2005. Available at U.S. Census Bureau, Public Information Office, 2002. Census 2000. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. Viewed August 2, 2005. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page R-9 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION REFERENCES U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA-550/9- 74-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991. Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study- Report. EPA 460/3-91-02. November 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1995. Chesapeake Bay: Introduction to an Ecosystem. Edited by Kathryn Reshetiloff. Prepared for Chesapeake Bay Program. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1997. Emission Factors for Locomotives. EPA 420-F- 97-051. December 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2000. Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data. EPA 420-R-00-002. February 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1973. National Wetland Inventory Hampton, Virginia Quadrangle. Office of Biological Services. March 1973. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. Third Revision - January 1987. 9 pp. 49 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1990. Chesapeake Bay Region Bald Eagle Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. USFWS, Region Five, Newton Comer, Massachusetts. w/Appendices. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994 and 1995. USFWS field notes appended to VDOT and FHA Hampton Roads Crossing Study Final Environmental Impact Statement. March 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2002. Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS): Listed Species with Critical Habitat as of April 30, 2002. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/webpage/webpage_crithab.html?module=undefined&listings=0#B U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2005. National Wetlands Inventory Map. Branch of Habitat Assessment, Department of the Interior. July 29, 2005. Van Dolah, R.F., et al. 1987. "Ecological Effects of Rubble Weir Jetty Construction at Murrells Inlet, South Carolina; Volume III: Community Structure and Habitat Utilization of Fishes and Decapods Associated with the Jetties,” Technical Report EL-84-4, prepared by South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Charleston, S.C., for U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. ! Van Heukelem, W., 1991. Blue Crab, Callinectes sapidus. In: S.L. Funderburk, S.J. Jordan, J.A. Mihursky, and D. Riley, eds., Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources, Prepared for Living Resources Subcommittee Chesapeake Bay Program. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page R-10 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION REFERENCES ES oise 119- Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), 1994. Virginia Water Quality Assessment, 1994. 7. Index Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR), 2002. Letter from Elizabeth Locklear (VDCR) to Malcolm Pimnie. March 26, 2002. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), 2002. Year 2008 Hampton Roads projection Inventory Provided by Tom Ballou (VDEQ, Office of Air Data Analysis). March 13, 2002. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), 2002. Virginia Oyster Heritage Program: Oyster Facts. Available at http://www.deq.state.va.us/oysters/oystfact.html. April 17, 2002. > Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), 2002. Letter from Shelly A. Miller (VDGIF) to Malcolm Pimnie. March 28, 2002. A. USFWS Planning 1 Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), 2001. Letter from Quatro Hubbard (VDHR Archives) to Landmark Design Group. June 20, 2001. Г Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), 2002. Letter from Trent M. Park (VDHR Archives) to Malcolm Pimnie. March 14, 2002. Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), 2002. Personal communication between Trent M. Park (VDHR Archives) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. March 27, 2002. Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), 2002. Personal communication between Quatro Hubbard (VDHR Archives) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. April 23, 2002. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHA), 2001. Hampton Roads Crossing Study Final Environmental Impact Statement. March 2001. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), 2002. 1-64 Widening Projects on the Peninsula. Available at http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/studyhro-164widening.asp. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), 2002. Personal communication between Mary Ellen Hodges (VDOT, Environmental Division) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. April 30, 2002. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 2002. Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee Blue Crab Advisory Report 2002. Available at http://www.fisheries.vims.edu/bcar/ Virginia International Terminals (VIT), 2002. Personal communication with Charles Thompson, Safety Officer, VIT. April 2, 2002. Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC), 2002. Personal communication with Chad Boyce. March 20, 2002. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page R-11 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION REFERENCES Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC), 2002a. Personal communication with Randy Owen. April 3, 2002. Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC), 2002b. Personal communication with Jim Wesson. April 17, 2002. Virginia Pilots Association, 2002. Personal communication between Captain William Counsilman, (Vice President, Virginia Pilots Association) and Moffatt & Nichol Engineers. April 19, 2002. Virginia Pilots Association, 2004. Personal communication with Captain William Counsilman, (Vice President, Virginia Pilots Association). November 29, 2004. VPA 2040 Master Plan, 2003. Prepared by Moffatt & Nichol Engineers for the VPA Board of Commissioners and the VIT Board of Directors. Wang, H.V., S.C. Kim, J.D. Boon, A.Y. Kuo, G.M. Sisson, J.M. Brubaker, and J.P-Y. Maa., 2001. Three Dimensional Hydrodynamic Modeling Study Craney Island Eastward Expansion, Lower James River and Elizabeth River, Virginia. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, and the Virginia Port Authority. Special Report No. 372 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 157 pp. Watts, Gordon P., 1987. A Remote Sensing Reconnaissance Survey of the Remains of the USS Cumberland, CSS Florida, and the Wreck Site of the CSS Virginia. Prepared for Hampton Roads Naval Museum, Norfolk, Virginia, by Tidewater Atlantic Research, Wilmington, North Carolina Weldon Cooper Center, 2005. www.coopercenter.org/demographics Wesson, James A., 1995. Fishery Independent Stock Assessment of Virginia's Hard Clam Population of the Chesapeake Bay: Final Report for the period September 1, 1994 - March 31, 1995. Submitted to the Virginia Coastal Resource Management Program. Wyle Laboratories, 1973. Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations. Report WCR-73-5. July 1973. DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page R-12 4368-010 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 7. Index A. USFWS Planning Mitination Analysis Index І ---- ) .! PART VII INDEX Air Quality ................................. ................................... II-9, 10, 12-14, 27, 29-32 III-7, 8, IV-15-26 Bald Eagles .III-12, 14, 15, IV-27, 28 Ballast Water III-50, IV-14, 15, 80 ........ A. USFWYS Planning Benthos ...... III-21-26, IV-30-33, 70 ..... Chesapeake Bay Program. ..III-1,4 ........... Coastal Zone Resources.... IV-67 Commercial Fishing III-37, 50, 51, IV-57, 58 ......... Crabs ..... ... III-13, 14, 18-20, 50, 51 IV-31, 58, 79, 80, 83 MA:landian Analysis Cumulative Effects ..... IV-2, 46, 67-74 Dissolved Oxygen.............. III-3 Economics ...... .1-2, 7, 11-1-3, 28-32, 38-43, 49, 52-55, 64 Environmental Justice.... ...... II-28-32, III-54-56, IV-62, 63, 74, 86 Essential Fish Habitat ....... ......... III-17-19, IV-29, 32 Finfish ....... ....II-18, 27, III-16-18, 59, IV-31, 79, 80 Hazardous Waste III-40-42, IV-49-50 ............. .............................................................................. Highway....... .....1-2, II-16, 30, 33-35, 38, 47 III-8, 32-34, 45, 48, IV-17, 34-36, 38, 39, 43, 47, 51, 52, 62, 64, 65, 73, 87, 88 Historic Resources. II-3, III-62, IV-56, 65 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page INDEX-1 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 INDEX Hydrodynamics......... .......... Il-10, 11, 13-15, 17-24, 27, 29-32, III-5, IV-1, 14, 74, 83 Land Use.... .... 1-8, 9, 11-3, 16, 28-32, 34, 35, III-43-45, 47, IV-50-52, 55 Marine Mammals... ..... III-10, 15, 16, IV-28 Mitigation .... > ...........I-8, 28, 40, 41, 43, III-26, IV 4, 8, 9, 14, 16 18, 27, 29, 30, 31 34, 38, 52, 58, 64 69, 70, 72, 74-89 Noise...... .......... II-3, II-28-32, III-11, 44-48, IV-28, 51-54, 62, 74, 81, 82 Oyster....... ...II-6, 25, 41, III-5, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 50 IV-30, 31, 38, 64, 75-80, 83, 89 Protected Species ....... II-16-18, 29-32, III-7, 8, IV-15-26 Railroad 1-3, II-333, 38, III-34, 35, 53, IV-39, 47, 51, 64, 87 ..C > Recreational Boating and Fishing ......... III-51, IV-58 Safety .... ..... II-28-32, 40, III-40, 56-58, IV-12, 13, 46, 47, 49, 50, 57, 63, 82 Sea Turtles III-12, 14, IV-27, 68, 85, 86 Solid Waste........ ..... III-39-40, IV-49 Study Authority ..... ..... 1-1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation...... II-23, III-1, 20, IV-30, 32 ......... Traffic .......... > ............. II-35-38, 40, III-11, 32, 33, 36-38, 45-47, 57, 61 IV-6, 9, 13-15, 19, 21, 22, 27, 36, 39, 40-47, 51-55, 57, 58, 62, 74, 78, 82, 86-88 Water Quality > > .II-10 – 24, 27, 29-32, III-1-5, 7, 24, IV-1, 3-13, 47, 70, 74, 77, 78 Water Supply ..... .III-38 DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page INDEX-2 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 X INDEX 32, 83 Wetland.......... ..........II-3, 16, 27, 29-32, 24-27, 41, III-13, 30, 31 IV-7, 11, 30, 31, 33-38, 47, 64, 67, 70, 73-76, 78, 79, 83, 89 > 55 -28 5, 3 An. J A. USFWS Planning 1 Mitination Analysis DRAFT EIS NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA Page INDEX-3 CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION 4368-010 APPENDIXES APPENDIX A U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE PLANNING AND REPORT APPENDIX B MITIGATION ANALYSIS A. USFWS Planning APPENDIX C CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT APPENDIX D HEA REPORTS (PETERSON, RUDDY BUCHMAN) APPENDIX E VIMS BENTHIC STUDY (SEITZ AND LIPCIUS) APPENDIX F NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT COORDINATION TABLE APPENDIX G PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE APPENDIX H SECTION 404 (b) (1) EVALUATION | i A. USFWS Planning Aid Report L!!.adian Anelveie USFWS Planning Aid Report OF SERVICE THE U.S. ASH & WILDLIFE INTERIOR United States Department of the Interior WAACH FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Chesapeake Bay Field Office 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD 21401 December 4, 2002 Colonel David L. Hansen District Engineer Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers Fort Norfolk, 803 Front Street Norfolk, VA 23510-1096 Attn: Craig Seltzer Re: Craney Island Expansion Study Dear Colonel Hansen: Enclosed is a planning aid report for the subject study. In accordance with the Scope of Work, it contains information on the baseline biological conditions, environmental impacts, and mitigation needs. The primary impact of the eastward expansion alternative would be the loss of an estimated 580 acres of estuarine open water habitat. While developing a plan to mitigate a loss of this magnitude will be difficult, the Service is participating in an ongoing effort by the Study's Mitigation Subcommittee considering a range of mitigation options that could form the basis for a conceptual mitigation plan. If there are any questions, please contact George Ruddy at (410) 573-4528 or george_ruddy@fws.gov. B. Mitigation Analysis Sincerely, for John P. Wolflin Supervisor Enclosure CC: Virginia Field Office - C D . 1 Craney Island Expansion Feasibility Study Planning Aid Report: Baseline Biological Conditions and Impacts of the Eastward Expansion B. Mitigation Analysis Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District Prepared by: George Ruddy Fish and Wildlife Biologist Under supervision of: John P. Wolflin, Supervisor Chesapeake Bay Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 2002 H ABSTRACT Craney Island Expansion Feasibility Study Baseline Biological Conditions and Impacts of the Eastward Expansion October 2002 This report provides planning aid information to assist the Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in their feasibility study of lateral expansion of the Craney Island Dredged Material Disposal Area. The main purposes for the expansion are to provide additional dredged material disposal capacity and to provide land for development of additional port facilities. The report provides information on the baseline biological conditions in the Elizabeth River and Hampton Roads area. It also provides information on the potential impacts and mitigation needs for the eastward expansion alternative. The primary impact of the eastward expansion would be the loss of approximately 580 acres of open water estuarine habitat. Developing a plan to mitigate such a large loss will be major challenge. Key Words: Craney Island, dredged material disposal, Port of Hampton Roads, Elizabeth River, Norfolk Harbor B. Mitigation Analysis i! 11 INTRODUCTION The Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is conducting the feasibility phase of the Craney Island Expansion Study, Hampton Roads, Virginia. The study is primarily focused on a lateral expansion on the east side that would enlarge the existing disposal site by approximately 580 acres. The main purposes for this expansion would be to provide additional dredged material disposal capacity, and to provide land for development of additional port facilities adjacent to the Norfolk Harbor Channel. This report provides information on the baseline environmental conditions, project impacts, and mitigation needs. It is submitted in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). BASELINE BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS Tidal Estuarine Environment The Craney Island Disposal Area is situated at the junction of the Elizabeth River and the lower portion of the James River known as Hampton Roads. Based on measurements at Newport News this estuarine area has a mean tidal range of 2.6 feet and a spring tidal range of 3.1 feet (U.S. Department of Commerce 1989). The typical salinity range based on monthly averages observed in Hampton Roads off Craney Island is 16 to 22 parts per thousand (ppt) on the surface and 18-23 ppt at the bottom (Bradshaw and Kuo 1987). The monthly average difference between the surface and bottom salinity can be as much as 6 ppt during periods of high freshwater discharge when water column stratification is enhanced. B. Mitigation Analysis Hampton Roads has two noteworthy water quality concerns. It is included within a contaminant advisory covering the James River and all tributaries from the fall line at Richmond to the Hampton Roads-Norfolk Bridge Tunnel (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 2000). This advisory is a legacy from Kepone contamination that occurred between 1966 and 1975. A fishing ban was instituted in 1975, but was rescinded in 1988 when the levels of contamination decreased sufficiently. A public advisory remains in effect as a precautionary measure; however, it does not recommend any specific limits on fish consumption. The second water quality concern is a restriction on the harvesting of shellfish from the waters of Hampton Roads around Craney Island (Appendix A). With a permit from the Marine Resources Commission, shellfish may be harvested from this area in the summer, provided that they are relayed to a clean area for a period of depuration. This restriction is based mainly on the potential for bacterial contamination. The Elizabeth River is the site of a major deep water port supporting commerce, military activities, and industry. It has a long history of extensive dredging and shoreline alteration. Over the years man's aquatic filling activities have reduced the river's surface area by 27% (Nichols and Howard-Strobel 1986). The area is highly urbanized with some of the most severe 1 pollution problems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Because of its toxic contamination problems, the Chesapeake Bay Program has identified it as one of three Regions of Concern in the Bay. The other two are Baltimore Harbor and the Anacostia River. Significant contaminants include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, various metals, tributyltin, and polychlorinated biphenyls (Chesapeake Bay Program 1994, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 1998). The problem tends to be more severe in the branches, particularly in the Southern Branch. Shellfish harvesting is prohibited in the Elizabeth River due to the presence of chemical and bacterial contamination. While the Elizabeth River drains an area of over 300 the basin is rather flat and the freshwater input to the estuary is relatively low. In the summer dissolved oxygen in the bottom water is known to periodically drop below 4.0 mg/, which is considered the minimum for general estuarine aquatic life (Sharp 1995). The Southern Branch appears to have the lowest dissolved oxygen, with levels sometimes nearing 1.0 mg/l. square miles, In recent years a concerted effort was initiated to reduce the contaminant problems and enhance habitat. This effort was lead by the Elizabeth River Project, a private organization that developed a partnership of citizens, industry, governments, military, and recreational interests. A Watershed Action Plan that was produced in 1996 is expected to lead to significant improvements in the area. Zooplankton in the Hampton Roads area are known to display a bimodal pattern of abundance with peaks in Spring (March-April) and summer (July-August) (Sharp 1995). Copepods are the dominant group with cladocerans comprising a minor fraction. Also present are the larvae of invertebrates such as barnacles, polychaete worms, molluscs, and crabs, and the eggs and larvae of resident estuarine fishes such as bay anchovy, hogchoker, goby, pipefish, blenny, and skillet fish. Zooplankton abundance is conspicuously reduced in the Elizabeth River and the species composition varies with the salinity gradient proceeding upriver (Sharp 1995, Birdsong 1993, Buchanan 1991). High concentrations of dissolved copper and zinc in the Elizabeth River have been shown to reduce survival of the copepod Acartia tonsa, and are believed to be at least partially responsible for the unusual low abundance of zooplankton there (Sunda et al. 1990). Benthic macroinvertebrates comprise an important prey base for many fishes and crabs. Several studies have been conducted on the benthic macroinvertebrates inhabiting Hampton Roads and the Elizabeth River (Seitz and Lipcius 2002, Daurer 2001, Dauer 2000, Dauer et al. 1989a, Dauer et al. 1989b, Dauer and Ewing 1986, Hawthorne and Dauer 1983, Boesch 1973, Boesch 1972). Polychaetes, mollusks, and arthropods are the main groups. Diversity and abundance vary with the type of substrate, time of year, and location. Sand habitats tend to be more diverse, because of the presence of shell and other hard substrates that allow epifaunal colonizers. The studies of Dauer and Ewing (1986), Dauer (2000), Seitz and Lipcius (2002) are particularly pertinent since they included stations adjacent to Craney Island within the proposed expansion area. Dauer and Ewing (1986) found that a silty sand bottom was located within 50 yards of the Craney Island shoreline. Further offshore the sediment contained a higher silt/clay content. No major differences in benthic invertebrate composition were detected between the nearshore silty, 2 sand bottom and the offshore higher slit/clay content bottom. Both areas were dominated by h Ints widely distributed species, many of which are classified as euryhaline opportunists. Polychaete worms were the most abundant group. Table 1 lists the top 14 numerically dominant species. Sometime after this study was conducted, 3-5 million cubic yards of sediment from the deepening of the channel to Newport News was deposited around Craney Island to increase dike stability (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987). This alteration of the benthic environment would have affected the invertebrate community, but the long-term change may not be significant, since the community was dominated by widely distributed opportunistic species that were not restricted to particular bottom sediment conditions. cal Es, Dauer (2000) used a benthic index of biotic integrity (B-BI) to characterize the benthic community condition of the Elizabeth River mainstem and its main tributaries (Eastern Branch, Western Branch, Southern Branch, and Lafayette River). The B-IBI is an index that incorporates several metrics representing species diversity, biomass, abundance, and certain community composition characteristics. Interpretation of the index is based on comparison with reference sites grouped according to salinity and substrate type. The Chesapeake Bay Program has used this index for several years to monitor the condition of the benthic community. Dauer sampled 25 stations in each of the Elizabeth River segments. The mainstem had a higher mean B-IBI value (better condition) than the tributaries. However, only 48% of the mainstem stations met the good condition level (B-IBI > 3) compared to 70% for the Virginia average for that year (1999). The conditions within the immediate vicinity of the eastern expansion project appear to be generally similar to the mainstem, and 3 of the stations (43%) showed a good condition level. Low species diversity and the presence of relatively large numbers of organisms from pollution tolerant taxa are the main reasons why many of the mainstem stations failed to attain the good condition level. The community was numerically dominated by polychaete and oligochaete worms, while arthropods and mollusks were notably uncommon. The 15 most abundant species are shown in Table 2. Seven of these were also numerically dominant species in the earlier study by Dauer and Ewing (1986). B. Mitigation Analysis . Seitz and Lipcius (2002) sampled bivalves within the proposed Craney Island eastern expansion area (41 sites), and at 40 deep and 40 shallow (< 4feet) sites within the Elizabeth River entrance/Lafayette River area. They used a box core at sites deeper than 4 feet and a suction apparatus at shallower sites. These sampling methods were chosen to ensure that any deep dwelling bivalves would be collected. The sampling at the Craney Island site only found four species: Tagelus plebeius, Aligena elevata, Macoma tenta, and Gemma gemma. The number of species was relatively low in comparison to the other deep sites (7 species) and the shallow sites (8 species) sampled in the Elizabeth River mouth/Lafayette River area. The total bivalve density in the Craney Island area was also relatively low (7.8/m?) in comparison to the other deep (10.8/m?) and shallow (71/m?) sites. This study is in the process of completing biomass measurements, but early observations indicated that all of the bivalves collected in the Craney Island sample area were small. Because of the relatively low bivalve abundance, the investigators concluded that the proposed fill area on the east side of Craney Island is not likely to be an important feeding area for blue crabs or demersal fish. 3 Table 1. Numerically dominant benthic invertebrate species collected adjacent to Craney Island by Dauer and Ewing (1986). Species Abundance Rank Acteocina canaliculata (G) Paraprionospio pinnata (P) Mediomastus ambiseta (P) Glycinde solitaria (P) Phoronis psammophila(Ph) Loimia medusa (P) Nereis succinea (P) Sigambra tentaculata (P) Leitoscoloplos fragilis (P) Sabellaria vulgaris (P) Ampelisca abdita (A) Leucon americanus (C) Streblospio benedicti (P) Spiochaetopterus oculatus (P) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 (P) Polychaete (Ph) Phoronid (G) Gastropod (A) Amphipod (C) Cumacean ! 4 nd Table 2. Dominant benthic invertebrate taxa by abundance for the 25 stations in the mainstem Elizabeth River sampled by Dauer (2000). Taxa codes: G - gastropod, H - hemichordate, 0 - oligochaete, P- polychaete, Ph - phoronid, R - rhynchocoel O 2 Number per m² Taxa 1020 431 Mediomastus ambiseta (P) Paraprionospio (P) Hemichordata spp. (H) Nereis succinea (P) 406 240 163 Glycinde solitaria (P) Tubificoides spp. Group I (O) Streblospio benedicti (P) 151 129 Loimia medusa (P) 119 96 73 68 Acteocina canaliculata (G) Tubificoides wasselli (0) Heteromastus filiformis (P) Nemertea spp. (R) Polydora ligni (P) Phoronis psammophila (Ph) Caulleriella killariensis (P) B. Mitigation Analysis 68 68 64 59 5 The blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), and Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginia) are particularly important species, because of their commercial and recreational value. The blue crab is widely distributed and highly sought after by commercial and recreational fisherman. This swimming crab occurs around Craney Island, and watermen often set crab pots off the eastern perimeter during the warm months of the year. The hard clam is distributed throughout the Hampton Roads area. Commercially harvestable densities are found just west of Newport News Point, on Hampton Flats between Newport News Point and Old Point Comfort, and on the Newport News Middle Ground (Roegner and Mann 1990, Byrne et al. 1987, Haven et al. 1981). The clam fishery in Hampton Roads and lower Chesapeake Bay is managed on a rotational basis with certain areas being opened and closed at various times of the year to limit the harvest in any one region (Mann 2002). In addition, the regulations allow clams from regions closed for direct harvest because of elevated coliform levels to be relayed to appropriate clean areas for depuration and subsequent harvest. A survey around Craney Island by Dauer and Ewing (1986) using a commercial dredge showed that hard clams were present in generally low numbers. The highest densities were found on the north side (7-14 clams per 5-minute dredge tow), while the east side yielded 1-2 clams per 5-minute tow. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission initiated a hard clam survey for Hampton Roads and the Elizabeth River in 2001 (Mann 2002). Sampling was accomplished using modified hydraulic patent tongs with a coverage of one square meter. Figure 1 shows the sampling areas, and Table 3 shows the results for 39 of the 43 sampling areas. The areas around Craney Island had low densities of clams especially on the east side where only one clam was obtained in 28 tong grabs. Baylor Grounds (designated public oyster grounds) are located off the east, west and north sides of Craney Island (Figure 2). The Baylor Grounds were originally naturally productive oyster areas that were surveyed on a state wide basis and set aside for public use in 1894 (Haven and Whitcomb 1983). The grounds in the vicinity of Craney Island and Hampton Roads have not been productive for many years. One reason for the decline in oyster productivity in this area is the introduction of two oyster pathogens, MSX (Halosporidium nelsoni) and dermo (Perkinsus marinus) beginning in the late 1950s. The oysters could have also been affected by anthropogenic disturbances including the construction of Craney Island and pollution. However, some oysters still set in this area and surveys around Craney Island have revealed a patchy, low density distribution (Dauer and Ewing 1986). Baylor Grounds retain protection under state law and any permanent destruction would require legislative approval (Gerry Showalter, Virginia Marine Resources Commission, pers. com.). Even though the abundance of adult oysters in the Hampton Roads area is relatively low, this area is thought to play a critical role in the retention of oyster larvae in the James River. The James, particularly the region from the Route 17 bridge upstream to Mulberry Point is the primary area for producing seed oysters in Chesapeake Bay. Seed oysters are young oysters that are harvested and transplanted to other areas for growing to harvestable size. What makes the James River so important is the extremely high oyster set and survival. An unusual intersection 6 Table 3. Results of the 2001 VIMS/VMRC hard clam survey for Hampton Roads and the Elizabeth River (Mann 2002). The sampling area locations are shown in Figure 1. Areas around Craney Island are shown in bold. Area Acreage Number of Tong Grabs Number of Clams Collected Density (No./m?) 1 2 3 4 vau AWN 14 21 0 54 229 76 0 4 113 116 50 145 150 242 69 47 79 50 80 53 112 91 74 141 71 13 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 39 40 41 42 43 894.5 924.5 790.2 1159.4 1200.5 1926.8 1098.9 749.5 632.8 805.5 644.2 844.3 895.8 725.6 597.2 1126.4 8 74 35 58 45 13 149 15 0.12 0.18 0.00 0.37 1.53 0.31 0.00 0.09 0.90 0.16 0.93 0.66 0.52 0.49 0.18 1.06 1.15 0.00 8.38 0.30 0.29 2.62 2.91 1.56 2.99 0.98 2.26 0.60 0.26 0.04 0.63 0.00 0.57 0.48 0.75 1.89 0.53 0.34 0.24 0.14 44 Total Mean 102.7 1248.7 681.8 902.7 1118.9 731.3 986.5 722.6 1253.4 741.5 1567.5 711.7 544 452.3 649.5 1209.7 466.4 645.2 112.2 75.0 673.0 362.7 367.7 38.1 31382.1 78 85 57 70 92 123 45 157 47 196 45 34 28 46 41 58 81 16 9 40 41 38 7 3059 0 712 17 20 241 358 70 469 46 442 27 9 1 29 0 33 39 12 17 21 14 9 1 3453 0.93 8 of currents at Hampton Roads tends to prevent the oyster larvae from being carried out of the river and facilitates their transport back upstream to the setting area (Mann 1988, Byrne et al. 1987). This is believed to be the main reason for the unusually high set in the James River. Fish surveys of the lower James River and Elizabeth River have revealed a diverse assemblage of species. A list of the fish species collected from 7 surveys that were conducted in the area is given in Appendix B. The fish fauna is quite dynamic, with the relative distribution and abundance changing markedly over time (Birdsong et al. 1984). A majority of the species are marine migrants that enter the area at various times and life stages. This group includes many species with commercial or recreational value. They may enter the area as adults, but more often as juveniles. Some of the more important marine species include: Atlantic croaker, spot, Atlantic menhaden, weakfish, bluefish, and summer flounder. Anadromous species such as alewife, blueback herring, American shad, and striped bass pass through the area as adults on their way to and from freshwater spawning areas. The use of the Elizabeth River for anadromous fish spawning appears to be negligible. However, juveniles spend variable amounts of time in the area before eventually returning to the sea. Some species are permanent residents of Chesapeake Bay. These would include bay anchovy, Atlantic silverside, killifish, blennies, skilletfish, gobies, pipefish, lined seahorse, oyster toadfish, blackcheek tonguefish, hogchoker, windowpane, white perch, yellow perch, and silver perch. These species also often display movements into and out of the area, as well as within the area, in response to changes in water temperature, other water quality conditions, and food availability. A few species are visitors from freshwater areas. Fish diversity reaches a maximum in late summer and early fall (Murdy et al. 1997). As fall progresses many species migrate out to the ocean and southward. A few cold-water adapted species such as the spotted and red hakes enter the area during the colder months, but leave before the summer. Birdsong (1984) made monthly trawl collections between January 1982 and January 1984 at 8 stations distributed within the lower Chesapeake Bay, lower James River, and Elizabeth River. He found that the two “Elizabeth River mainstem stations were among the most prolific producers of fishes.” Species with relatively high abundance included: bay anchovy, Atlantic croaker, spotted hake, weakfish, blueback herring, Atlantic silverside, silver perch, and spot. Table 4 shows a list of 11 species, for which “essential fish habitat” (EFH) has been designated а in the Hampton Roads area. EFH is a designation that applies to species, which are managed under a Federal fishery management plan. It was established under the 1996 amendments of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and it is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, or growth to maturity.” The Act requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on proposed actions, funded, permitted or undertaken by the agency, that may 10 he al. Table 4. Species which have Essential Fish Habitat designated in the Hampton Roads area. HAPC denotes “habitat areas of particular concern.” Source: National Marine Fisheries Service 1999. age a is Species Life Stage Larva Juvenile Egg Adult e Ften tic windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) black sea bass (Centropristis striata) bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) cobia (Rachycentron canadum) red drum (Sciaenops occelatus) dusky shark (Carcharinus obscurus) sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) co X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X х Х X X X X X X X X X X HAPC HAPC D X HAPC B Mitigation Analysis 11 adversely affect EFH. To determine the specific consultation procedures, which will be required, we suggest that you contact Tim Goodger of the NMFS Oxford, MD office at (410) 226-5771. The lower James River is included within an area of the lower Chesapeake Bay that is designated as a “habitat area of particular concern” (HAPC) for the sandbar shark. This designation denotes EFH that is particularly important to the long-term productivity of the species and/or is particularly vulnerable to degradation. The intent of the designation is to focus greater attention on conservation efforts. The sandbar shark is a primarily bottom dwelling species that attains a maximum size of about 7.5 feet for females and 6 feet for males (Murdy el al. 1997). It has a wide distribution and has been reported from coastal areas of all tropical and warm-temperate oceans and seas. In the western Atlantic, it ranges from Massachusetts to southern Brazil. It has been one of the most important commercial shark species along the east coast of the United States since the 1940s. It is caught by long-lines, gill nets, and by anglers using rod and reel. Overfishing is believed to have reduced its numbers by about 80%. The lower Chesapeake Bay is an important nursery area for sandbar sharks. Females move into the lower bay during the summer (Springer 1960). They typically bear 8 to 12 young and depart the bay shortly thereafter apparently without feeding. The young average approximately 24 inches at birth. They feed on a variety of fish and crustaceans, but blue crabs are a particularly important food item (Medved and Marshall 1981). They remain in the bay until the onset of winter, when they migrate to warmer waters off the coast and/or southward. They may return to estuary mouths and coastal bays in the mid-Atlantic region the next year in late spring. The lower James River has low to moderate numbers of wintering waterfowl. Table 5 shows species counts based on 5-year averages from 1981 to 2000. The more numerous species include: canvasback, Canada goose, bufflehead, ruddy duck, mallard, American widgeon, ring- neck duck, northern shoveler, black duck, and mergansers. Waterfowl appear to be relatively more common on the western side of Craney Island along the shoreline up to the Nansemond River. Some wintering waterfowl also use the shallow water areas within the Craney Island disposal site. During the warmer months, various gulls, terns, cormorants, shorebirds, and wading birds are common in and around Craney Island. Craney Island Disposal Area The Craney Island Disposal Area currently encompasses approximately 2,500 acres. The disposal operations and dike maintenance create a spatially and temporally variable disturbance regime. Large shallow water zones are created during large disposal operations. Gradual drying and vegetative colonization (typically by Phragmites) occurs between dredging cycles. The amount of dredged material, which is deposited, can vary significantly from year to year. The three interior cells are used in rotation to facilitate drying and material consolidation. The large open expanse of the area and its relative isolation help to make Craney Island an attractive area for birds that use shallow water, beaches, or open flats. Large numbers of waterfowl and shorebirds often occur, especially during migration. The site is also used by a variety of other 12 red, Table 5. Mid-winter waterfowl survey results (5-year averages) for the lower James River including the Elizabeth and Nansemond Rivers (Zone 4, Segment 1). Ced es Species/Group 1981-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 1 349 182 368 124 170 49 92 28 6 5 6 87 247 42 42 91 0 2 12 40 80 0 60 208 140 0 0 50 20 7 0 4 1720 451 990 1271 mallard (Anas platyrhyncos) black duck (Anas rubripes) gadwall (Anas streptera) widgeon (Anas americana) green-winged teal (Anas crecca) northern shoveler (Anas clypeata) northern pintail (Anas acuta) redhead (Aythya americana) canvasback (Aythya valisineria) scaup (Aythya marila & A. affinis) ring-neck duck (Aythya collaris) common goldeneye (Bucephala clamgula) bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) scoters (Melanitta spp.) oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalis) mergansers (Mergus spp.) Atlantic brant (Branta bernicla) 75 102 21 12 B. Mitigation Analysis 166 105 79 58 56 14 18 12 193 71 183 370 45 1 136 916 66 11 15 12 127 12 2 279 nl Slo 22 76 56 200 0 25 0 0 0 0 1 1 1160 557 554 snow goose (Chen caerulescens) 40 Canada goose (Branta canadensis) 662 tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus)0 Grand Total 4641 2 1 0 2231 2693 3895 13 types of water-oriented birds including terns, gulls, wading birds, and osprey. The open habitat and large concentrations of birds make the area attractive to peregrine falcons (Davis 1988). This avian predator was removed from the Federal list of endangered species in 1999. Many thousands of birding enthusiasts come to Craney Island each year to observe the birds (Beck 1998). Several species of ground nesting birds are known to nest at Craney Island. Examples include: least tern, killdeer, willet, piping plover, blackneck stilt, avocet, horned lark, and night hawk. Least tern is the most numerous nesting species. Ruth Beck, an ornithologist with the College of William and Mary, has been advising the Corps, since the 1980s, on ways to protect and enhance threatened and colonial nesting bird species at Craney Island. In the latter 1980s, specific habitat management measures were implemented to attract beach nesting birds. Fine sand and shell material was deposited and graded to provide nesting habitat. Wood decoys also, were set out to attract birds to the new habitat. Mammalian predators, such as red fox, were removed. Least terns responded positively to this effort and reached a peak of 300 pairs in 1989, although 60 to 100 pairs was more typical during this period. The number of nesting pairs declined during the 1990s, and only 30 to 45 pairs nested during the last 3 years. A number of factors were responsible for the decline. The previous habitat management activities were not continued, and the quality of the nesting habitat declined. Mammalian predators, including red fox, feral cats, and feral dogs, increased. There was an increase in the amount of human activity, including a major operation to install wick drains along the perimeter dike. Piping plover, a Federally listed threatened species, nested at Craney Island from 1989 to 1997. The number of nesting pairs during this period ranged from 1 to 5. They were responding to the same favorable nesting habitat conditions that benefitted the least terns. Unlike least terns piping plover produce precocial young that leave the nest shortly after hatching to travel to moist sand or mud flats for foraging. Since the young cannot fly, the foraging areas need to be located reasonably close to the nesting areas. The failure of piping plover to nest at the site since 1997 reflects the same decline in habitat conditions experienced by the least tern. In addition, some of the chick foraging areas on the outside of the perimeter dike and within the interior became unsuitable or inaccessible. It appears that piping plover would not be likely to use the site in the future, unless an active habitat management effort was implemented. Endangered Species Immature loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) sea turtles regularly inhabit the lower Chesapeake Bay including the Hampton Roads area during the summer months (Mitchell 1994; Musick et al. 1984; Musick 1979). The loggerhead is Federally- listed as a threatened species and the ridley is listed as endangered. The endangered green (Chelonia mydas) and endangered leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) sea turtles could also occur in the area, but only as rare transients. Sea turtles typically arrive in late May and depart in the fall as the water temperature drops below 20EC. Loggerhead and Kemp's ridley sea turtles spend a considerable amount of time feeding on the bottom. They have been known to be killed 14 2 bitat by entrainment by hopper dredges. Since these species are under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service, we recommend that you contact Tim Goodger of their Oxford, MD office at (410) 226-5771 to determine the need for consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. le: 1 An active bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest is located approximately 0.5 miles west of Craney Island. The bald eagle is Federally-listed as a threatened species. Based on our current understanding of the project alternatives, there should be no effect on the bald eagle. of Ice at Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), which is Federally-listed as a threatened species, nested at Craney Island from 1989 to 1997. The habitat conditions currently appear marginal for this species, and an active management program would probably be needed to attract these birds to the site in the future. 1 Future Without the Project The future, without the project, would see the existing Craney Island disposal facility filled to capacity, but the disposition of the land and its potential habitat value would be uncertain. A third crossing of the lower James River is being planned as a bridge-tunnel with a segment that runs along the east side of Craney Island. There would be deepening of the Norfolk Harbor Channel. The existing 45-foot inbound lane would be deepened to 50 feet to match the existing 50-foot outbound lane. Subsequent further deepening to 55 feet is planned also. Maersk Maritime Services is planning to construct a new shipping terminal at a site on the Elizabeth River, just south of Craney Island. Ongoing restoration efforts by the Elizabeth River Project and others should lead to a reduction in sediment contaminants and improvement in wetland and related habitats in the Elizabeth River. B. Mitigation Analysis 1 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION NEEDS The most obvious and significant impact is the loss of approximately 580 acres of estuarine, open-water habitat. Since the habitat is of medium value and relatively abundant in Chesapeake Bay, we have classified it as Resource Category 3 under the Service's mitigation policy. The mitigation goal for this category is “no net loss of habitat value while minimizing loss of in-kind habitat value.” Thus, to the extent that in-kind habitat losses cannot be avoided or minimized after appropriate mitigation planning efforts, substitute habitats should be created or enhanced (out-of-kind replacement) to compensate for the project habitat losses. The Service, currently, is participating in the Corps' project mitigation process, which is seeking to develop a conceptual plan to compensate for the habitat loss caused by the eastward expansion. Potential compensatory actions, which are being considered, include: restoring oyster grounds, restoring beds of submerged aquatic vegetation, restoring wetlands, decontaminating toxic hot spots in the Elizabeth River, preserving/enhancing riparian lands, stabilizing eroding shoreline habitats, creating/managing a hard clam broodstock sanctuary, removing blockages to potential anadromous fish spawning areas, improving bird habitat on Craney Island or elsewhere, 15 installing measures to improve the quality of urban stormwater runoff, and creating artificial fish reefs. a Besides the direct loss of estuarine habitat caused by the eastern expansion, there may be other impacts to adjacent habitats. The potential effect on the circulation of the lower James River (Hampton Roads) and the Elizabeth River was evaluated in a three-dimensional hydrodynamic modeling study by Wang et al. (2001). The study investigated potential effects on water surface elevation, current magnitude, surface and bottom salinity, bottom sedimentation potential, and Elizabeth River flushing. It found that the eastward expansion caused no significant effects on the circulation of the lower James River or Elizabeth River. The hydrodynamic model was verified and appeared capable of detecting any substantive effects. In fact, it did detect some important effects with the northward expansion and some lesser effects with the westward expansion alternatives. The lack of any notable effects on the Elizabeth River circulation with the eastward expansion appears to be due to the assumed dredging for the new port berthing area. This dredging would increase the river's cross sectional area to a degree that it would offset and slightly exceed the decrease caused by the filling. The habitat in the dredged area will be modified. The water depth will be significantly increased from 3-4 m to approximately 16 m. This may alter the fish use of the area by potentially favoring pelagic adults in lieu of smaller juveniles. Crab harvesting activities would be precluded. The resident benthic invertebrate community in the dredged area will be eliminated for a time until a new assemblage repopulates. The repopulation typically, would occur over a time frame extending from a few months to a year or so. However, the character of the new benthic habitat may be altered. One potential concern is that sediment scouring and deposition associated with ship propeller wash could reduce the habitat suitability. If there will be a need for maintenance dredging, this could result in additional periodic impacts to the benthic community. a The operation of a new port facility on the expanded filled area could affect the use of birds on the existing Craney Island. The port could foster the presence of potential predators such as rats, raccoons, and gulls. Ground nesting birds such as the least tern would be particularly vulnerable to these predators. The lights, noise, and associated human activity from the port could also have some effect, although birds may be able to acclimate to these potential disturbances. The adequate consideration of alternatives is a fundamental way to assure that unnecessary impacts are not incurred. This report has focused on the eastward expansion since it is the most probable alternative under consideration. The need to provide an area for port expansion appears to be the driving factor for this alternative. It also appears that much of the material capacity of the eastward expansion will be used up to accommodate the dredging for the new port berthing area. If the need for this port expansion proves not to be compelling, then other alternatives to provide dredged material disposal capacity, should receive closer scrutiny. These would include raising the existing dikes, ocean disposal, and beneficial uses such as habitat development. 16 fish LITERATURE CITED er Beck, R. 1998. 1998 Monitoring and protection of the endangered and threatened avian species on Craney Island. Unpublished report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. іс ace 1 Birdsong, R.S. 1993. Spatial and temporal boundaries of the zooplankton environmental indicators. In: Development of zooplankton community environmental indicators for Chesapeake Bay: a report on the project's results through June 1993. ICPRB Report 93-2 prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program and Maryland Department of the Environment. Birdsong, R.S., R.L. Bedenbaugh, and R.D. Owen. 1984. Fin fish seasonality and utilization of Hampton Roads and the entrance channel. Report from Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. Boesch, D.F. 1972. Species diversity of marine macrobenthos in the Virginia area. Chesapeake Science 13: 206-211. Boesch, D.F. 1973. Classification and community structure of macrobenthos in the Hampton Roads area, Virginia. Marine Biology 21: 226-244. B Mitigation Analysis Bradshaw, J.G. and A.Y. Kuo. 1987. Salinity distribution in the James River. Special Report No. 292 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia. Buchanan, C. 1991. Chesapeake Bay zooplankton monitoring: report on a workshop held in Easton, Maryland September 23-24, 1991. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program. Byme, R., A.Y. Kuo, R.L. Mann, J.M. Brubaker, E.P. Ruzecki, P.V. Hyer, R.J. Diaz, and J.H. Posenau. 1987. New Port Island: An evaluation of potential impacts on marine resources of the lower James River and Hampton Roads. SRAMSOE No. 283 of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science submitted to the Peninsula Ports Authority of Virginia. Chesapeake Bay Program. 1994. Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report. CBP/TRS 117/94. Dauer, D.M. 2001. Benthic biological monitoring program of the Elizabeth River watershed (2000). Unpublished report from Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, submitted to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 17 Dauer, D.M., 2000. Benthic biological monitoring program of the Elizabeth River watershed (1999). Unpublished report from Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, submitted to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Dauer, D.M., R.S. Birdsong, and A.J. Rodi. 1989a. Biological survey for the Norfolk International Terminals Expansion Project. Old Dominion University AMRL Technical Report No. 002 submitted to Virginia Port Authority, Norfolk, VA. Dauer, D.M. and R.M. Ewing. 1986. Macrobenthic communities in the vicinity of Craney Island. Submitted to the Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA. Dauer, D.M., H.G. Marshall, R.S. Birdsong, R.M. Ewing, and A.J. Rodi. 1989b. Elizabeth River long-term monitoring program: biological monitoring projects; final report for phase I (February - June 1989). AMRL Technical Report No. 702, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA submitted to Virginia Water Control Board, Richmond, VA. i Davis, D. 1988. Availability of lead, zinc, copper, and cadmium to the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) from waterfowl of the Craney Island Disposal Area. Masters Thesis, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. Haven, D.S., R. Morales-Alamo, and W.I. Priest III. 1981. Oyster and hard clam distribution and abundance in Hampton Roads and the lower James River. In W.I. Priest II (ed.), A study of dredging effects in Hampton Roads, Virginia. SRAMSOE No. 247 of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Pt., VA submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. Haven, D.S. and J.P. Whitcomb. 1983. The origin and extent of oyster reefs in the James River, Virginia. Journal of Shellfish Research 3(2): 141-151. Hawthorne, S.D. and D.M. Dauer. 1983. Macrobenthic communities of the lower Chesapeake Bay. III. Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. Int. Reveue ges. Hydrobiol. 68: 193- 205. Hedgepeth, M.Y., J.V. Merriner, and F. Wojcik. 1981. Nekton utilization of aquatic resources in the Elizabeth River and the lower James River. In W.1. Priest (ed.), A study of dredging effects in Hampton Roads, VA. SRAMSOE No. 247 of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. Mann, R. 1988. Distribution of bivalve larvae at a frontal system in the James River, Virginia. Marine Ecology Progress Series 50: 29-44. 18 Medved, R.J. and J.A. Marshall. 1981. Feeding behavior and biology of young sandbar sharks, Carcharhinus plumbeus (Pisces, Carcharhinidae), in Chincoteague Bay, Virginia. Fishery Bulletin 79: 441-447. Mitchell, J.C. 1994. The Reptiles of Virginia. Smithsonian Institution Press. 352 p. al . 1 Murdy, E.O., R.S. Birdsong, and J.A. Musick. 1997. Fishes of the Chesapeake Bay. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 324 pp. nd. Musick, J.A. 1979. The marine turtles of Virginia, families Chelonidae and Dermochelyidae, with notes on identification and natural history. Educational Series Number 24, Sea Grant Program, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA. > Musick, J.A., R. Byles, R. Klinger, and S. Bellmund. 1984. Mortality and behavior of sea turtles in the Chesapeake Bay; summary report for 1979 through 1983. Submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service by Virginia Institute of marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Guide to essential fish habitat designations in the northeastern United States, Volume V: Maryland and Virginia. Nichols, M.M. and M.M. Howard-Strobel. 1986. Man's physical effects on the Elizabeth River. In: Proceedings of the Chesapeake Bay Research Conference “Effects of Upland and Shoreline Land Use On the Chesapeake Bay", C.Y. Kuo and T.M. Younos (eds). B. Mitigation Analysis Roegner, G.C. and R. Mann. 1990. Habitat requirements for the hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria, in Chesapeake Bay. Special Scientific Report No. 126 of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA. Seitz, R.D. and R.N. Lipcius. 2002. Impact of the Craney Island extension on abundance, biomass, and diversity of dominant benthic species. Preliminary report from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science to the Army Corps of Engineers. Sharp, W.C. 1995. Zooplankton community dynamics in the Elizabeth River, Virginia. Masters Thesis, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA. Springer, S. 1960. Natural history of the sandbar shark Eulamia milberti. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Bulletin 61: 1-38. Sunda, W.G., P.A. Tester, and S.A. Huntsman. 1990. Toxicity of trace metals to Acartia tonsa in the Elizabeth River and southern Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 30: 207-221. 19 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Craney Island Perimeter Dike Stabilization, Final Environmental Assessment. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1989. Tide Table 1990: High and low water predictions East Coast of North America including Greenland. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2000. Virginia Water Quality Assessment 2000: 305(b) report to the EPA Administrator and Congress for the period January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1998. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. Virginia Water Quality Assessment 1998: 305(b) report for the period July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1997. Wang, H.V., S.C. Kim, J.D. Boon, A.Y. Kuo, G.M. Sisson, J.M. Brubaker, and J. P-Y. Maa. 2001. Three dimensional hydrodynamic modeling study, Craney Island Eastward Expansion, Lower James River and Elizabeth River, Virginia. Special Report No. 372 In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA, submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. 20 APPENDIX B List of fishes collected by trawl and beach seine surveys in the lower James River and Elizabeth River near Craney Island. 00: Freshwater eels - Anguillidae American eel - Anguilla rostrata (3,5,6) : Conger eels - Congridae conger eel - Conger sp. (6) 9 > Anchovies - Engraulidae bay anchovy - Anchoa mitchilli (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) striped anchovy - Anchoa hepsetus (1, 2, 5) misc. anchovy - Anchoa sp. (7) - Herrings - Clupeidae Atlantic thread herring - Opisthonema oglinum (2) threadfin shad - Dorosoma petenense (2,6) gizzard shad - Dorosoma cepedianum (2, 3, 5, 6, 7) Atlantic menhaden - Brevoortia tyrannus (1,3,5,6,7) American shad - Alosa sapidissima (3, 5, 6) blueback herring - Alosa aestivalis (2, 3, 4, 5, 6) alewife - Alosa pseudoharengus (3,5,6) B. Mitigation Analysis > - > Lizardfishes - Synodontidae inshore lizardfish - Synodus foetens (1, 3, 5, 6, 7) Carps and minnows - Cyprinidae common carp - Cyprinus carpio (1,2) - Toadfishes - Batrachoididae oyster toadfish - Opsanus tau (3,4,5,6) - Clingfishes - Gobiesocidae skilletfish - Gobiesox strumosus (3,4,5,6) Cods - Gadidae red hake - Urophycis chuss (3,5,6) spotted hake - Urophycis regia (3, 4, 5, 6) 7 Cusk-eels - Ophidiidae striped cusk-eel - Ophidion marginatum (3, 5, 6) Needlefishes - Belonidae Atlantic needlefish - Strongylura marina (2) Halfbeaks - Hemiramphidae American halfbeak - Hyporhamphus meeki (7) Killifishes - Cyprinodontidae mummichog - Fundulus heteroclitus (2,6) striped killifish - Fundulus majalis (2,3,5,7) banded killifish - Fundulus diaphanus (5) Silversides - Atherinidae Atlantic silverside - Menidia menidia (2, 3, 5, 6, 7) inland silverside - Menidia beryllina (6) - Pipefishes and seahorses - Syngnathidae northern pipefish - Syngnathus fuscus (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) dusky pipefish - Syngnathus floridae (3) lined seahorse - Hippocampus erectus (4) - Searobins - Triglidae northern searobin - Prionotus carolinus (1, 3, 4, 5, 6) striped searobin - Prionotus evolans (3, 5, 7) > Butterfishes - Stromateidae harvestfish - Peprilus alepidotus (1, 2, 3) butterfish - Peprilus triacanthus (1,3,5) - Snake mackerels - Trichiuridae cutlassfish - Trichiurus lepturus (3) - - Jacks - Carangidae crevalle jack - Caranx hippos (2, 3) lookdown - Selene vomer (1) Atlantic moonfish - Selene setapinnis (3) permit - Trachinotus falcatus (2) - Cobia - Rachycentridae cobia - Rachycentron canadum (1, 2) Mackerels - Scombridae 1 Spanish mackerel - Scomberomorus maculatus (2) - Mullets - Mugulidae white mullet - Mugil curema (2, 5, 7) striped mullet - Mugil cephalus (2,6) ! Stargazers - Uranoscopidae northern stargazer - Asroscopus guttatus (3,4) > - Drums - Sciaenidae Atlantic croaker - Micropogonias undulatus (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7) weakfish - Cynoscion regalis (1, 3, 4, 5, 6) spotted seatrout - Cynoscion nebulosus (2,6) spot - Leiostomus xanthurus (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) southern kingfish - Menticirrhus americanus (2) silver perch - Bairdiella chysoura (2, 3, 6, 7) banded drum - Larimus fasciatus (3) red drum - Sciaeops occellata (3, 7) > > - Spadefishes - Ephippidae Atlantic spadefish - Chaetodipterus faber (3,6) B. Mitigation Analysis Bluefishes - Pomatomidae bluefish - Pomatomus saltatrix (1, 2, 3, 4) > - - Gobies - Gobiidae naked goby - Gobiosoma bosc (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) seaboard goby - Gobiosoma ginsburgi (3, 4) green goby - Microgobius thalassinus (3,4,6) > Striped basses - Moronidae striped bass - Morone saxatilis (2,3,5,6) white perch - Morone americana (5,6) Perches - Percidae Yellow perch - Perca flavescens (5) Combtooth blennies - Blenniidae striped blenny - Chasmodes bosquianus (1,3,5) feather blenny - Hypsoblennius hentzi (3, 4, 5, 6) O - Mojarras - Gerreidae silver jenny - Eucinostomus gula (6) lo Porgies - Sparidae scup - Stenotomus chrysops (3) pinfish - Lagodon rhomboides (7) Grunts - Haemulidae pigfish - Orthopristis chrysoptera (7) Sunfishes - Centrarchidae bluegill - Lepomis macrochirus (2) 1 Wrasses - Labridae tautog - Tautoga onitis (5) - Sea basses and groupers - Serranidae black sea bass - Centropristis striata (1,3,5) Puffers - Tetraodontidae northern puffer - Sphoeroides maculatus (3, 6, 7) Tonguefishes - Cynoglossidae blackcheek tonguefish - Symphurus plagiusa (2, 3, 4, 5, 6) American soles - Achiridae hogchoker - Trinectes maculatus (1,3,4,5,6) Righteye flounders - Pleuronectidae winter flounder - Pleuronectes americanus (5) B. Mitigation Analysis - - > > 9 Paralichthyid flounders - Paralichthyidae summer flounder - Paralichthys dentatus (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) smallmouth flounder - Etropus microstomus (3, 5, 6) windowpane - Scopthalmus aquosus (3,5) . 1. Species recorded from a survey by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science consisting of a total of 26 trawls taken near Craney Island and 57 trawls taken near Ragged Island during three summers between 1976 and 1978. A 16-foot otter trawl with a 1.5-inch stretch mesh and a 0.5- inch cod end liner was towed for 5 minutes at approximately 2.5 knots. 2. Species recorded from a VIMS survey consisting of a total of 15 seine hauls taken near Ragged Island during three summers between 1989 and 1991. A 100 by 4 feet flat minnow seine with 0.25-inch bar mesh was set perpendicular to the shore and swept in a quarter circle back to the shore. 1 3. Species reported by Birdsong et al. (1984) at 3 trawl stations: one at the mouth of the Elizabeth River, just east of Craney Island and west of the ship channel; another in the main stem of the Elizabeth River off Lamberts Point; and the third about 1 nautical mile up the Southern 2 I Branch of the Elizabeth River from its confluence with the Eastern Branch. Each station was sampled monthly from January 1982 through January 1984, excluding February 1982 and December 1983. Three 10-minute tows were made at each station on each sample date with a 16-foot wide, semiballoon otter trawl with a 0.25 inch cod end liner. 4. Species reported by Dauer et al. (1989a) based on a trawl survey at the mouth of the Elizabeth River near the Norfolk International Terminals. Six 10-minute tows were made in April and again in July 1989 with a 3-meter otter trawl. 5. Species reported by Hedgepeth et al. (1981) based on numerous trawls in the lower James River and Elizabeth River conducted during the winter and summer of 1978 and 1979. 6. Species recorded from VIMS trawl surveys at numerous stations within the Elizabeth River in 1985 (20 tows), 1999 (13 tows), and 2000 (28 tows). 7. Species recorded during a survey at the east side of Craney Island by Walter Priest (VIMS) and Randy Owen (VMRC) on September 4, 2002. The survey consisted of two hauls of a 100- foot seine at the beach just north of the rehandling basin, and two 5-minute tows with a 6-foot beam trawl just off the shore. beth in Mitigation Analysis B. Mitigation Analysis MITIGATION APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Item Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 1 INTRODUCTION 3 2 ACTION REQUIRING COMPENSATORY MITIGATION 5 3 PROJECT-RELATED ADVERSE IMPACTS 6 3.1 HABITAT EQUIVALENCY ANALYSIS METHOD 7 3.2 INJURY REQUIRING COMPENSATORY MITIGATION 8 4 MITIGATION MEASURES 9 4.1 PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES 10 4.2 RELEVANCE OF SELECTED MITIGATION MEASURES 17 4.3 COMPENSATORY QUANTIFICATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES 20 5 ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION PLAN FORMULATION - MITIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 21 5.1 MITIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS ! 22 6 ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION PLAN FORMULATION - DETAILED ANALYSIS 25 6.1 HABITAT EVALUATION METHOD DEVELOPMENT 26 1 6.2 PRODUCTIVITY ADJUSTMENTS 27 I ! ! TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Item Page 6.3 QUALITATIVE PRODUCT SCORE 31 6.4 HABITAT UNITS 39 7 PLAN SELECTIONS 39 7.1 ALTERNATIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 39 7.2 COST EFFECTIVENESS AND INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS 40 7.3 MITIGATION PLAN SELECTION 46 8 SELECTED MITIGATION PLAN DESCRIPTION 51 8.1 SEDIMENT SITE DESCRIPTIONS 53 8.2 WETLAND SITE DESCRIPTIONS 56 8.3 OYSTER REEF SITE DESCRIPTIONS 62 8.4 OTHER MITIGATION SITES 65 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 67 10 REFERENCES 70 LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1 HEA PRODUCTION LOST 9 2 PRELIMINARY SCREENING FACTORS USED TO EVALUATE PROPOSED COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PROJECTS 13 ii LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) No. Title Page . 3 MITIGATION OPTION WEIGHTING FACTOR EVALUATION 15 4 HEA PRODUCTION GAINED 20 5 QUALITATIVE PRODUCT SCORES 38 6 COST-EFFECTIVE PLANS 42 7 RESULTS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS - ANALYSIS 43 8 RESULTS OF INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS 45 9 MITIGATION PLAN FOR CRANEY ISLAND EXPANSION 52 10 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION PLAN 52 11 POTENTIAL SEDIMENT REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES 55 12 CRANEY EXPANSION WETLAND MITIGATION SITES 59 LIST OF FIGURES No. Title 1 EAST EXPANSION PLAN 2 MITIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE EVALUATIONS 3 MITIGATION BENEFITS CALCULATIONS 4 COST-EFFECTIVE PLANS 5 BEST BUY PLANS 6 WYCOFF SEDIMENT SITE iii LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) No. Title 7 REPUBLIC SEDIMENT SITE 8 MONEY POINT SEDIMENT SITE 9 PARADISE CREEK SEDIMENT SITE 10 SCUFFLETOWN SEDIMENT SITE 11 LAMBERTS POINT/ODU WETLAND SITE 12 FORMER EXXON WETLAND SITE 13 PARADISE CREEK PARK WETLAND SITE 14 E.R. TERMINALS WETLAND SITE 15 JONES AND GILLIGAN CREEK WETLAND SITE 16 ST. JULIANS ANNEX WETLAND SITE 17 RESTORATION PROJECTS IN ELIZABETH RIVER 18 RAGGED ISLAND WMA 19 MITIGATION IN SOUTHERN BRANCH 20 MITIGATION IN HOFFLER CREEK 21 MITIGATION AT LAMBERTS POINT/ODU 22 MITIGATION AT RAGGED ISLAND WMA iv MITIGATION ANALYSIS APPENDIX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Recommended Plan includes the construction of a 580-acre (ac) dredged material placement cell to the east of the existing CIDMMA with the expanded cell used for port development. In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and with ER 1105-2-100, “Policy and Planning Guidance for Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies (Planning Guidance Notebook),” the project-related adverse environmental impacts (i.e., impacts to fish and wildlife resources) have been avoided or minimized to the extent practicable, and a mitigation plan has been developed to compensate for remaining unavoidable significant adverse impacts. A Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analysis (CE/CA) has been performed to identify the most cost-effective plan(s). The compensatory mitigation plan was developed with input from a Mitigation Subcommittee consisting of representatives from 12 Federal and State agencies and 3 local interest groups. The committee convened on 15 occasions between June 2002 and May 2005. The CE/CA resulted in a total of 22 plans that were determined to be cost- effective, including three Best Buy Plans. The selected mitigation plan is one of the Best Buy Plans. a Using data from existing studies and those performed specifically for this Feasibility investigation, the Mitigation Subcommittee was tasked with assessing the degree of habitat impact associated with the 580-ac fill, formulating mitigation ratios to replace or to increase the ecological function and productivity of the area lost, and developing a conceptual mitigation plan comprised of various tidal and sub-tidal habitats. A "landscape approach” was used to establish physical connectivity between various mitigation sites and to establish ecological synergy. Application of this approach also maximizes productivity and ensures long-term viability of each of the sites. Habitat 1 Equivalency Analysis (HEA) methodology was used to quantify the loss in habitat productivity from the proposed CIDMMA expansion and to provide a scale for a mitigation project that would compensate for the estimated loss in ecosystem services and production at the appropriate trophic levels. This information was used to conduct the CE/ICA. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) used this information and the committee's input to develop and present a “Draft Conceptual Mitigation Plan” at subcommittee meetings in February 2005. The plan considered in-kind relatedness, proximity to impact site, publicly recognized value of the habitat type, risk/long-term viability, ability to restore lost ecological functions, and the habitat productivity lost and productivity supplied by each mitigation option to replace the loss. Subsequent meetings in May 2005 resulted in modifications to the conceptual plan and the development of a “Draft Consensus Mitigation Plan.” This consensus plan, also known as the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP), consists of approximately 20 ac of oyster reef restoration, 56 ac of wetland restoration, and 411 ac of bottom sediment restoration. This mitigation plan amounts to a slightly greater amount of production than is estimated to be lost from project construction, and is distributed among the three major mitigation measures. Of the three Best Buy Plans identified in the CE/CA, the LPP was selected as the recommended and fully-justified mitigation plan. The recommended mitigation plan is acceptable, efficient (cost-effective), complete, and supported by the non-Federal local sponsor (VPA); by other state and Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS); and non-profit organizations such as the Elizabeth River Project (ERP). In conclusion, the Mitigation Subcommittee, along with the USACE and VPA, has identified specific feasible mitigation options. The USACE has used CE/ICA to evaluate the options and has identified a Best Buy Plan that fully compensates for the 2 unavoidable environmental impacts of the project. During plan development, every 1 effort was made to accommodate the diverse input of the stakeholders involved in this process. The recommended “Draft Consensus Mitigation Plan,” which is based on three years of stakeholder involvement, scientific study, and thorough analysis of all data and information collected, proposes 487 ac of compensatory mitigation in the form of large scale ecosystem restoration at a total cost of approximately $50 million. Upon successful completion, the Mitigation Plan will replace important ecological functions in the lower James and Elizabeth River estuaries and will provide compensation for the water column and benthic productivity lost from the proposed expansion of CIDMMA. 1 INTRODUCTION In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), and with Appendix C, paragraph C-3 of ER 1105-2-100, “Policy and Planning Guidance for Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies (Planning Guidance Notebook)” (USACE, 2000), the planning of USACE- sponsored and other Federal projects must ensure that project-related adverse environmental impacts (i.e., impacts to fish and wildlife resources) have been avoided or minimized to the extent practicable, and that remaining unavoidable significant adverse impacts are compensated to the extent justified. USACE regulations stipulate that the Recommended Plan must contain sufficient mitigation measures to ensure that the plan selected will have no more than negligible net adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources, including impacts of the mitigation measures themselves. Furthermore, a CE/CA must be performed to identify the most cost-effective mitigation plan. i 1 . 1 Mitigation, which includes avoidance, minimization, and compensation, has been addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Critical to developing the EIS is the identification of a recommended mitigation plan so that the scope of mitigation can be clearly assessed and presented. Avoidance and minimization was pursued as mitigation wherever that course of action presented itself as a feasible option. Avoidance and minimization included choosing the expansion alternative (east) that had the least amount of hydrodynamic impact as predicted by VIMS hydrodynamic model studies, physically 3 designing the east expansion to minimize effects, avoidance of critical and sensitive habitats, cultural and historical resources, commercially valuable fishery resources, threatened and endangered species, and many other specific and less obvious decisions integral to the project design. The remaining adverse impacts to ecological resources were addressed by compensatory mitigation, as presented in this document. The NEPA Committee and the Mitigation Subcommittee, consisting of representatives from 13 Federal and state agencies and 3 local interest groups, guided development of the Mitigation Plan. The agencies and interest groups included: the USEPA, USFWS, NOAA, USACE, U.S. Navy, VIMS, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC), Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), VPA, Old Dominion University (ODU), College of William & Mary, ERP, James River Association, and Wetlands Watch. These committees had direct and continuous involvement in: Identification and preliminary screening of potential mitigation measures; • quantification of project-related injury and compensation; • development of mitigation plan alternatives; and mitigation plan selection. These committees identified alternative mitigation measures at specific geographical locations as compensatory mitigation to offset the loss of 580 ac of river bottom and overlying open water habitat. Alternative compensatory mitigation measures were scaled in order to compensate for the injury. Accordingly, the gains in resources and/or services provided by the alternative compensatory plans are equivalent to the resources and/or services lost as a result of the injury. Mitigation plan selection and economic justification was then accomplished through CE/CA. This mitigation analysis has been conducted as part of the Craney Island Eastward Expansion (CIEE) Feasibility Study. This appendix documents the process of mitigation 4 plan formulation over the course of more than 3 a 3 years. The recommended mitigation plan demonstrates a rational and justifiable relationship to the project-related injuries. There are several main components to evaluating the relationship: 1) Similarity in attributes to the injured habitat, 2) Proximity to the affected area, 3) Appropriate scale, and 4) Cost effectiveness, and 5) Structural feasibility. Each of these factors has been addressed during mitigation plan formulation and selection, as presented in this report. This report is organized as follows. This introduction is followed by Section 2, which presents the action requiring mitigation i.e., the east expansion plan recommended by the CIEE Feasibility Study. Section 3 presents the project-related impacts including a quantitative assessment of the injury requiring compensation. Section 4 presents the identification and selection of potential mitigation measures, which was conducted in close coordination with the Mitigation Subcommittee. Formulation of potential elements (measure/site combinations) of the Mitigation Plan, which was also guided by subcommittee input, is presented in Section 5. Section 6 describes the detailed plan formulation conducted by the Norfolk District, including benefit estimation and cost assessments. Mitigation plan selection is described in Section 7, which includes details from the Institute for Water Resources (IWR) Plan supported CE/ICA. Section 8 provides detailed descriptions of the individual mitigation plan components. Section 9 briefly presents the conclusions and recommendations. Section 10 lists the reference materials used in the report. 2 ACTION REQUIRING COMPENSATORY MITIGATION The Recommended Plan includes the construction of a 580-ac dredged material placement cell to the east of the existing Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area (CIDMMA) with the area atop the expanded cell to be used for port development. The eastward expansion of the CIDMMA involves the filling of 580 ac of an estuarine area near the mouth of the Elizabeth River, eliminating now functioning habitats from the estuarine ecosystem in the Elizabeth River, lower James River, and vicinity. Figure 1 ! 5 displays the Recommended Plan and its surroundings. Construction of the plan recommended in the CIEE Feasibility Study will affect two biological habitats: The estuarine sea floor; and The overlying water column, which has an average depth of 10 feet. 3 PROJECT-RELATED ADVERSE IMPACTS 1 A number of existing studies and studies conducted specifically for this project were evaluated by the Mitigation Subcommittee for background information and impacts evaluation (Figure 2). The benthic area that would be impacted is currently an area of open, muddy bottom that has a low species diversity and abundance. For example, a study done on bivalve abundance and diversity (Lipcius and Seitz, 2002) found seven bivalve species in deep water areas in the Elizabeth river system outside the proposed project area, eight species in shallow waters of the Elizabeth River system, but only four species in the proposed project area. The density of bivalves was also lowest in the proposed project area when compared to shallow water sites in the Elizabeth River system and other deep water areas in the Elizabeth River system. Other than bivalves, those species of invertebrates present are mostly smaller, pollution-indicative species. Species of commercial importance, such as hard clams, Mercenaria mercenaria, were almost totally non-existent. Biomass per unit area of open bottom in the proposed project impact area is low. The impacted area was formerly populated with oyster reefs of various sizes, though the original extent of these reefs is lost to history and cannot be fully documented. The Baylor survey (Baylor, 1894) did document extensive (historical) oyster reefs in the east expansion footprint and the area is displayed on Baylor survey maps as Public Ground No.1, Norfolk County. The water column above the bottom supports a diverse assemblage of phyto- and zoo-plankton, as well as a variety of finfish and other mobile aquatic organisms, such as cnidarians (hydras, jellyfish, etc.). Due to the low numbers of filter feeders, both in the benthos and water column, much of the primary productivity in the form of phytoplankton is not consumed and eventually dies and settles to the bottom, 6 where it contributes to hypoxic conditions. Overall, and compared to other areas in the lower Chesapeake Bay and the Elizabeth River, the area is of relatively low overall productivity and low ecological value. From 2002 through 2004, the Mitigation Subcommittee reviewed benthic biomass, abundance, and diversity surveys of the Elizabeth and Lower James Rivers in order to characterize the affected area and to quantify project-related injury. A cumulative impacts assessment commissioned by USEPA and a baseline biological condition assessment conducted by USFWS were also evaluated. The USFWS Planning Aid Report (Ruddy, 2002) classified the habitat at the east expansion site “...of medium value and relatively abundant in Chesapeake Bay, we have classified it as Resource Category 3 under the Service's mitigation policy. The mitigation goal for this category is no net loss of habitat value while minimizing loss of in-kind habitat value.” Seitz and Lipcius (2003) concluded that the habitat within the impact footprint is limited in function and biomass productivity. Clam populations and biomass are extremely low when compared to similar habitats in the River system. As a result, they concluded that “...the area is not a significant feeding ground for blue crabs or finfish” (Lipcius and Seitz, 2003). In addition, no threatened or endangered species are present, and the area is classified by VIMS as a submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) "exclusion zone” where SAV growth is not viable. 9 3.1 HABITAT EQUIVALENCY ANALYSIS (HEA) METHOD HEA is a method developed by NOAA to determine compensation for natural resources damaged as a result of discharges of oil, releases of hazardous substances, or physical injury resulting from vessel groundings. The basic concept of the HEA method is that" ...the public can be compensated for past losses of habitat resources through habitat replacement projects providing additional resources of the same type” (Damage Assessment and Restoration Program at www.darp.noaa.gov). The HEA method has been used to evaluate impacts from vessel groundings, spills, and hazardous waste sites to many habitat types, including seagrass, coral reef, 7 tidal wetland, salmon stream, and estuarine soft-bottom sediment. This methodology was applied to an oil spill which occurred in the Patuxent River (a tributary to the Chesapeake Bay) in 1999. Use of the HEA method was recommended by the USEPA and NOAA to the Mitigation Subcommittee as a way to quantify the impact of the proposed expansion and to determine the scale of compensatory mitigation. 3.2 INJURY REQUIRING COMPENSATORY MITIGATION Two complementary HEA's were conducted in support of mitigation plan development (Figure 2). The initial HEA was conducted by Dr. Charles Peterson (University of North Carolina), a benthic ecologist and noted expert in the field of coastal community ecology with previous experience in conducting HEA in the Chesapeake Bay. A supplementary HEA was conducted by George Ruddy of the USFWS. While not as comprehensive as the first two complementary studies, an additional HEA model was also run by NOAA to determine the compensatory effect of sediment remediation (Buchman, 2003). a The initial HEA report prepared by Peterson (see EIS, Appendix D) was peer reviewed by a panel of 13 scientists and went through various revisions based upon comments and input received. Using data from the ODU and VIMS abundance and biomass surveys, the Peterson HEA model quantified the loss in habitat productivity from the proposed CIDMMA expansion and provided a scale for a restoration project that would compensate for the estimated loss in ecosystem services and production at the appropriate trophic levels. Secondary species productivity in both the benthic water column habitats was estimated. A supplemental analysis conducted by Ruddy modified Peterson's initial HEA results. These changes were accepted by consensus of the Mitigation Subcommittee as the quantified resource injury and as the basis for compensatory mitigation. It was determined that productivity, in terms of kilograms per year (kg/yr), would be one facet of the Mitigation Plan development and would be an appropriate metric for quantifying ecosystem gains and losses. Productivity incorporates many aspects of the 8 ecosystem and is typically used by scientists as an accurate measure of the biological output of an ecosystem. It allows integration of the abundance of organisms, their overall size, or biomass, as well as can be a composite of several types of biological material (i.e., benthic organisms plus water column organisms). It is a much better metric than simpler metrics, such as surface area or volume of area lost (Seitz, 2005). The following table summarizes the conclusions of Peterson's initial HEA analysis and Ruddy's modifications, as accepted by the Mitigation Subcommittee. The estimated annual losses in benthic macrofauna and meiofauna and zooplankton water column productivity resulting from the proposed of the eastward expansion of CIDMMA are presented as kilograms of biomass production (Peterson and Associates, 2003; Ruddy, 2005). Estimated annual productivity loss increased from 109,367 kg to 124,423 kg based on the supplementary analysis by Ruddy. Table 1. HEA PRODUCTION LOST Peterson Ruddy Resource productivity loss (kg/yr) productivity loss (kg/yr) Benthic invertebrates 13,112-33,652 71,518 Water column (1) 16,976-75,715 52,905 (zooplankton) Total 30,088-109,367 124,423 (1) These computations assume a worst-case scenario of complete loss of water column habitat volume equal to the volume of fill. Access channel dredging will create a water column volume equal to the fill, thereby retaining water column volume constant, but with less in the photic zone. 4 MITIGATION MEASURES Many of the NEPA Technical Committee and its associated Mitigation Subcommittee meetings have focused on evaluating mitigation measures that could be used for the loss of nearshore, shallow, and open water habitat. Some potential 9 I mitigation measures evaluated include, but were not limited to, oyster bed restoration, SAV restoration, sediment clean-up in the Elizabeth River, wetland restoration/ conservation, and riparian buffers. The Mitigation Subcommittee focused on mitigating the direct effects associated with the loss of about 580 ac of bottom area and open water habitat located just to the east of the CIDMMA. An early decision made by the Subcommittee was that “...on-site, in-kind mitigation (i.e., grading back waterfront property near CIDMMA to create benthic habitat) is not practical, economical, or technically feasible. Off-site, out-of-kind mitigation is, therefore, the focus of this mitigation plan. The geographic region of consideration agreed upon by consensus is the Elizabeth River, Hampton Roads Harbor, and lower James River systems” (Mitigation Subcommittee Meeting Minutes, June 21, 2002). 4.1 PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES The advantages and limitations of various mitigation measures were discussed at subcommittee meetings. The following are some brief key points that were made regarding various measures identified by the Subcommittee: (1) Oyster Bed Restoration -- improves benthic diversity and habitat; provides water column benefits; replaces benthic components lost - although they may be a different species composition; risk from disease pressure; (2) SAV Restoration -- improves benthic habitat and diversity; provides nursery areas for finfish and shellfish; limited opportunities/locations in the lower James and Elizabeth Rivers for large successful long-term growth and function; 10 (3) Wetland Restoration -- provides fisheries habitat and invertebrates habitat; are losing fish habitat with expansion; different than what is lost; good juvenile fish and invertebrate use; (4) Sediment restoration - provides restored bottom areas (fisheries habitat and invertebrates habitat) in the river and improves water quality; close to “in-kind” compensation for lost bottom area; - (5) Upland Conservation Areas -- it was generally agreed that it is not in- kind related; mostly water quality benefits and habitat for wildlife; (6) Shore-Stabilization -- some in-kind relatedness; habitat components (wetlands, SAV's, etc.) can be designed into these projects; (7) Fish Habitat Enhancement through Dam Removal or Fish Ladders - limited number of species benefit from this option; proposed locations are miles from impact site; (8) Clam Management Sanctuary -- enhances bottom habitat and benthos; (9) Bird Management Plan (BMP) at CIDMMA -- minimal in-kind relatedness, but provides indirect benefits to avian species; (10) Storm Water Retrofit -- a water quality issue -- not a habitat; there is minimal in-kind relatedness; (11) Nesting Islands for avian species -- building islands results in loss of bottom; there is minimal in-kind relatedness; and (12) Artificial Reefs -- fish habitat; epifaunal organisms attach to reef structure; enhances benthic productivity; does not address water column effects. 11 Each of the mitigation measures were evaluated to determine how each measure would contribute to compensation for project-related injuries to natural resources. Measures that came closest to restoring the same type of organisms, functions, and habitats as those impacted by the project were more likely to be retained by the preliminary screening process than those where the connection is not as close. Likelihood of success and technical feasibility of each alternative were also evaluated during the preliminary screening to assess whether a mitigation measure could be successfully implemented in a reasonable amount of time given available technology and expertise. Generally, the likelihood of a measure's success was evaluated based on whether implementation of the measure: Is scientifically accepted; Has a high rate of success as documented in literature and independent studies; Is capable of being implemented in a cost-effective manner; and Provides measurable natural resource service gains. The following table lists the factors used to evaluate the proposed compensatory mitigation projects. 12 Table 2. PRELIMINARY SCREENING FACTORS USED TO EVALUATE PROPOSED COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PROJECTS PRIMARY FACTORS 1. Return Injured Natural Resources to Baseline and/or Compensate for Interim Losses. The alternative must demonstrate a rational relationship to the injuries giving rise to the claim for natural resource damages. 2. Likelihood of Success and Technical Feasibility of Each Alternative - Evaluated based on whether the methods: (1) are proven; (2) have a high rate of success as documented in the literature; (3) are capable of being implemented in a cost-effective manner; and (4) characterize the natural resource service gains stemming from the project. 3. Regulatory Considerations – Compliance with applicable Federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 4. Cost to Carry Out the Mitigation Alternative (Cost Effectiveness) - Favored projects are those that provide the most benefit for the least cost expended. SECONDARY FACTORS 5. Consistency with Local, Regional, and National Mitigation Goals and Initiatives. 6. Alternative Prevents Future Injury as a Result of the Incident and Avoids Collateral Injury as a Result of Implementing the Alternative (Avoids Additional Injury). 7. Alternative Benefits More than One Natural Resource and/or Service (Multiple Benefits) - Provides incidental benefits to other resources whether injured or not. 8. Longevity of the Mitigation Project – Expected lifespan of the project. 9. Integration With Existing Management Programs/Duplication or Substitution for other Authorities. 10. Adjacent or Nearby Affecting Land Uses. 11. Site Ownership - Public or private? 12. Logistical Considerations - Site accessibility; site constraints. 13. Long-Term Operation and Maintenance - Operation and Maintenance requirements. 14. Public Health, Safety, and Welfare - Would project negatively impact? 15. Location relative to other habitat restoration or compensatory mitigation projects? - O Preliminary screening of potential mitigation measures included information on candidate locations where these mitigation measures could be implemented. The concept of proximity was used to assess whether the mitigation measure is located within the area impacted or is within a reasonable distance of the affected area (i.e., same watershed, 13 ecosystem, and/or political boundary). This geographic area was identified as the Elizabeth River, the lower James River, and vicinity. The Mitigation Subcommittee developed a list of criteria for evaluating prospective mitigation measures in the Elizabeth and Lower James Rivers. A hand-out was distributed among committee members presenting two matrices used to evaluate the proposed mitigation measures. The following table presents weighting factors and the numerical scores attributed to the various mitigation options by the committee. The weighting factors included: In-kind relatedness Public Education Opportunities Proximity to impact site Publicly recognized value of the habitat type Risk/Long-term viability Ability to restore lost ecological functions 14 3 5556 036 097228 Table 3. MITIGATION OPTION WEIGHTING FACTOR EVALUATION Weighting Factors Oyster Restoration SAV Restoration Wetland Restoration Sediment Clean-up Riparian Buffers Shoreline Stabilization BORE Fish Habitat Enhancement (dam removal) Clam Broodstock Sanctuary Bird Mgmt. Plan - Craney Island Stormwater Artificial Fish Reefs Bird Nesting Islands Conservation/ Preservation Areas 1.1 7 7.8 In-kind relatedness Large-scale ecosystem benefits Weighting Score' 6.8 6.1 9.3 8.0 7.5 4.9 5.1 5.5 8.5 2.2 4.2 4.4 5.1 8.3 6.0 3.6 5.2 5.9 4.9 2.3 5.5 4.6 7.7 6.2 8.3 8.3 8.4 8.0 8.3 5.9 6.3 5.2 4.5 7.3 5.2 3.2 7.6 2 Publicly Recognized Value 5.3 4.5 8.7 6.1 8.3 7.8 8.4 6.7 6.6 5.5 6.8 5.8 8.5 3 Risk/Success 28.4 27.6 30.7 28.3 30.6 20.1 24.2 26.2 19.9 24.1 22.8 16.8 28.4 4 Weighting Factor Score (From Part 2) Not Conducted 5 Total Environmental Benefit Score (From Part 1) Not Conducted/Not Available Option Score (EBF* WFS) (1) Weighting scores are scaled from 1-10, 10 giving the highest weight (and preference for the option). 6 Total Restoration 15 ITS In addition, the committee assessed the functional attributes of the existing open- water habitat and determined that the following mitigation measures had the highest likelihood of success in replacing the ecological functions of existing open-water habitat over the long-term: Salt marsh creation/restoration; Oyster reef creation/restoration; and Sediment remediation. . Riparian buffer creation/restoration and wetlands conservation were also highly regarded as potential mitigation measures. However, they were not selected for individual detailed analysis but were rather incorporated as a potential component of salt marsh restoration. The three major mitigation measures presented above provide ample opportunity to fully compensate for project-related injuries. Sediment remediation was considered by many subcommittee members to be the highest environmental restoration priority in the Commonwealth as presented in VDEQ's Elizabeth River Watershed Action Plan (ERP 1996, 2002). 1 In addition, based on recommendations from VIMS, the committee agreed on a "landscape approach,” which considers the spatial relationship of different ecological communities that interact synergistically. For example, marsh restoration is expected to result in increased subtidal benthic production adjacent to the marsh. If also conducted in the vicinity of oyster reefs, an alternative prey base will be developed for predators that might otherwise feed on the oyster reef. If successful, this approach should maximize productivity and ensure the long-term viability of each of the habitats created. Therefore, proposed wetland, oyster reef, and sediment remediation measures that were contiguous or allowed the construction of multiple habitat types were strongly endorsed by the Mitigation Subcommittee. 16 3 5556 036 097228 4.2 RELEVANCE OF SELECTED MITIGATION MEASURES Construction of functional oyster reef habitat and the restoration of salt marsh habitat have a history of viability in the Chesapeake Bay and other East Coast estuaries, thereby serving as a guide to efficient and effective restoration in the Virginia portion of the lower bay (Thayer et al., 1992; Lenihan and Peterson, 1998; Luckenbach et al., 1998; O’Beirn et al., 1999; Mann, 2000). Both oyster reef and salt marsh restoration projects were recently included in the mix of compensatory actions following the Chalk Point oil spill in the Patuxent River in the Maryland portion of the bay. > > Salt marsh and oyster reef restoration has been the focus of intense advocacy by scientists, managers, and the public in the Chesapeake Bay region and throughout the East Coast of the U.S. (Burreson et al., 1999; Mann, 2000; Jackson et al., 2001). This move toward extensive oyster reef and salt marsh restoration is motivated by the steep documented decline of these habitats and by the growing recognition of the importance of the ecosystem services they provide. : 1 Oyster reefs indeed provide several services to the ecosystem. Their filtration removes suspended inorganic and organic particles, thereby reducing turbidity. This filtration represents a type of biomanipulation that helps counter the negative impacts of eutrophication (Lenihan and Peterson, 1998; Jackson et al., 2001). With reduction in turbidity, the consequent enhanced light penetration can allow SAV habitat to expand in depth range and in aerial cover because these rooted aquatic grasses are limited by light penetration. Such SAV expansion provides additional nursery habitat for fishes and crabs in the bay. Through their local production and deposition of feces and pseudofeces, oysters promote denitrification, thereby transforming nitrogen from a nutrient into an inert gas (Newell et al., 2002). Oyster reefs also serve as important habitat for crabs and demersal fishes, both through provision of structural refuges and also by promoting production of associated invertebrate prey organisms (Zimmerman et al., 1989; O'Beirn et al., 1999; Lenihan et al., 2001; Peterson et al., 2003). 17 TS Wetlands provide many ecological benefits, such as fish and wildlife habitats, natural water quality improvement, flood storage, shoreline erosion protection, opportunities for recreation, and aesthetic appreciation. Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems in the world, comparable to rain forests and coral reefs. They also are a source of substantial biodiversity in supporting numerous species from all of the major groups of organisms, from microbes to mammals. Physical and chemical features, such as climate, topography (landscape shape), geology, nutrients, and hydrology (the quantity and movement of water), help to determine the plants and animals that inhabit various wetlands. Bottom habitat deterioration related to sediment contamination is the result of a long history of regional industrial, commercial, and residential development in the Elizabeth River watershed. Industrial use of the Elizabeth River started in the early 1600's with the construction of the first shipyard. Since that time, the river has been extensively developed by numerous industries. A map of a 3-mile segment of the Southern Branch depicting types of industries, both past and present, which surrounds the Atlantic Wood superfund site was developed by reviewing USACE harbor maps dating back to the late 1800's along with other historical documents. Types of pollutants associated with industries found along the river and documented by researchers to be present in sediments throughout the river include: heavy metals (i.e., cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc) and organic compounds such as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s), phthalates, PCBs, and tributyl tin (TBT). Many of the industries found along the river have been present since the early 1900's. Historic waste management practices, spills, and direct discharge of wastes to the Elizabeth River were commonplace and have led to widespread and extensive contamination of sediments. In addition to Atlantic Wood Industries, there have been three other creosote wood preserving facilities and one creosote bulk terminal located on the shores of the Southern Branch (Figure 9). Both the Wycoff Pipe and Creosote Company (immediately north of Atlantic Wood Industries) and the Eppinger and Russell Co. (one and a half miles upstream) were operating prior to 1900. Besides the historic 18 3 5556 036 097228 aste disposal and discharge practices, the Eppinger and Russell site had a major fire in le 1960's that ruptured a tank, resulting in a massive spill of creosote into the river. Chemical pollutants, both organic and inorganic, from these sources have collected the sediments and reached harmful levels. Health problems in fish including fin rot, imors, cataracts, and other abnormalities have all been linked to high levels of ollutants. The pollutants of primary concern are heavy metals and PAH's. The sources f heavy metals include shipyards and stormwater runoff. The primary sources of PAH's clude petroleum products, coal, as well as the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, eosote, and stormwater runoff (Alden, 1995). Within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, high levels of sediment contamination are und in the Elizabeth River, Baltimore Harbor area, and the Anacostia River. Each of ese areas has several contaminants at concentrations above the Probable Effects Levels, osing a significant risk to aquatic organisms. The Chesapeake Bay Program designated nese three areas as "Regions of Concern.” > Examination of benthic communities in the Elizabeth River suggests that ontaminated sediments have adverse effects. Uptake of organic compounds in fish has een observed by assaying bile from exposed fish. Bioaccumulation of PAH's in ommercially fished, resident crabs has also been documented. In addition, the equency and intensity of neoplasms, cataracts, enzyme induction, fin rot, and other sions observed in fish populations (mainly Leiostomus xanthurus, spot) have been orrelated with the extent of sediment contamination (Van Veld et al., 1990). Laboratory udies have been conducted to elucidate whether the sediments were responsible for the bserved effects (Van Veld et al., 1990). Fish maintained in the laboratory in contact ith sediments taken from the Elizabeth River exhibited several of the symptoms bserved among fish populations in the field. Additional laboratory studies have nplicated contaminants from sediments as causal agents for other effects, such as nmune system dysfunction. 19 The USACE, in the process of conducting the Elizabeth River Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, and in consultation with VPA, the ERP, and other members of the Mitigation Subcommittee, has previously identified approximately 67 ac of sediment remediation in various “hot spot” areas of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. Successful “hot spot” removal/remediation in these locations would help minimize the potential for more widespread and continual recontamination of the river bottom. Over time, natural sediment transport and sedimentation processes should be sufficient to maintain sediment quality at acceptable levels throughout the entire system. 4.3 COMPENSATORY QUANTIFICATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES Both of the HEA models developed by Peterson and Ruddy estimated annual secondary biomass production per ac for restoration of oyster reefs and salt marsh in the study area (see the following table). Information from the supplemental analysis by Ruddy was used to calculate potential levels of compensation provided by these two measures. Based on the results of the supplemental HEA model, specific acreages of oyster reef or salt marsh restoration (or combinations thereof) were calculated as compensation for the existing benthic and zooplankton productivity that would be lost due to implementation of the Recommended Plan. Preliminary compensatory mitigation results were calculated by mixing these two mitigation measures at a spatial scale that provided expected benefits to match the loss. Table 4. HEA PRODUCTION GAINED Peterson HEAP Ruddy HEA Peterson HEA 5,995 781 Parameter Annual production credit per ac restored oyster reef Annual compensation credit per ac restored salt march Acres Oysters Required Acres Wetlands Required 449.7 450 5.02-18.24 66.9-243.2 161 276 20 3 5556 036 097228 Base on the quantified project-related injury presented in the previous table (124,423 kg/yr), the mitigation acreage required by each measure to fully compensate for the project-related injury would be: Salt marsh acreage required to compensate for 580 ac of impact o 124,423 / 450 = 276 ac Oyster Reef acreage required to compensate for 580 ac of impact o 124,423 / 781 = 161 ac = An additional model was run by NOAA to determine the compensatory effect of sediment remediation (Buchman, 2003). The results concluded that 1 ac of sediment remediation would compensate for 0.89 ac of lost habitat, which indicates that 661 ac of sediment remediation would be needed to fully compensate for 580 ac of impact. While not peer reviewed, Buchman's results were used by the Subcommittee to develop the sediment remediation portion of the Mitigation Plan. The draft document by Buchman appears in the EIS, Appendix D. 5 ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION PLAN FORMULATION - MITIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Using the results of both the Peterson and Ruddy HEA Analysis and the Buchman sediment model, the Mitigation Subcommittee conducted evaluations of alternative mitigation plan elements (site/measure combinations), and ultimately recommended a consensus combination of elements as mitigation for the project-related injuries. The committee used a “modified” Delphi Technique, a well known strategic planning and public policy tool, to prioritize the prospective sites. The subcommittee's initial recommended consensus plan is identified as the “Draft Conceptual Mitigation Plan, February 2005” (Figure 2). After further deliberation and incorporation of additional information, including supplemental HEA information provided by Ruddy, the Mitigation Subcommittee revised its recommendation by proposing the “Consensus Mitigation Plan, May 2005.” This revised plan was included as an alternative plan in the 1 21 CE/CA subsequently conducted by the Norfolk District. The following sub-section briefly describes the Subcommittee's deliberation process. 5.1 MITIGATION SUBCOMMITTEE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS On the basis of the preliminary screening of potential measures, the Subcommittee identified eight wetland restoration/conservation and oyster restoration sites as potential elements of the Mitigation Plan. These measure/site combinations were advanced for more thorough evaluation in terms of costs and benefits. Multiple sediment "hot spots” totaling 56 ac were also identified for more detailed analysis. Additional due diligence was conducted on each of the proposed elements. Two wetland sites (WR 5, which is Chesapeake Deep Water Terminals, and WR 4, which is the Paradise Creek Property) on the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth were dropped from consideration because physical site constraints and alternative land uses deemed wetland construction structurally and economically impractical. All other potential elements remained for consideration for inclusion in the plan. The USACE and VPA used this information to develop and present a “Draft Conceptual Mitigation Plan” at the Subcommittee meeting on February 10, 2005. In May 2005, the Subcommittee determined that the USFWS supplemental HEA results (Ruddy, 2005) should be factored into the quantitative description of the project- related injury, which caused a change in the targeted output of the compensatory mitigation plan and a change in the compensatory value of oyster reef restoration. The revised injury and compensatory estimates resulted in the need for additional oyster reef and wetlands creation to accommodate for the productivity loss from project impacts, as presented previously in Section 4.2. The revised annual productivity loss of 124,423 kg would be fully compensated for, if either 161 ac of oyster reefs or 276 ac of salt marsh were actually constructed. 22 3 5556 036 097228 1 However, a majority of subcommittee agreed that: : The plan should include all of the three measures that were selected in the preliminary screening (wetlands, oysters, and sediment restoration); and Factors other than productivity (including habitat diversity, connectivity, and functional benefits) should be used to ultimately select the sites and mix of mitigation measures that would make up the final plan (see discussion on habitat unit development in Section 6 below). In collaboration with USFWS, USACE used the revised HEA results to derive a preliminary venture cost estimate for the Mitigation Plan, in order to identify the potential economic scope of the mitigation efforts being recommended by the Subcommittee. Specifically, a preliminary venture cost estimate of $46.5 million was derived by calculating the cost of constructing 50 percent of the required ac of oyster reef (80 ac) and 50 percent of the required ac of salt marsh (138 ac). For the purpose of developing a venture level cost estimate, a cost of $250,000 per ac was assigned to wetland restoration and a cost of $150,000 per ac was assigned to oyster restoration. These cost estimates were derived from similar USACE projects as presented later in this appendix. The venture cost estimate was presented to the committee at their May 26, 2005 meeting. The committee was asked to use the $46.5 million as the venture level project budget and to prioritize sites based on the established criteria to create the elements of a mitigation plan. The committee proceeded to select sites from a previously compiled list of priority locations derived earlier using the modified Delphi method. --- Based on the relative importance of sediment restoration in the project area, the group agreed that sediment restoration elements totaling approximately $30 million should be included in the Mitigation Plan. This budgetary priority for sediment restoration is consistent with local environmental restoration priorities as presented in i 23 ERP's and VDEQ's Elizabeth River Watershed Action Plan (ERP, 2002). The Mitigation Subcommittee also recommended salt marsh and oyster reef restoration elements totaling $16.5 million. The salt marsh and oyster reef restoration elements were selected so as to compliment sediment remediation efforts and meet the “landscape approach” criteria. An additional $2 million was identified as a contingency for cost uncertainties concerning sediment remediation. This allocation of venture costs provided the Subcommittee with an economic perspective on the relative cost and importance of potential restoration measures. The Mitigation Subcommittee, along with the USACE and VPA, identified specific feasible mitigation measures and mitigation plan elements (measure/site combinations) that were developed during the preliminary screen phase of mitigation plan formulation. A "Consensus Mitigation Plan," which was based on the outcome of the preliminary screening, was endorsed by consensus as developed by the Mitigation Subcommittee (May 26, 2005). The "Consensus Mitigation Plan, May 2005” was included by the Norfolk District as an alternative in the detailed incremental benefit and cost analysis conducted with the support of IWR Plan software. Complementary to the deliberations of the Mitigation Subcommittee, the Norfolk District has developed a benefits assessment method that quantitatively supplements the HEA information for input into the CE/CA. As described in the following section, the CE/ICA was used to conduct a more detailed evaluation of the mitigation options and to develop the final recommended mitigation plan for this project. The habitat assessment method and CE/CA are presented later in this appendix. The final Mitigation Plan will be subject to final review and approval by the USACE and Federal and state regulatory agencies. The USACE and VPA have made every effort to accommodate the diverse input of the stakeholders involved in this process. The “Consensus Mitigation plan, May 2005” is based on 3 years of stakeholder involvement, scientific study, and a thorough analysis of all data and information collected. During the Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) Phase and the 24 3 5556 036 097228 mitting phase, VDEQ and VMRC may request refinements to the proposed Mitigation n. The VPA and the USACE are committed to working with these agencies to make ther revisions as required. ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION PLAN FORMULATION - DETAILED ANALYSIS - The HEA analyses conducted by Peterson and Ruddy provided a viable method of essing the impacts that were endorsed by a team of scientists and stakeholders. wever, this approach does not consider any qualitative measure of either the ecological vices lost by constructing the proposed project or the ecological services gained by type of mitigation considered. It also does not value any ecological improvements er than biomass gained per unit area of mitigation restored. If mitigation were to be conducted in kind, open water with bottom habitat sisting of soft mud and silt would be created. Creating more open water habitat where e was before (i.e., grading back wetlands or uplands) is not a reasonable option and ld negatively impact the physical processes, biological resources, and habitat of the ver Chesapeake Bay. It would also likely result in the need for substantial takings of lic or private waterfront property in order to create more aquatic habitat. The ential to successfully take 580 ac of waterfront property in the Elizabeth River and ver James River that make up the local project area is also highly unlikely. Since in- d mitigation is impractical, other types of habitat creation have been considered. In er to create high quality habitats, some metric of habitat quality must be considered in ition to the productivity metric (kg/yr). If only quantitative measures are considered, one runs the risk of creating habitats have high biomass production but low ecological value. As an example, a currently erely degraded wetland site could be restored sufficiently to allow colonization by low de wetland plants such as the common reed, Phragmites australis. A monoculture land consisting of this common reed would ultimately produce substantial biomass would not be desirable from an ecological or habitat diversity standpoint. This type 25 of mitigation also would not address the underlying environmental problems facing the Elizabeth River system, currently considered one of the most degraded sub-estuaries of the Chesapeake Bay due to filling of wetlands, sediment contamination, and the resultant loss of ecological connectivity. Qualitative measures also must be considered in developing a mitigation plan in order to adequately conduct: An evaluation of different mitigation options for maximum positive ecological impact per dollar spent on mitigation; and • A direct comparison of different mitigation options and scenarios by using broad-based and interconnected ecological benefits provided by different mitigation options (as opposed to comparing individual and specific species compositions, for example). An evaluation approach that includes qualitative measures will also allow the USACE to consider the interconnectedness of the different mitigation options. The goal would be to create a plan consisting of a variety of different mitigation activities that act synergistically to provide greater benefits than any of these activities would as a stand alone activity at isolated sites. In terms of project losses or impacts, the qualitative aspect was not specifically applied because the intention is to use this tool to compare and contrast the relative merits of the different mitigation alternative plans, especially as the components work synergistically, not to quantify impacts. 6.1 HABITAT EVALUATION METHOD DEVELOPMENT In order to conduct an economic evaluation of the proposed alternatives, the average annual benefits for each alternative were identified and evaluated. The environmental benefits, reported as habitat units, for each plan are derived from a qualitative product score applied to the production output (kg) for each of the alternatives. This qualitative product score was estimated for each type of mitigation to capture the effects of qualitative impacts that are not reflected in the production output metric. Each alternative resulted in a different amount of habitat units for two reasons. 26 3 5556 036 097228 First, the three types of mitigation provide varying amounts production output. Second, each type of mitigation was assigned different a qualitative product score. 6.2 PRODUCTIVITY ADJUSTMENTS The HEA analysis determined the loss of benthic productivity as one of the primary ecological services lost. This productivity was defined as secondary production lost. As mentioned previously, the benthos in the project area consists of several species. The other main determinant of production lost was defined as a loss in zooplankton production. Zooplankton is a very broad-based definition that includes small crustaceans that feed on phytoplankton, such as copepods, single-celled protests (foraminiferans and radiolarians being the most common members), larval stages of larger species of crustaceans that only spend a short time (typically several weeks) in the water column, larval stages of many sessile mollusk species, and larval stages of many fish species, cnidarians, ctenophores, and others (Nybakken, 1988). The production output (kg/yr) was estimated for each alternative plan using the appropriate production per ac deemed acceptable by the mitigation committee. For all of the mitigation options considered, it was assumed that productivity would accrue fully beginning in Year 1 and remain level throughout the project life. This is atypical in environmental project scoring, which usually employs a logarithmic growth scale exhibiting low productivity at first as the living portion of the project accumulates in numbers, diversity, and size, and then at some point productivity begins to surpass the long-term average. Instead of developing a logarithmic growth curve, the constant average productivity used in this analysis implicitly assumes that there will be some reduced benefits at project inception which will be offset as the project reaches maturity. This will be particularly true with the application of a “landscape approach” where projects will provide synergistic, and increasingly greater, benefits over time. Therefore, the average production was assumed to be equivalent for each of the 50 years in the period of analysis. 27 6.2.1 Sediment Clean-up Productivity Adjustment The overall production level for sediment clean-up was adjusted upward in order to take into account several aspects of this particular mitigation measure and its potential for positive regional impacts, even if done as a stand-alone activity. The way the production score was enhanced for this measure is described as follows. Sediment restoration is conducted in the most contaminated areas in the lower Chesapeake Bay, also know as “hot spots.” Many of these hot spots have been there for decades, and due to the type of contaminants, have been persistent and are likely to continue to adversely impact the entire Elizabeth River system for many years to come. So, in order to take this into account, an initial restoration of the worst sites that encompass approximately 68 ac would be credited as fully enhancing or restoring an area surrounding these sites that encompasses 411 ac as measured in productivity of the benthos. This is due to the severe negative impacts that these 68 ac or “hot spots” currently cause in the 411 ac area within the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. This contamination has resulted in low populations of mostly pollution tolerant organisms, many of which are sub-lethally impacted by the contamination that they contribute, in turn, higher in the food chain. The sediment clean-up production level was further enhanced by taking into account the somewhat diminished regional effect that cleaning up these 68 ac would have on the rest of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River (approximately 1,200 ac). These contaminants have been slowly dispersed throughout the Elizabeth River over time. In addition, the movement and foraging of various benthic and pelagic organisms has spread these toxins throughout the system and into the Chesapeake Bay. The most pronounced effect, however, is concentrated in the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. It is assumed that cleaning up these 68 ac of hot spots would result in varying levels of restoration of the populations of benthic organisms throughout the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. The level of adjustment selected if the entire 68 ac of sediments were restored was a 25 percent enhancement in benthic biomass throughout the 28 3 5556 036 097228 Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. This adjustment reflects the increase in general overall health improvement of organisms living in the Elizabeth River. It is well known that exposure to toxins can reduce the fitness of a creature exposed to them, even if it survives. For example, oysters exposed to dilutions of water soluble fractions of sediments from the Elizabeth River increased the intensity of pre- existing Dermo oyster disease infections, and also increased the susceptibility of uninfected oysters to Dermo infection (Chu and Hale, 1994). Dermo is lethal to oysters, and prior to killing them, it reduces their overall condition, including their reproductive capacity. This effect is compounded by exposure to environmental toxins. Environmental toxins alone also produce this suppression of reproductive output (Berthou, 1987). Environmental toxins have similar pre-lethal exposure effects on other types of marine life, including fish (Hansen, 1975). It was also assumed that benthic biomass improvements would increase if additional, though less contaminated, sediment areas were restored in addition to the 68 ac. Additional clean-up is assumed to enhance benthic biomass in the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River in a logarithmically declining scale, with additional acreage providing progressively less additional biomass as additional acreage is added. It would also be necessary to adjust the regional benefits downward if less than these 68 ac of “hot spots” were restored. Leaving any of the acreage unrestored may result in some recontamination of a portion of the Southern Branch over time. Because the clean-up strategy would involve targeting the most contaminated acreage as the first priority for clean-up, this recontamination would not result in levels even approaching the current level of degradation; however, it will likely be enough to reduce the regional increases in species health and biomass to somewhat less than the +25 percent expected if all 68 ac were restored. These adjustments were made in order to properly assess the impact that cleaning up the most toxic “hot spots” in the entire lower Chesapeake Bay would have on the local 29 ecosystem. The Mitigation Subcommittee strongly endorsed sediment clean-up as one of the primary objectives to be considered in the CIDMMA mitigation plan and is also a key component of a widely-endorsed Elizabeth River Watershed Action Plan. Sediment clean-up is also the closest to in-kind mitigation out of all the options considered. Finally, it is well known that persistent environmental contamination can have long-term and wide-spread effects that impact a considerable area around the site of the contamination, especially in the aquatic environment. The additional production credited to this particular type of mitigation, therefore, is justified. 6.2.2 Oyster Reef Production Adjustment One other mitigation measure that had a regional adjustment applied to it was oyster reef restoration. The reason for this adjustment is that successfully restored oyster reefs will, when they reproduce, enhance oyster recruitment over a much wider area. Restored reefs would be stocked with disease-resistant oysters of various varieties. These oysters will reproduce and their planktonic larvae will be dispersed throughout the Elizabeth River to varying degrees depending on local hydrodynamics and freshwater input. Oyster larvae can attach to any hard substrate in the water column and survive, as can be seen in the Elizabeth River, Lynnhaven River, and elsewhere in the lower bay, where some success has been achieved with restored oyster reefs. Young oysters can be seen colonizing rip-rap, wooden and concrete pilings, metal bulkheads, and other hard surfaces throughout these rivers. It is reasonable to assume that successfully restored oyster reefs will further enhance this colonization potential throughout the Elizabeth River significantly enough that additional population enhancement will occur. Recent data from other areas of Chesapeake Bay indicate successful recruitment enhancement. Stocking with a selected strain of disease-resistant oysters (DEBY strain) in the Great Wicomico River resulted in a distinct recruitment signal from these oysters throughout the Great Wicomico River (fall 2004, unpublished data). Recruitment enhancement in regions that have set-aside sanctuaries has been documented extensively for a variety of species, including mollusks, such as scallops, hard clams, abalone, oysters, and Pacific giant clams, as well as more mobile invertebrates, such as sea 30 - III 3 5556 036 097228 urchins, and many finfish species. The reefs proposed in the Mitigation Plan would be permanent sanctuaries, free from fishing pressure, and the populations in what are effectively marine protected areas would function to enhance recruitment to surrounding areas (Allison, 1998; Oakley, 1996; Peterson, 1996; Quinn, 1993; and Tegner, 1993). The limiting factor for oysters in the Elizabeth River, other than diseases and predation common throughout the bay, will be the lack of available hard substrate for oyster larvae to attach to. For this analysis, it was assumed that a certain amount of acreage constructed would result in a regional benefit to the entire Elizabeth River system. For oysters, the benefit was assumed to accrue to a wider area than that assumed for sediment clean-up. This is because it is known that oyster larvae have a planktonic stage that lasts for approximately three weeks during which they can potentially be dispersed many miles from their point of origin, depending on the circulation patterns of their waters. The amount of regional benefit was assumed to be between 2.25 percent to 12 percent depending on the amount of oyster reef acreage restored. The increased benthic biomass is assumed to occur on 0.05 percent of the bottom of the Elizabeth River (this 0.05 percent is assumed to be the proportion of the existing bottom available for oysters to colonize (i.e., hard surface), since the great majority of the benthic habitat is currently not suitable). 6.3 QUALITATIVE PRODUCT SCORE Because mitigation plan formulation considers a series of different alternatives that could restore lost biomass productivity, and there is a need to compare and contrast different scenarios with them, a broad-based qualitative metric was developed. The variables used to construct the qualitative metric were not used to increase the production values of any proposed mitigation activity. Instead, these variables were used to put the mitigation measures into a more equivalent footing and to allow direct comparison between the potential mitigation measures. Several of the variables used to develop the qualitative aspects of the Mitigation Plan were adapted from the estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay (Weisberg et al., 1997). 31 1 > A qualitative product score was estimated for each type of mitigation in two separate categories, assuming use of one or two habitats and assuming use of all three habitats (Figure 3). The qualitative variables considered in the qualitative product score include the following: species diversity, species abundance, water column bio-filtration, sediment and water column toxin reduction, food web stability, and food web complexity. These variables were rated on a scale of 0 to 1 with the higher ratings indicating a greater contribution to enhancing the ecological variable. A weight factor was also developed to capture the risk associated with each mitigation type. The weighting factor was also rated on a scale of 0 to 1, with 1 being the lowest amount of risk. The qualitative variables and risk factor are described in further detail below. 6.3.1 Species Diversity Variable The first variable selected as a broad based measure of ecological benefits to be derived from any proposed mitigation project is species diversity. This variable captures the general ecological health of a site, with higher species diversity values indicating greater overall ecological health. It does so in several ways. Ecosystems that are stable over time tend to be those that are most complex. Simple ecological communities are more vulnerable to extreme events, natural or man-made. For example, if an ecosystem (such as the Chesapeake Bay) has had one of its major filter feeding animals, oysters, essentially removed, the remaining filter feeder of ecological significance, menhaden, is more critically needed in its filtering role. The Chesapeake Bay is more vulnerable to additional negative environmental consequences if menhaden stocks collapse than it would be if oyster reefs were still present in ecologically significant numbers. The greater connectivity of various predators and prey provide a variety of food-web interactions such that various animal and plant populations remain present and stable over time. Therefore, ecological food webs are more stable if a complex suit of organisms comprises it. 32 3 5556 036 097228 a 6.3.2 Species Abundance Variable This variable captures the benefits of increasing the numbers of species present per unit area of bottom or in the water column, with the emphasis being on the bottom, as most of the mitigation options selected focus more on benthic restoration. As the majority of the production loss is due to loss of the 580-ac of bottom area, this is reasonable. Due to the near total absence of once-important filter-feeding species found in the Elizabeth River in great numbers, such as oysters, and very low numbers of other species, such as hard clams, there is a clear need to direct mitigation activities to restore species that have experienced significant declines. Due to the severe decline in wetland acreage of the Elizabeth River watershed caused by many decades of heavy industrial and urban development, wetlands and their associated ecological services and species are also at much lower levels today. When possible, mitigation activities should be directed at increasing the abundance of ecologically or commercially important species that have experienced significant declines. These activities do not necessarily mean direct intervention, such as stocking with blue crabs, for example, but rather at restoring appropriate environmental conditions or habitats that will allow the depleted stocks of these organisms to recover. 6.3.3 Water Column Bio-Filtration It is well-known that loss of benthic invertebrate filter feeders has had a significant negative environmental impact on the Chesapeake Bay (Blankenship, 2002; Newell, 2002; Ulanowicz, 1992; Newell, 1988). This loss of bio-filtration in the Chesapeake Bay has had profound negative consequences for the bay, including loss of SAV, the decline of many finfish and shellfish species that utilize SAV as a nursery area, significant expansion of low dissolved oxygen “dead zones” in the Chesapeake Bay, a change in composition of benthic and planktonic algae species (Cooper and Brush, 1993), which are the base of the Chesapeake Bay food chain, and others. The “dead zones” are caused by anoxic water conditions that result primarily from the decomposition of phytoplankton that is not consumed. Phytoplankton biomass has increased substantially in the Chesapeake Bay due to eutrophication resulting from human activities (Harding and Perry, 1997), and coupled with the loss of bio-filtration by oysters and other sessile 23 33 invertebrates, the result has been an increasing size of the “dead zone” and the length of time such anoxic waters are present. Due to the negative bay-wide impacts that the loss of this basic ecological service has caused, efforts to restore this service are of particular importance. 6.3.4 Sediment and Water Column Toxin Reduction Because of the high level of contamination in the local project area, a reduction in the toxin burden in the Elizabeth River was also added as a variable. This variable correlates to species composition, a B-IBI variable. It is a sign of an ecologically healthy benthic population when a more diverse assemblage of species that are pollution- sensitive is found in an area. Because the quantitative environmental impacts were primarily defined as loss of benthic invertebrate production in terms of magnitude, also an important component of BIBI, the use of a toxin burden-related variable was deemed appropriate. ( By reducing the toxin burden, it is expected that species composition and abundance will be enhanced with fewer pollution indicative species and more pollution- sensitive species colonizing the area. In the near-total absence of oyster reefs and their oyster biomass, significant bio-filtration could occur from benthic mollusks on open, soft bottom or sandy sediments of the Chesapeake Bay if dense enough populations per unit area could become established. Reduction of toxins in the sediments (which can either sicken or kill benthic invertebrates) or in the water column (which can kill planktonic larvae of filter feeding benthos) could considerably enhance their numbers in the Elizabeth River system. Reduction of toxins would, therefore, have a positive impact on many ecological variables. Where toxin levels are high and can be effectively removed or reduced through remediation, these options should be pursued and are of particular interest. The major environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Recommended Plan are to the benthic populations within the expansion footprint. Enhancing or restoring the productivity of open bottom areas via sediment restoration in the Elizabeth River system, therefore, seems to represent the closest to in-kind mitigation out of the options considered. 1 1 34 3 5556 036 097228 6.3.5 Food Web Complexity Food web complexity is a variable that attempts to capture the effects of restoring a healthy ecosystem. It is known that healthy ecosystems are most often highly complex, with a great number of organisms in any given food chain. The more linkages in a given food web, the more likely the local ecology will remain highly productive and stable over time. Complex ecological communities have far more constraints than simple ecological communities but are also less vulnerable to disruptions. Therefore, complex ecological communities are far more likely to be stable and productive over time. 6.3.6 Food Web Stability Food Web Stability is related to complexity, but reflects the ability of a restored site or area to persist over time. An example of how enhancing food web stability results in positive impacts to the environment would be increasing numbers of blue crabs. While it is well known that blue crabs are a commercial species of great importance to the Chesapeake Bay, it is perhaps less well known that they also serve a very important ecological function. In estuarine salt marshes, declines in blue crabs due to heavy fishing pressure allow one of the blue crab's main prey species, marsh snails (Littoraria irrorata), to proliferate. The marsh snail then over consumes salt marsh grasses, which can lead to additional stress on the salt marsh and even loss of salt marsh acreage. Food web stability then, whether with a crab population, or with a restored habitat, allows benefits to be realized and to persist even under constantly changing natural conditions. L 6.3.7 Risk Weighting Factor One final factor was considered in developing a qualitative product score for the considered mitigation options. This factor was risk - the risk of any given mitigation option performing as desired and producing the expected benefits. Some mitigation options, such as wetland creation, have a decades-long history and many, including the USACE, have considerable experience in restoring/enhancing degraded wetlands or former wetlands - even creating entirely new wetlands from upland or aquatic habitat. Because of the extensive history of wetland restoration, standardization of well- 35 documented methods, including proper grading of soils, specific types of soils to be used, and Recommended Plant lists, the risk involved in restoring wetlands was determined to be low. In the case of the qualitative product score, a low risk would equate to a high score, thus, wetlands scored the highest of the three options considered. a a Sediment clean-up was determined to be of a slightly higher risk. Areas of risk include improperly characterizing the extent of the contamination in terms of volume of material removed and failing to remove all of it, or recontamination from a land-based source. As the Elizabeth River is still heavily industrialized, and some land areas are still contaminated by prior industrial activities, there is a chance of recontamination. The overall risk was determined to be low, as it should be possible to fully characterize the extent of contamination at a given site, given a proper sampling regime, and physically removing the contaminated sediments is relatively straightforward, and means to prevent the spread of sediments during dredging operations are fairly effective. Also, much of the contamination in the bottom sediments was derived from industries that are no longer in operation and, in fact, no longer exist. The historical levels of contaminant input that created the problem in some cases pure creosote spills) no longer pose a risk. . 1 For oyster reef restoration, potential problems may be faced that make this relatively new type of ecological restoration a challenge. Diseases that cause high oyster mortalities are present in the Chesapeake Bay, and oyster recruitment is at an all time low. This poses great difficulty in establishing healthy oyster reefs in the Chesapeake Bay. However, with proper adaptive management, which includes various measures to repair a failing restored oyster reef, such as cleaning the reef, seeding the reef with additional oysters (which should be disease-resistant strains of native oysters, a number of which are available), or adding additional material to the reef for oyster attachment sites (oyster shells, recycled concrete, or limestone marl being a few options), and a long- term commitment to applying the adaptive management measures, a restored oyster reef has a good chance of being successful over time. The risk involved is still there and must be anticipated and, as a result, oyster reef restoration was determined to be the riskiest of the three types of mitigation considered in this analysis. 36 3 5556 036 097228 6.3.8 Qualitative Product Score Calculations The scores for each of the qualitative variables discussed previously were added together for a total score. This total score was then multiplied by the risk weighting factor to determine the qualitative product score for each mitigation type. The qualitative product score for each mitigation alternative can be seen in the following table. a . un 37 Table 5. QUALITATIVE PRODUCT SCORES Use of all 3 types of mitigation Oyster-reef Wetland Sediment construction restoration clean-up Benefit Use of 1 or 2 types of mitigation Oyster-reef Wetland Sediment construction restoration clean-up Species diversity 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.175 0.75 Species abundance 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.25 0.1 0.75 1.0 Water column bio- filtration 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.125 0.6 0.2 Water column toxin reduction 0.2 1.0 0.1 0.05 0.75 Food web stability 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.75 Food web complexity 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.45 0.15 0.6 Total score 3.6 3.2 5.6 1.8 0.8 4.2 Weighting factor 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.7 Qualitative product score 2.16 3.2 5.04 0.72 0.64 2.94 38 3 5556 036 097228 6.4 HABITAT UNITS 1 Habitat units were used as a unit of comparison that captures both the quantitative aspects of the production (kg) and qualitative aspects of the variables discussed previously. The qualitative product scores in the previous table were multiplied by the appropriate production output (kg) to determine the amount of habitat units associated with each alternative plan under consideration (Figure 3). Due to the productivity adjustments discussed previously, the amount of production output (kg) per ac varies depending on the amount of each mitigation measure. While only one of two possible product scores are applied for each mitigation measure, depending on how many mitigation measures are used, the resulting habitat units per ac varies for each amount of mitigation. The habitat units generated by alternative mitigation pans are presented with the following CE/ICA discussion. 7 PLAN SELECTION 7.1 ALTERNATIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT After a thorough screening of various types of mitigation measures available, as discussed previously, the final alternative measures under consideration for mitigation include the construction of oyster reefs, restoration of wetlands, and sediment restoration. Various levels of each of these mitigation measures were determined, based on a percentage of total production output, ranging from 5 to 100 percent of total production output. The alternative plans considered for evaluation include all of the possible combinations of these determined levels of output for each mitigation type that compensate for the estimated 124,423 kg of lost production due to construction of the project under consideration. The alternative plans include 152 combinations of oyster reefs, wetlands, and sediment restoration that result in enough production to mitigate for the estimated 124,423 kg of lost production. Included in the alternatives under consideration is a consensus plan derived by a mitigation committee consisting of a team of scientists and stakeholders. This consensus plan also known as the LPP consists of approximately 20 ac of oyster reefs, 56 ac of wetland restoration, and 411 ac of sediment restoration. This mitigation plan amounts to a slightly greater amount of production than is estimated to be lost from project construction, and is distributed (based on productivity) among the 3 mitigation measures at about 14 percent oyster 39 reefs, 20 percent wetlands, and 70 percent sediment clean up, representing a slightly greater level of production (104 percent) than the target level (that lost with east expansion plan). 7.2 COST EFFECTIVENESS AND INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS (CEACA) In order to make more informed plan formulation decisions, a CE/CA was conducted, as required by USACE Planning Guidance, utilizing the IWR-Plan Software. Cost effectiveness analysis identifies the plans that produce various levels of environmental output for the least cost. In this analysis, the environmental output is measured in habitat units, as discussed previously. Incremental cost analysis examines the changes in costs and the changes in environmental outputs for each additional increment of environmental output. The Best Buy Plans represent those plans that produce the greatest increases in environmental outputs for the least increases in costs. The average annual equivalent costs and benefits (habitat units) were used to conduct the CE/CA for the alternative plans under consideration, as well as the No Action Plan. Since the plans under consideration are not mutually exclusive, the plans are compared to each single plan and to each possible combination of plans up to the production level that mitigates for the estimated production lost. 7.2.1 Description of Costs All prices used in this analysis are in Fiscal Year 2005 dollars, with a 5-3/8 percent discount rate used in present value and annualized over a 50-year life. Interest during construction of the mitigation project was calculated based upon a 12-month construction period and a 5-3/8 percent discount rate. As explained previously, because of the inconsistency of the quantity and quality of information available about each specific mitigation site, an average cost was developed for each of the three different types of mitigation. The cost for the construction of oyster reefs is estimated at $150,000 per ac, consisting of $100,000 for construction and $50,000 for seeding. The cost for oyster restoration is based on other USACE oyster restoration projects recently constructed in the Great Wicomico River (2004/2005), Tangier/Pocomoke Sound (2002), and the Rappahannock River (2001/2002). These costs consist of construction costs, supervision and administration (S&A), monitoring, and operation, management, rehabilitation, repair and replacement (OMRR&R). 40 3 5556 036 097228 . A cost of $250,000 was estimated for each ac of wetland restoration. This cost was based upon the total average implementation cost per ac of the wetland restoration estimated for the Elizabeth River Environmental Restoration (ERER) Feasibility Study (2001) conducted by the Norfolk District. For the ERER study, Feasibility-level design and cost estimates were developed for eight sites located along various reaches of the Elizabeth River. These sites are assumed to be representative of the wetland sites considered for this mitigation plan. The total implementation cost includes costs for PED, construction, and real estate acquisition. A more detailed discussion on wetland costs can be found in paragraph 8. The cost for clean-up of sediments is estimated at $484,000 per ac. This estimate is based on unit cost estimates from remediation projects evaluated in the USACE ERER Feasibility Study. A sediment remediation cost of $100 per cubic yard was derived from the intermediate cost of three common sediment remediation practices: direct removal with upland treatment and disposal ($140), in-situ capping ($100), and removal with disposal in confined aquatic disposal cells ($60). A more detailed discussion on sediment costs can be found in paragraph 8. 7.2.2 Cost Effectiveness Analysis Cost-effective analysis indicates, for a given level of environmental output, in this case habitat units, no other plan costs less. Similarly, no other plan yields more benefits for less cost. Cost effectiveness analysis indicated 22 of the 152 considered plans to be cost effective. The cost-effective plans can be seen in the following table. ! i 41 Table 6. COST-EFFECTIVE PLANS 91 Oyster reef restoration Wetland restoration Total Sediment restoration Production Acres Production Acres Production Acres Production Acres Plan A 124,400 153 0 0 0 0 124,400 153 Plan B 112,000 137 0 0 12,400 38 124,400 175 Plan C 99,500 122 0 0 24,900 100 124,400 222 Plan D 93,300 114 0 0 31,100 133 124,400 247 Plan E 99,500 122 12,400 28 12,400 38 124,400 188 Plan F 93,300 114 6,200 14 24,900 100 124,400 228 Plan G 87,100 106 6,200 14 31,100 133 124,400 253 Plan H 80,900 99 6,200 14 37,300 167 124,400 280 Plan I 74,700 12,400 28 37,300 167 124,400 286 Plan J 62,200 76 12,400 28 49,800 233 124,400 337 Plan K 49,800 60 12,400 28 62,200 316 124,400 404 Plan L 31,100 37 6,200 14 87,100 411 124,400 462 Plan M 24,900 30 12,400 28 87,100 411 124,400 469 Plan N 18,700 22 18,700 41 87,100 411 124,400 474 Plan 0 12,400 14 24,900 55 87,100 411 124,400 480 Plan P 12,400 14 25,000 56 87,100 411 124,600 481 Plan Q 17,100 20 24,900 55 87,100 411 129,100 486 Plan R (LPP) 17,100 20 25,000 56 87,100 411 129,300 487 Plan S 18,700 22 6,200 14 99,500 603 124,400 639 Plan T 12,400 12,400 28 99,500 603 124,400 645 Plan U 17,100 20 12,400 28 99,500 603 129,100 651 Plan V 6,200 7 6,200 14 112,000 711 124,400 732 (1) The production amounts reported here reflect production adjustments as described in paragraphs 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. 14 Cost-effective analysis indicates that each of these 22 plans is the least costly means of providing the associated level of output or benefit. The following table shows the average annual benefits (habitat units), annual costs, and average costs per habitat unit for each of the alternatives. Figure 4 illustrates the cost-effective analysis results, showing average annual environmental benefits (horizontal axis) and average annual costs (vertical axis) of the alternatives. i 42 3 5556 036 097228 Table 7. RESULTS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS Alternative plan No Action Plan Plan A Plan B Plan C Plan D Plan E Plan F Plan G Plan H Plan I Plan J Plan K Plan L Plan M Plan N Plan O Plan P Plan Q Plan R (LPP) Plan S Plan T Plan U Plan V Average annual benefits (habitat units) 0 90,000 117,000 145,000 159,000 318,000 347,000 365,000 383,000 389,000 425,000 461,000 526,000 533,000 539,000 546,000 546,000 556,000 556,000 562,000 568,000 579,000 598,000 Average annual cost (S) 0 1,359,000 1,403,000 1,566,000 1,656,000 1,677,000 1,702,000 1,785,000 1,886,000 2,023,000 2,214,000 2,468,000 2,514,000 2,652,000 2,789,000 2,926,000 2,931,000 2,976,000 2,981,000 3,300,000 3,438,000 3,488,000 3,682,000 Average cost (cost/benefit) $) N/A 15.2 12.0 10.8 10.4 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.2 5.2 5.4 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.2 L 43 -- 1 1 Figure 4. COST-EFFECTIVE PLANS Cost Effective Plans - Expected Cost Effective Plans Plans Of Interest 3500000 3000000 AAC 2500000 2000000 1500000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 550000 600000 AAB 1 7.2.3 Incremental Cost Analysis After conducting the CE/CA was used to examine the changes in costs and changes in environmental benefits (habitat units) for each additional increment of output. The first step is, starting with the No Action Plan, to calculate the incremental change in costs and the incremental change in benefits of moving from the No Action Plan to each of the cost-effective plans. The incremental change in costs is divided by the incremental change in benefits (habitat units) to generate an average cost per unit of output (habitat units) for each of the 22 cost-effective plans. The plan with the lowest overall average cost per unit of output, moving from the No Action Plan, is the first Best Buy Plan. The previous table, entitled “Results of Cost Effectiveness Analysis,” shows the alternative with the lowest overall average cost is Plan L with an average cost of $4.80 per habitat unit. Plan L is, therefore, the first Best Buy Plan. 1 After the first Best Buy Plan is identified, subsequent incremental analyses is done to calculate the change in costs and change in outputs of moving from the first Best Buy Plan to all of the remaining (and larger) cost-effective plans. Again, changes in costs are divided by changes in outputs for each increment to identify the plan with the next lowest incremental cost 44 3 5556 036 097228 per unit of output. The plan with the lowest overall average cost per unit of output, moving from the first Best Buy Plan, is the next Best Buy Plan, and the process continues. The alternative with the next lowest incremental cost per unit of output (as output is increased) is the LPP, Plan R. This alternative, which is the second Best Buy Plan, costs an additional $467,000 on average each year over Plan L and provides an additional 30,000 habitat units on average each year at a cost of $15.57 per habitat unit for those additional 30,000 habitat units. a The plan with the lowest overall average cost per unit of output, moving from the second Best Buy Plan, is the next Best Buy Plan. The alternative with the next lowest incremental cost per unit of output (as output is increased) is Plan V. This alternative, which is the third Best Buy Plan, costs an additional $701,000 over the LPP on average each year and provides an additional 41,584 habitat units on average each year at a cost of $16.86 per habitat unit for those additional 41,584 habitat units. This alternative produces the greatest amount of output; therefore, are no other Best Buy Plans. The following table summarizes the information from the incremental cost analysis of the mitigation alternatives, and Figure 5 displays the information graphically. Table 8. RESULTS OF INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS L Incremental cost per Best buy plan Annual benefits (1) Annual costs ($K). Average Incremental cost cost ($/1) (SK) Incremental output (1) unit ($/1) Plan L 526,000 2,514 4.80 2,510 526,000 4.80 1 Plan R 556,000 2,981 5.40 470 30,000 15.60 Plan V 598,000 3,682 6.20 700 42,000 16.90 1) Unit of measurement equals habitat units. Plan L = 25 percent oysters, 5 percent wetlands, 70 percent sediment restoration. Plan R = LPP, 14 percent oysters, 20 percent wetlands, 70 percent sediment restoration. Plan V = 5 percent oysters, 5 percent wetlands, 90 percent sediment restoration. 45 Figure 5. "BEST BUY" PLANS Best Buy Plans - Expected - 17.5 15.0 12.5 Plan V AAC - $3,682,000 AAB - 598,000 habitat units Incremental cost per output: $16.90 10.0 Incremental Cost Plan R- LPP AAC - $2,981,000 AAB – 556,000 habitat units Incremental cost per output: $15.60 7.5 5.0 Plan L AAC - $2,514,000 AAB - 526,000 habitat units Incremental cost per output: $4.80 2.5 0.0 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 550000 600000 AAB 7.3 MITIGATION PLAN SELECTION The results of the CE/ICA indicate that there are 22 cost-effective plans, 3 of which are Best Buy Plans. The Best Buy Plans include: Plan L; Plan R, which is the LPP; and Plan V. The No Action Plan is not considered a Recommended Plan, as it does not meet the planning objectives to provide “sufficient mitigation to ensure that either plan selected will not have more than negligible adverse impacts on ecological resources” (ER 1105-2-100, Appendix C). Plan R, the LPP, has been selected as the appropriate mitigation plan that best addresses the project-related injuries. It is important to note that this plan was a Best Buy Plan; however, it was not the least expensive Best Buy Plan. A variety of factors led to the selection of this plan despite the increased cost. A total of 22 plans were determined to be cost effective, including the three Best Buy Plans that included the LPP. The recommended LPP plan is acceptable, efficient (cost-effective), complete, and supported not only by the non-Federal local sponsor but also by 46 3 5556 036 097228 other state, Federal, and non-profit agencies, such as the USEPA, VIMS, and USFWS, all of which were instrumental in the identification of potential mitigation measures. For the type of mitigation associated with the proposed CIDMMA expansion, the selected mitigation plan is a plan that reasonably maximizes mitigation outputs and associated benefits compared to the costs and is consistent with the Federal objective of preventing a net loss of ecological services in compliance with NEPA, the Clean Water Act, and USACE Engineering Regulations. The selected mitigation plan meets planning objectives and constraints, as well as reasonably maximizing ecological benefits, while passing tests of CE/CA, significance of outputs, acceptability, completeness, efficiency, and effectiveness as discussed further, below. 7.3.1 Selected Mitigation Plan Evaluation In addition to the CE/CA, the selected plan was further evaluated based upon consideration of the important planning objectives described below. Completeness Completeness addresses the extent to which the alternative plans provide and account for all necessary investments and ensure the realization of the planning objectives. The Best Buy Plan selected is cost effective and ensures the realization of the planning objective to provide sufficient mitigation to offset the Recommended Plan's adverse impacts on ecological resources. The remaining criteria describe in more detail how the selected Best Buy Plan achieves this objective. Significance Decades of heavy industrial activity; over harvesting of shellfish including, oysters and clams; and loss of wetlands due to industrial and residential development have acted together to reduce the Elizabeth River to one of the most impaired waterways of the Chesapeake Bay today. The Elizabeth River was once highly productive from an ecological standpoint, with significant wetland acreage in its watershed, hundreds of ac of oyster reefs, and extensive clam beds. All of these are either severely reduced (wetlands and clams) or entirely lost (oysters) today. The ecological impacts have been severe, and the Elizabeth River does not provide good habitat or 47 foraging areas for most commercial and non-commercial fish and shellfish species today. The buffering and nutrient reduction services provided by wetlands have been mostly lost, and species that use wetlands for shelter, foraging, or as nursery areas have all suffered as a result. Basic ecological services, which once contributed to the former productivity and diversity of the Chesapeake Bay, such as bio-filtration by oysters and clams, has been almost entirely lost. The Best Buy Plan was selected over other plans primarily for its balanced focus on restoring the basic ecological services lost. Implementation of this plan will result in the clean- up of the most contaminated "hot spots” in the Elizabeth River by focusing on severely contaminated sites in the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, where much of the heavy industry was located and from where most of the contamination has spread. Implementing this plan will also result in making significant progress according to the Elizabeth River Action Plan, a document widely endorsed by Federal, state, and various stakeholders, including scientists, environmental groups, and others. = =- C Scarcity Wetland acreage has been severely reduced in the Elizabeth River watershed due to decades of construction, both industrial and residential. Of those wetlands that remain, many are small and isolated and provide mostly edge habitat, which, will important to many species, will not attract species that require interior habitat. The wetland restoration proposed consists of several nearby parcels of significant size, most of which will provide both edge and interior habitat. Oyster reefs in the Elizabeth River have been obliterated, no natural oyster reefs remain, and most of the oyster public grounds now consist of soft, muddy clay type sediments. There have been small scale oyster restoration efforts in the Elizabeth River, but the total acreage restored has been small. Originally, hundreds of ac (perhaps thousands) of natural oyster reefs were found in the Elizabeth River. Also, public grounds were formerly located under the current CIDMMA and are also the footprint of the proposed expansion, which indicates that oyster reefs were once found there. Oyster populations are also estimated to be at 0.2 percent of their historic levels. 48 Clean open bottom areas in the Elizabeth River are also quite scarce due to the long history of heavy industry in the Elizabeth River watershed. The contaminants present are in many cases very persistent in the environment; therefore, this degraded condition is unlikely to ever improve without substantial human intervention to clean it up. The Best Buy Plan selected proposes to do exactly this and restore the areas of the worst contamination. Acceptability The LPP was developed over a period of several years with a committee made up of Federal (including the USACE), state, and non-governmental partners, including scientists and environmental groups, as well as the local sponsor, the VPA. Very careful consideration was given to enhancing the overall ecology of the area agreed upon to be within the area of influence of the proposed CIDMMA expansion. The committee strongly believed that mitigating the contaminated sediment sites in the river would be very helpful in restoring the entire Elizabeth River to a better ecological condition. The ERP, a local environmental group, strongly endorses sediment restoration as the best way to restore the river at this time. Despite the increased cost of the Best Buy Plan selected, the USACE recommendation is based on the findings of this committee. Also, it was determined that all three mitigation options needed to be a significant part of the plan and that sediment restoration should address the “hot spots” in the Southern Branch, which is the most heavily contaminated branch of the Elizabeth River, if not the entire Chesapeake Bay. Views of Non-Federal Sponsor The non-Federal sponsor, the VPA, has endorsed the Best Buy Plan selected (also the LPP) and was also involved in its development. The VPA recognizes that the Elizabeth River has been heavily impacted by many decades of heavy industrial development and associated activity, as well as residential development. Construction of CIDMMA eastern expansion and, when filled, a port facility on top of it will add to the industrial activity in the lower James and Elizabeth River area. The VPA agrees with the findings of the committee regarding the impacts and is committed to adequately compensating for them. 49 By focusing the sediment clean-up on the most contaminated sites in the Elizabeth River, which lie in the Southern Branch, a significant toxin burden adversely impacting the entire Elizabeth River will be removed. Restoring wetlands, the majority of which were lost over time in the Elizabeth River watershed, is also highly desirable, and these wetlands will provide a series of larger, interconnected sites that should allow for colonization of both edge and interior preferring species. Oyster reef restoration is currently ongoing in the Chesapeake Bay and efforts are being undertaken by a number of Federal and state organizations, as well as non-profit groups, such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). The extensive historical oyster reefs in the Elizabeth River have been entirely lost, and as the CIDMMA itself and proposed expansion site are in an area once known to have extensive oyster reefs, it is appropriate to include oyster reef restoration as a part of the Mitigation Plan. Oyster reef restoration has more risk associated with it than the other selected options. To reduce this risk, a monitoring and adaptive management program will be implemented to maintain the restored oyster reefs over time. Adaptive management includes various measures to repair a restored oyster reef, including, but not limited to, seeding the reef with disease-resistant native oysters, cleaning the reef surface, and adding clean material to the reef to provide attachment sites for oyster larvae. Effectiveness The Recommended Plan is effective, as it will provide for adequate compensatory mitigation for the proposed eastward expansion of CIDMMA. Sites that have been heavily contaminated for decades in the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River will be cleaned. Due to the magnitude of the contamination at these sites and their size, this particular aspect of the Mitigation Plan is likely to make the greatest overall contribution to restoring the long-term ecological health of the Elizabeth River. More oyster reefs than currently exist in the entire Elizabeth River system will be restored and maintained. Sizeable, contiguous parcels of wetlands will be restored and provide much needed ecological services to this highly industrialized and urbanized river and associated watershed. Implementing the proposed mitigation plan will contribute substantially to the goals of the Elizabeth River Watershed Action Plan, a plan to restore the river widely endorsed by scientists; Federal, state and local agencies; and interest groups. 50 River, Efficiency Etime The Recommended Plan is the most cost effective means of achieving the associated level of habitat units, with an average cost of $5.40 per habitat unit, and is one of three Best Buy Plans indicated in the incremental cost analysis. The incremental cost of the selected Best Buy Plan is higher than the incremental cost of the first Best Buy Plan. However, it is recommended that it is worth it to pay the extra $467,000 (average annual equivalent) for the additional average annual amount of 30,000 habitat units that would be provided by the selected Best Buy Plan for hior ofit various reasons. First, the results of the selected plan are consistent with the goals of the Elizabeth River Watershed Action Plan and the recommendations of the Mitigation Subcommittee. This plan has a high level of support among members of the Mitigation Subcommittee, the VPA, and the non- profit environmental group the ERP. Second, the contiguous wetland restoration proposed for the selected plan will provide both edge and interior habitat, as discussed previously, that might not be provided by the less expensive Best Buy Plan. And third, the high level of risk associated with oyster habitat restoration is minimized with the selected plan compared to the less costly Best Buy Plan, since the habitat restoration efforts are more evenly distributed between wetlands and oysters. 8 SELECTED MITIGATION PLAN DESCRIPTION The selected mitigation plan will achieve the environmental goal of offsetting the ecological services lost related to constructing the proposed CIDMMA eastward expansion. The selected mitigation plan consists of several different activities, including oyster reef restoration, sediment clean-up, and wetland restoration. The selected plan is also the LPP and consists of approximately 20 ac of oyster reefs, 56 ac of wetlands restoration, and 411 ac of sediment restoration. This will provide slightly more biomass gain than the biomass lost if the proposed CIDMMA east expansion is constructed. The following table presents a concise description of the Mitigation Plan. 51 Table 9. MITIGATION PLAN FOR CRANEY ISLAND EXPANSION Unit cost Location SBR. Elizabeth River Mitigation type Sediment Remediation Acreage 411 Total cost $33,279,360 Lamberts Point Wetlands Shotmeyer Paradise Creek Park (Peck) Elizabeth River Terminals Mainstem Elizabeth River S. Br. Elizabeth River S. Br. Elizabeth River S. Br. Elizabeth River 0.6 1 5 5 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $ 150,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 Jones and Gilligan Creek St. Julians Annex (40 ac) S. Br. Elizabeth River S. Br. Elizabeth River 10 30 $250,000 $250,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 7,500,000 Oyster / Clam Restoration Acreage Hoffler Creek Oyster Reef Elizabeth River - All Branch Hoffler Creek/James River 15 1 $150,000 $150,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 150,000 CI Bird Long-term Management Plan $ 150,000 James/Elizabeth River Wetland Oyster/Clam $250,000 $125,000 Ragged Island 414 $ 1,500,000 Total 487 $50,229,360 The following table displays the benefits and costs for the selected mitigation plan. The total project cost estimated to be $50.2 million. The total average annual equivalent cost is estimated to be $2,981,000 (at a 5-3/8-percent discount rate). Table 10. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION PLAN (PRODUCTION/COST) Item Amount Total average annual benefits (habitat units) 556,145 Total production (kg) 129,275 Total average annual costs $2,981,000 Total project costs $50,329,360 52 2 8.1 SEDIMENT MITIGATION SITE DESCRIPTIONS Sediment restoration at the following locations will provide ecosystem restoration benefits to various aquatic organisms and will provide compensation for many of the functional benefits lost at the site of the east expansion. Site Descriptions Wycoff Creosote and Pipe (Figure 6) - A former creosote plant site similar to Atlantic Wood, this site is located just north of Atlantic Wood and sediment samples taken offshore show elevated levels of PAH's. Site is essential to foster progress at adjacent Atlantic Wood Superfund site by preventing re-contamination. Recently mapped data for Wycoff indicate contaminant levels comparable to Money Point, one of the most contaminated sites on the Chesapeake Bay (see map). Republic Creosote (Figure 7) - Off-shore of another former creosote plant with high likelihood for sediment contamination. This site is just south of the mouth of Paradise Creek (on eastern shore) and had a large creosoting facility operating on it for a number of years. Off-shore mapping (attached; minimal samples) shows high levels of PAH contamination. Currently there are little/no data to evaluate the overall extent of contamination at this site. - Money Point (Figure 8) - This site is located on the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, east bank, approximately 3 nautical miles south of the Eastern Branch/Southern Branch confluence, in the city of Chesapeake. The general area (known as Money Point) has a long history of creosote wood treatment starting around the turn of the century. Wastewater containing creosote was directly discharged into the Elizabeth River before the Korean War (1950-1953). A fire at the E&R plant in 1963 resulted in a spill of creosote into the Elizabeth a River. In 1967, ruptured tanks resulted in the drainage of 20,000 to 30,000 gallons of creosote into the river (Mu Zhen Lu, 1982). Currently the Elizabeth River Restoration Trust (ERRT) has $5 million in mitigation funds from another port project to clean up approximately 35 ac of severe contamination. This amount of funding will likely not cover the entire cost of remediation; therefore, as much as half of the site may be available for mitigation. | 53 Paradise Creek (Figure 9) - Adjacent to the Peck Iron and Metal facility where limited sediment samples show high levels of PCB contamination. ERRT funded the collection and analysis of PCB sediment samples and result are due back from VIMS. This site is the target of an additional Feasibility Study by the USACE to carry out a local watershed plan. Initial studies showed elevated zinc, lead, and PAH's. Scuffletown Creek (Figure 10) - This 6-acre sediment remediation project is currently being overseen by the USACE in cooperation with non-Federal sponsors and is in the PED Phase for the removal of medium level PAH contamination. Funding for this phase appears probable; however, it is uncertain whether Federal funds or state matching funds will be available for the construction phase of the project. Thus, there is a potential that construction could be completed as a mitigation project. 8.1.1 Sediment Restoration Design Alternatives An array of scenarios may be considered to address the clean-up of contaminated sediments and restoration of disrupted habitats as part of the Mitigation Plan. All scenarios would have to be more thoroughly evaluated during the next phase of this project. Clean-up scenarios that may be considered include "No Action,” to containing sediment in place (capping), to in-situ treatment, to dredging scenarios that included shallow dredging and deeper dredging, or a combination of dredging and capping. 54 ed Table 11. POTENTIAL SEDIMENT REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES 1 of Action dies 9 Not an acceptable option to provide mitigation benefits hase e; 1 Retain for further design analysis Contaminated sediment Results remediation alternatives 1. "No Action" Continuation of degraded conditions: sediments toxic to aquatic organisms; fish abnormalities, depressed bottom dwelling community health, elevated contaminate levels, widespread migration of contaminated sediments 2. Contain sediment in Normally not practical in place (capping) shallow water; may be feasible after some contaminated sediment is removed 3. Treat sediment in place Not practical: difficult to ensure all contaminants treated; not demonstrated effective on large scale 4. Environmental dredging - Demonstrated to be Remove (dredge) and effective on large scale; contain dredged material tried and proven technology 5. Environmental dredging - Demonstrated to be Remove (dredge) and treat effective on large scale; dredged material tried and proven technology Retain for further design analysis Retain for further design analysis Retain for further design analysis 8.1.2 Sediment Restoration Cost Estimate Without the benefit of detailed and site-specific information at each of the proposed sediment restoration sites, estimates were taken from the USACE ERER Feasibility Study (2001), and an average uniform excavation depth of 3 feet was assumed over the entire 67-ac area to achieve a contaminated sediment volume estimate of 324,280 cubic yards. a An estimated sediment remediation cost of $100 per cubic yard was developed by taking the intermediate cost of three common sediment remediation practices, direct removal with upland treatment and disposal ($140), in-situ capping ($100), and removal with disposal in confined aquatic disposal (CAD) cells ($60). The unit cost for each of these methods is based on 55 - cost estimates derived from the USACE ERER Feasibility Study; the APM Terminals Virginia, Inc., Environmental Assessment; and New York Harbor CAD estimates from Moffat & Nichol Engineers. Using a combination of the various remediation methods available with an average unit cost of $100 per cubic yard, $32,428,000 is needed to restore 67 ac of the Elizabeth River. An additional $851,360 has been added for monitoring and design costs. 8.2 WETLAND MITIGATION SITE DESCRIPTIONS Historically, tidal wetlands within the Elizabeth River watershed have suffered significant losses from dredging, filling, and urban development. Nichols and Howard-Strobel (1991) provide an indication of the magnitude of wetlands loss with their estimate that the surface area of the Elizabeth River Basin was reduced by 26 percent between 1872 and 1982 through deposition of dredged material on marginal wetlands and subtidal bottoms. As much as 50 percent of tidal wetlands were lost on the Elizabeth River between 1944 and 1977 (Priest, 1999). A recent study of wetlands loss in the Elizabeth River region reported losses of estuarine emergent and scrub-shrub marshes of just over 36 ac for the period from 1982 to 1989/90 (Tiner and Foulis, 1994). Less than 10 percent of the watershed remains undeveloped (ERP, 2002). The Elizabeth River's 350-mile shoreline has experienced extensive loss of wetlands and "vegetated buffers," natural areas that mix trees, shrubs, and grasses. Vegetated buffers provide habitat, absorb runoff, trap sediments and filter pollutants. The vegetation also stabilizes the shoreline, takes up potentially harmful nutrients, improves aesthetics, and improves air quality and controls flooding. These losses of habitat and water and sediment quality degradation from pollution have led to significant impacts to the biota of the Elizabeth River that have compromised its value as an estuarine system (Birdsong et al., 1994). > 1. Wetland restoration returns productivity to the watershed that is being lost from the water column due to filling activities. In addition, wetland restoration improves water quality as wetlands filters and reduces contaminated runoff. 56 nia, Thol ह 2. Riparian buffer conservation and restoration filters and prevents contaminated runoff, improving water quality and providing habitat for multiple shore species including insects, birds and mammals. init 5 In 3. In combination, wetlands and related buffers provide a landscape approach for improving water quality. Sites were chosen near sediment sites, where possible, to maximize the landscape approach endorsed by the Mitigation Subcommittee. 1 8.2.1 Site Descriptions 1. Lamberts Point/Old Dominion University (Figure 11)-Originally developed as part of the USACE Feasibility Study on the Elizabeth River environmental restoration. No Federal funds have been identified to implement this project. The city of Norfolk is still interested in this project to stabilize the shore and contain stormwater runoff from ODU and vicinity, located immediately across river from the impact area. Saltmarsh wetland restoration is a primary component of the project. The site provides prime raptor habitat. The concept design for this site consists of a vegetated wetland fringe in the intertidal zone where the stormwater drainage canal discharges into the Elizabeth River. Components of the project include a rock weir for low-flow dissipation (discharge from the canal), sand fill for proper elevation of saltmarsh wetland bench, and a low-crested rock sill for river generated wave dissipation. The proposed area of vegetated wetland is approximately 0.6 ac. L O 1 2. Former Exxon Terminal (Shotmeyer Property) (Figure 12) - Mature grove of hardwood trees along with tidal wetland habitats adjacent to potential sediment clean-up area of Money Point. ! 3. Paradise Creek Park (Peck) (Figure 13) - This “eco park” is the centerpiece of a Watershed Management Plan for Paradise Creek recommended by stakeholders and underway by multiple partners. Public education opportunities; proximity to Superfund sites across the creek, including 70 ac wildlife mecca; proximity to an oyster reef established 2004 within sight; proximity to Deep Water Terminals site, St. Julian's, and sediment clean-ups on Southern - 57 Branch. Uplands include mature trees. Site contains high elevations, but excavation could result in mined material that could be sold or used for beneficial capping of contamination elsewhere. - 4. Elizabeth River Terminals (Figure 14) - Private owner is willing to have the property used for tidal wetland restoration, located just south of Money Point sediment remediation area. Elizabeth River Terminals is an active River Star with ERP. Walter Priest with NOAA evaluated this site and determined an excellent potential for tidal wetland restoration. 5. Property between Jones and Gilligan's Creek (Figure 15) - Available for sale; ERP technical advisors conducted a site visit and identified significant wetland opportunities as well as conservation of forested habitat. - 6. St. Julian's Annex (Figure 16) - Provides a landscape approach of sites contiguous to each other (contiguous to Deep Water Terminals, Paradise Creek Park, and Money Point clean- up). The USACE and VPA, along with other members of the Mitigation Subcommittee, have visited the site and identified restoration and conservation opportunities. In addition, land purchase costs are likely to be avoided through a cooperative agreement with the Navy to allow USACE and/or local sponsor use of the site. According to Priest (2005), contamination in the old disposal area will likely be remediated via removal of contaminated soils, which would contribute to providing the elevations required for salt marsh restoration in these areas. It is estimated that the northeast section could easily provide 30 ac and the northwest section an equivalent acreage or possibly more. Further negotiations with the Navy are ongoing. 58 Table 12. CRANEY EXPANSION WETLAND MITIGATION SITES 1 Site Current Proposed restoration to provide mitigation condition (acreage ) 1. Lambert Point, ODU Intertidal; Conversion of intertidal and shallow water Drainage Canal stormwater habitat to Spartina sp. marsh; area degraded receiving due to high stormwater sediment input area (0.6 ac) 2. Former Exxon Filled (former) Grading and removal of upland fill material Terminal (Shotmeyer wetland from historical wetland; some high marsh Property) areas (Phragmites sp.- common reed) will be converted to emergent marsh areas (Spartina sp.) (1 ac) 3. Paradise Creek Park Filled (former) Grading and removal of upland fill material (Peck). wetland from historical wetland; some high marsh areas (Phragmites sp.- common reed) will be converted to emergent marsh areas (Spartina sp.) (5 ac) 4. Elizabeth River Filled (former) Grading and removal of upland fill material Terminals wetland from historical wetland - (5 ac) 5. Property between Filled (former) Grading and removal of upland fill material Jones and Gilligan's wetland from historical wetland (10 ac) Creek 6. St. Julian's Annex Filled (former) Grading and removal of upland fill material wetland from historical wetland; some high marsh areas (Phragmites sp.- common reed) will be converted to emergent marsh areas (Spartina sp.); possible extension of shallow tidal gut to provide tidal exchange to restored marsh (30 ac) - 8.2.2 Wetland Mitigation Design Alternatives Wetland restoration involves either: 1) removal of fill material to attain intertidal salt marsh elevations, grading and planting; and/or 2) depositing clean fill material, building an elevation for intertidal salt marsh, grading, and planting. In higher wave energy environments, protective features, such as rock/oyster shell sills/breakwaters, will be constructed. Restoring the eight sites to fully functioning wetlands with associated native vegetation will involve use of construction equipment and vehicles to grade and remove upland fill and/or fill with clean soil, depending on the site. It is critical that all sites be graded to achieve the 59 elevations needed to support the desired intertidal wetland. In most cases, emergent wetlands with associated upland buffer areas will be created. Grading of Upland Areas Most of the wetland restoration sites will require excavation of fill material and some grading to achieve required elevations to sustain saltmarsh intertidal wetlands. Historical maps and records indicate that these areas were wetlands at one time but were filled to create fastland. There will be a permanent loss of upland habitat and associated vegetation. In the case of several sites, there will be a conversion of Phragmites sp. (common reed) dominated areas to Spartina sp. (saltmarsh cordgrass) dominated areas. Fill for Wetland Restoration At the Lambert Point, ODU Drainage Canal site, and the NW Jordan Bridge site, coarse grained fill material will be placed in the shallow water/intertidal zone to develop a substrate (bench) for planting the emergent wetland. A low profile breakwater/sill (oyster shell and rock) will be constructed at the seaward edge of the restored wetlands at the ODU Drainage Canal to protect the restored area from wave attack. Placement of material will result in some direct loss of bottom dwelling organisms by burial, except for more motile species, such as crabs, which could escape these effects. Since the wetland base fill will consist of mostly coarse grained material, of similar grain size and composition to indigenous river shoreline sands, turbidity impacts are expected to be short-lived and spatially limited to the vicinity of the fill placement. 8.2.3 Wetland Restoration Cost Estimate 1 The construction costs for all sites consist of three categories- site preparation, earthwork, and landscaping. Site preparation costs include mobilization, brush clearing, timber matting, stone, erosion control, and demobilization. The earthwork category includes all costs for either excavation or filling, as applicable for each site. As examples, costs for an excavation site would include the actual excavation, hauling and disposing of the material, while costs for a filled site include acquiring the material, transporting it to the wetland site, and depositing it. The final category of costs, landscaping, includes all costs associated with constructing the wetland, such as topsoil, plants, and planting. 60 Ids aps Detailed site condition and survey information is not available for each of the individual wetland restoration sites proposed in this mitigation plan. During the ERER Feasibility Study conducted by the Norfolk District and approved in 2001, eight wetland restoration sites located along various reaches of the Elizabeth River were recommended. Each of these sites was developed to a Feasibility-level design, and cost estimates were developed. Construction costs included in the analysis were developed using TRACES estimates; they represent total or fixed fee cost estimates. They were a conceptual representation of the approximate order-of- magnitude costs associated with the design concepts described. These estimates were not based upon solicitations from qualified contractors, but rather were based upon representative unit costs for similar construction projects in the Tidewater Virginia area. A 25 percent contingency was added to the construction estimates in order to capture any unforeseen complications. nd. eral In addition to the construction costs developed for the ERER study, costs associated with real estate acquisition were also considered and included in the analysis. The estimates were based upon the following assumptions: ! 1. The property rights would be used for wetlands creation or enhancement; 2. Estimated values apply only to land above the mean high water line; 3. Navigational Servitude will be sufficient for any work below m.h.w.; 4. No improvements would be acquired for the project; and 5. Local sponsors will be entitled to credit for the real estate acquired. The construction contractor will be responsible for a 90-percent survival rate on all plantings throughout the first 3 years; maintenance costs included in the analysis reflect this responsibility. The maintenance costs, estimated at $1,000 every 5 years, are representative costs associated with limited debris removal and spot control of invasive plant species throughout the 50-year project life and are included in the $250,000/ac estimate. Extensive maintenance costs were assumed unnecessary because the wetland sites are designed to be self- supporting and sustaining. Potential conflicts with existing utility lines, including telephone, gas, electric, sewer, storm, cable, and water, were considered. No specific utilities have been identified that would 61 have to be relocated, but more investigation will be required during the PED Phase. Considering this information, the 25 percent construction contingency is expected to cover any unforeseen expenses. Proposed restored sites in the ERER study varied from 0.33 ac to 7.0 ac in area at a total average implementation cost of $250,000 per ac. The estimated acreages available for mitigation were calculated from historical records, maps, aerial photos, and site investigations. Given the similarity of project location (Elizabeth River), project type (salt marsh wetland restoration), and general site condition(s) to the sites being proposed for mitigation, this average cost estimate was applied to the cost per ac calculations for the proposed wetland mitigation sites. 8.3 OYSTER REEF SITE DESCRIPTIONS 1 Oyster Loss and Degradation Oyster populations have declined dramatically Chesapeake Bay-wide since the turn of the century, largely due to over-harvesting, parasitic diseases, loss of habitat due to shell mining, oyster harvesting practices that destroyed oyster reefs, and declines in water quality. Current oyster populations are at 1 percent of historical levels (Newell, 1988) and falling. Today's population estimate puts them at 0.2 percent of their historical level. This destruction of Chesapeake Bay's oysters has resulted in considerable adverse ecological effects, as well as the near-total collapse of Virginia's and Maryland's commercial oyster industries. The CBF noted oysters as being in the poorest condition of all ranked parameters in the Chesapeake Bay in 2000, which include various types of habitat, fisheries, and water quality parameters. And, in 2001, the CBF rated oysters at 2 out of 100, with 100 representing the oysters at pre-colonial levels. a The Elizabeth and Lafayette Rivers show considerable promise for oyster restoration. The Lafayette River is a small branch of the Elizabeth River that once supported extensive natural oyster reefs. Today, it holds only a remnant oyster population and has been condemned for market oyster production due to high coliform bacteria levels. The Elizabeth and Lafayette River system has a low tidal exchange rate that allows for strong auto recruitment from local oysters and functions essentially as a trap estuary. It is a heavily-urbanized watershed and may a 62 ng be subject to freshets; however, the location of the Lafayette in the lower Chesapeake Bay reduces the probability of a freshet, as the waters are quite saline (Zone 3 year-round). The restorable bottom appears to be mostly sand with small amounts of shell that lie in distinct bars near the shoreline and running parallel to it. bn 1 Spatset has been very low in the entire Elizabeth River system for decades, but small scale restoration and subsequent stocking with disease-tolerant and/or resistant native oysters have had positive results. Several small reefs were recently built in the Lafayette and Elizabeth Rivers and then seeded with disease-tolerant broodstock oysters (CROSBreed and DEBY strains) grown by the CBF. The fall 2002 spatset seen in the Lafayette on some of the new reefs was over 2,000 per square meter. This spatset matches historical levels and has not been seen in any waters of the Chesapeake Bay in decades. The Elizabeth River has extensive Baylor Grounds (documented historic oyster reefs), and over 500 ac lie within the river. However, navigation channels now run through several of these former oyster reefs, rending portions unsuitable for oyster restoration. Extensive acreage of hard bottom likely remains, though a detailed bottom survey is needed to determine this. The Elizabeth River is heavily industrial today, and the large navigation channels through parts of it, particularly the Southern Branch, will limit the potential restorable areas. Existing survey data reflect a similar bottom condition in the Elizabeth River compared to the Lafayette River, as most of the hard bottom appears to lie near the shore and is mostly sand with some shell pieces and grit. Some of the public grounds in both rivers do have enough oyster shell present to allow for successful restoration and will most likely not be used. a 8.3.1 Oyster Reef Mitigation Design Alternatives Oyster restoration, as developed by the USACE Norfolk District, involves the construction of reef structures on the river bottom using either native shell material or alternative substrates to create bottom relief and hard surface. The reefs can vary in height from just a foot to as much as 6 feet off the river bottom. They are then seeded with broodstock disease-resistant oysters in order to jumpstart genetic rehabilitation of the resident populations. Reefs can be constructed in deeper water or along the shoal areas adjacent to the existing shoreline. Monitoring of the reefs is then conducted every year, with more in the first 2 years to fully assess 63 conditions and continued monitoring being needed in order to implement the adaptive management plan. The Elizabeth and Lafayette River system appears to be highly suitable for implementation of the genetic rehabilitation strategy for the recovery of native oysters. It needs much more extensive knowledge of the current bottom conditions than is available at this time to determine the scope of a potential project. The USACE is undertaking such a survey at this time that can be used to identify potential mitigation sites. 8.3.2 Oyster Reef Mitigation Costs Oyster reef construction has been proposed to provide mitigation for impacted benthic and water column habitat and to offset potential impacts resulting from increased turbidity related to dredging in the area. The construction of 3-D oyster reefs is estimated at $100,000/ac and seeding at approximately $50,000/ac. Three-dimensional or high-relief reefs are defined as a series of shell mounds from 6-8 feet tall. Broodstock seeding is defined as application of reproductively-mature (40 mm minimum size), disease-resistant, native oysters. The implementation costs consist of all costs needed for construction, including design, S&A, shell placement and broodstock seeding, monitoring, and OMRR&R. This cost estimate is based upon USACE oyster restoration projects recently constructed in the Great Wicomico River (2004/2005), Tangier/Pocomoke Sound (2002), and the Rappahannock River (2001/2002). The mitigation plan proposes the construction of approximately 15 ac of oyster reefs throughout the Elizabeth River to be targeted in areas of the river where other mitigation/restoration projects are being or have been constructed (Figure 17). At a minimum, several ac will be located in the Southern Branch to be in close proximity to other mitigation projects previously described in order to maximize ecosystem functional benefits. An additional ac of oyster reef is proposed in Hoffler Creek, a tidal tributary located within the city of Portsmouth near the southwest side of CIDMMA. 64 8.4 OTHER MITIGATION SITES 8.4.1 Ragged Island Wildlife Management Area (Figure 18) leds le to me Wetland and Aquatic Habitat Loss and Degradation Ragged Island Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia and maintained by the VDGIF. Located in the lower James River, it contains 1,537 ac of brackish marsh and small pine islands. The major marsh vegetation is saltmarsh cordgrass and black needlerush. Approximately 7 miles of shoreline fronting the river is experiencing a high rate of erosion and an equivalent loss and/or degradation of aquatic, wetland, and riparian fish and wildlife habitat. According to an unpublished VIMS report, erosion along this shoreline averages from 1 to 2 feet per year, resulting in a loss of about 1-2 ac of marsh and riparian buffer per year. A problem directly related to shoreline erosion at Ragged Island is the deposition of eroded sediment into the James River. Suspended sediment is one element of water quality that has been linked directly to the decline of SAV in the James and other portions of the Chesapeake Bay. This eroded sediment degrades the James River's water quality and adversely impacts aquatic resources. I Restoration Alternative Approach The mitigation plan at Ragged Island WMA (Figures 5 and 24) proposes the construction of 8 ac of intertidal salt marsh and adjacent shallow water habitat consisting of either oyster reefs and/or clam sanctuary along a portion of the shoreline. Some structural solutions which provide shoreline protection will also be incorporated into the design of the project. In addition to aquatic habitat restoration, it is estimated that eroding salt marsh will be protected from permanent loss over the next 20 years. Actual location of site along the candidate 7 miles of shoreline will be determined during the Mitigation Plan Engineering and Design Phase. Restoration Cost Estimate The cost estimate was developed by using the previously explained cost estimate for wetlands ($250,000/ac) at 4 ac, and for oyster/clam restoration ($125,000/ac) at 4 ac. Oyster/clam restoration is slightly less per acre than oyster restoration alone because not as much 65 shell material would be required to provide bottom substrate suitable for clams (veneer on bottom vs. 3-D reef structure for oysters). 8.4.2 Craney Island Bird Management Plan Avian Populations Of the approximately 50 species of birds on CIDMMA, several species are known to nest on the perimeter dikes. These include the least tern, the killdeer, the red-winged blackbird, song sparrow, meadowlark, and mallard. In addition, numerous species of songbirds, shorebirds, and raptors use the dikes and adjacent areas for feeding and resting. A number of birds use CIDMMA as a resting stop during fall and spring migration (Beck, per USFWS, 1986). A total of 48 species of birds were identified by Laist (1974) as using the CIDMMA. Of the six zones sampled by Laist over a period of 12 months, the least ter was found in a small area dominated by weeds, such as Panicum, Melilotus, and Solidago spp, in the northeast comer of the CIDMMA. The most dramatic avian usage of the CIDMMA is evident from accounts provided by Robert Anderson, an Environmental and Natural Resources Specialist with the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia, and expert local birder. He has compiled an extensive list of well over 200 species of birds utilizing the various habitats of the CIDMMA. Of these, several are identified as using the site for breeding, including Carolina chickadee, tufted titmouse, Carolina wren, blue-gray gnatcatcher, American robin, gray catbird, northern mockingbird, white-eyed vireo, red-eyed vireo, clapper rail, killdeer, and least tern. Anderson characterizes the site as exceptionally productive bird habitat. Piping plovers, a Federally-threatened species, are also found within the boundaries of the CIDMMA. Long-Term Bird Management Plan (BMP) CIDMMA's primary use is for dredged material placement and the site is intensively managed to provide long-term storage capacity. However, as mentioned previously, birds use CIDMMA and the Corps has partnered with the College of William and Mary to monitor bird populations and to accommodate their nesting activities when possible. There is a need for a a 66 comprehensive, 10-year BMP for bird species at CIDMMA. A BMP would provide a long-range strategy to manage bird populations among required and ongoing construction activities and the routine operation and maintenance of the facility. The BMP would provide a planning tool that incorporates bird conservation and management measures in the overall operation and management of CIDMMA. The BMP would be developed by a team of individuals representing the avian scientific community, the USACE, and permitting state/Federal agencies. The BMP is intended to offset and provide mitigation for avian impacts related to the proposed expansion project. These impacts include the loss of open water resting and foraging areas within the proposed cell footprint. Other wetland restoration projects and adjoining buffer areas are proposed in the Mitigation Plan to make up for other impacts to avian species. nest song and 1 Cost Estimate f A cost estimate for developing this plan was provided by Dr. Ruth Beck, an ornithologist from the College of William and Mary ($150,000) who has monitored bird populations at CIDMMA for more than a decade. 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 L The proposed project includes the construction of a 580-ac dredged material placement cell to the east of the existing CIDMMA with the expanded cell used for port development. In accordance with CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA, and with ER 1105-2-100, “Policy and Planning Guidance for Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies (Planning Guidance Notebook),” the project-related adverse environmental impacts (i.e., impacts to fish and wildlife resources) have been avoided or minimized to the extent practicable, and a mitigation plan has been developed to compensate for remaining unavoidable significant adverse impacts. A CE/CA has been performed to identify the most cost-effective plan. The compensatory mitigation plan was developed with input from a Mitigation Subcommittee consisting of representatives from 12 Federal and state agencies and 3 local interest groups. The committee convened on 15 occasions between June 2002 and May 2005. Using data from existing studies, and those performed specifically for this Feasibility investigation, the group was tasked with assessing the degree of habitat impact associated with 67 the 580-ac fill, formulating mitigation ratios to replace or to increase the ecological function and productivity of the area lost, and developing a conceptual mitigation plan comprised of various tidal and sub-tidal habitats. A "landscape approach” was used to establish physical connectivity between various mitigation sites and to establish ecological synergy. Application of this approach also maximizes productivity and ensures long-term viability of each of the sites. HEA methodology was used to quantify the loss in habitat productivity from the proposed expansion and to provide a scale for a mitigation project that would compensate for the estimated loss in ecosystem services and production at the appropriate trophic levels. The USACE and VPA used this information and the committee's input to develop and present a “Draft Conceptual Mitigation Plan” at subcommittee meetings in February 2005. The plan considered in-kind relatedness, proximity to impact site, publicly recognized value of the habitat type, risk/long-term viability, ability to restore lost ecological functions, and the habitat productivity lost and productivity supplied by each mitigation option to replace the loss. Subsequent meetings in May 2005 resulted in modifications to the conceptual plan and the development of a “Draft Consensus Mitigation Plan.” This consensus plan (Figures 19-22), also known as the LPP, consists of approximately 20 ac of oyster reef restoration, 56 ac of wetland restoration, and 411 ac of bottom sediment restoration. The production of the mitigation plan is distributed among the 3 mitigation types at about 14 percent oyster reefs, 20 percent wetlands, and 70 percent sediment clean-up representing a slightly greater level of production (104%) than that lost with implementation of the Recommended Plan (east expansion). a The CECA resulted in a total of 22 plans that were determined to be cost effective, including three Best Buy Plans. Of the three Best Buy Plans identified, the LPP was selected as the recommended and fully justified mitigation plan. The recommended LPP is acceptable, efficient (cost-effective), complete, and supported by the non-Federal local sponsor (VPA), and also by other state and Federal agencies, such as the USEPA, USFWS, NOAA, and VIMS, and non-profit organizations such as the ERP, who also provided input into the development of the LPP. In conclusion, the Mitigation Subcommittee, along with the USACE and VPA, has identified specific feasible mitigation options. The USACE has used CE/CA to evaluate the 68 n and 1 ous ivity IEA options and has identified a Best Buy Plan that fully compensates for the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project. During plan development, every effort was made to accommodate the diverse input of the stakeholders involved in this process. The recommended mitigation plan, which is based on 3 years of stakeholder involvement, scientific study, and thorough analysis of all data and information collected, includes 487 ac of compensatory mitigation in the form of large scale ecosystem restoration at a total cost of approximately $50.2 million. Upon successful completion, the Mitigation Plan will replace important ecological functions in the lower James and Elizabeth River estuaries and fully compensate for the water column and benthic productivity lost from the proposed expansion of CIDMMA. ion ! 1 1 69 10 REFERENCES Alden, R.W., and J.G. Winfield, 1995. Defining the Problem: Elizabeth River, A Region of Concern, Old Dominion University, Applied Marine Research Laboratory, Norfolk, Virginia. Prepared for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Programs. Allison, G.W., J. Lubchenco, and M.H. Carr, 1998. Marine reserves are necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation. Ecological Applications. Vol 8(1) pp. 379-S92. Beck, R., 2002. Personal communication with Dr. Ruth Beck, College of William and Mary. March 19, 2002. Berthou, F., G. Balouet, G. Bodennec, and M. Marchland, 1987. The occurrence of hydrocarbons and histopathological abnormalities in oysters for seven years following the wreck of the Amoco Cadiz in Brittany (France). Marine Environmental Research. 23: 103-133. Birdsong, R.S., 1993. Spatial and temporal boundaries of the zooplankton environmental indicators. In: Development of zooplankton community environmental indicators for Chesapeake Bay: a report on the project's results through June 1993. ICPRB Report 93-2 prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program and Maryland Department of the Environment. Blankenship, K., 2002. New study suggests oysters could reduce nutrient levels in Chesapeake Bay. Bay Journal, Vol. 12(6). Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Richmond, Virginia, 23218. Buchman, M., 2003. Habitat equivalency analysis: an overview of a benthic community application. Draft White Paper. NOAA CPR Division. Opp. Burreson, E., G. Gross, V. Kennedy, M. Luckenbach, R. Mann, D. Meritt, R. Newell, K. Paynter, C. Peterson, and R. Takacs, 1999. Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration: Consensus of a Meeting of Scientific Experts. Chesapeake Bay Research Consortium, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, Gloucester Point, VA. Cooper, S. R., and G.S. Brush, 1993. A 2,500 year history of anoxia and eutrophication in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries, Vol. 16, No. 3B (617-626). Chu, F.L., E. and R.C. Hale, 1994. Relationship between pollution and susceptibility to infectious disease in the Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Marine Environmental Research. 38: 243-256.) Elizabeth River Project. 1996. Elizabeth River, Restoration and Conservation, A Watershed Action Plan, First Edition. Funded by USEPA and VDEQ. 70 Elizabeth River Project, 2002. Elizabeth River, Restoration and Conservation, A Watershed Action Plan, Second Edition. Funded by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 17pp. bf lake Hansen, D.J., 1975. PCB's: Effects on accumulation by estuarine organisms. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Polychlorinated Biphenyls. USEPA-560/6-75-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. Pp. 282-283. Harding, L.W. Jr., and E.S. Perry, 1997. Long-term increase of phytoplankton biomass in Chesapeake Bay, 1950-1994. Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 157: 39-52. 1 Jackson, J.B.C., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J.A. Estes, T.P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B. Lange, H.S. Lenihan, J.M. Pandolphi, C.H. Peterson, R.S. Steneck, M.J. Tegner, and R.R. Warner, 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293: 629- 635. 1 he Jackson, J.B.C., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, L.W. Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J.A. Estes, T.P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B. Lange, H.S. Lenihan, J.M. Pandolphi, C.H. Peterson, R.S. Steneck, M.J. Tegner, and R.R. Warner, 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293: 629- 635. Lenihan, H.S., and C.H. Peterson, 1998. How habitat degradation through fishery disturbance enhances impacts of hypoxia on oyster reefs. Ecological Applications 8: 128-140. Luckenbach, M.A., R. Mann, and J.E. Wesson (eds.), 1998. Oyster reef restoration: a symposium and synthesis of approaches. Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences Press, Gloucester Point, VA. a Lų, M.Z., 1982. Organic compound levels in a sediment core from the Elizabeth River of Virginia. Master's Thesis, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, 157pp. Mann, R., and J.M. Harding, 2000. Variability in larval development of Veined Rapa Whelk Rapana venosa from Chesapeake Bay, USA: Implications for ecological success in local habitats. June 2000. Newell, R.I.E., J.C. Cornwell, and M.S. Owens, 2002. Influence of simulated bivalve biodeposition and microphytobenthos on sediment nitrogen dynamics: a laboratory study. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 1367-1379. Newell, R.I.E. 1988. Ecological changes in the Chesapeake Bay: Are they the result of overharvesting the American oyster, Crassostrea virginica? In: Lynch M.P., and E.C. Krome (eds.) Understanding the estuary: advances in Chesapeake Bay research. Chesapeake Bay Research Consortium, Publ 129 CBP/TRS 24/88, Gloucester Point, VA, pp. 536-546. 71 Nybakken, J.W., 1988. Marine Biology: An Ecological Approach. Harper and Row Publishers, New York. Oakley, S., and N. Pilcher, 1996. Marine protected areas for sustainable fisheries management: Layang Layang Reef as a source of larvae in the South China Sea. Proceedings of a workshop on aquaculture and sustainable reef fisheries, Kota Kinabula, Sabah Malaysia. O’Beirn, F.X., M.W. Luckenbach, R. Mann, J. Harding, and J. Nestlerode, 1999. Ecological functions of constructed oyster reefs along an environmental gradient in Chesapeake Bay. Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, Gloucester Point, VA. Peterson, C. H., H.C. Summerson, and R.A. Luettich, Jr., 1996. Response of bay scallops to spawner transplants: a test of recruitment limitation. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 132: 93-107. Peterson, C.H., and Associates, 2003. “Scaling Compensatory Restorations for the Craney Island Expansion Project in the Elizabeth River Estuary.” University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 24 pp. Priest, Walter I. III, 1999. Historic Wetland Loss in the Elizabeth River. The Virginia Wetland Report, Summer, 1999. Vol. 14, No. 2. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Wetlands Program. Quinn, J.F., S.R. Wing, and L.W. Botsford, 1993. Harvest refugia in marine invertebrate fisheries: models and applications to the red sea urchin, Stronglyocentrotus franciscansus. American Zoology. 33: 357-350. Rothschild, B.J., J.S. Ault, P. Goulletquer, and M. Heral, 1994. Decline of the Chesapeake Bay oyster population: a century of habitat destruction and overfishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series 111: 29-39. Ruddy, G., 2005. Craney Island expansion project, supplemental HEA analysis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD. 15pp. Seitz, R.D., and R.N. Lipcius, 2003. Impact of the Craney Island extension on abundance, biomass, and diversity of dominant benthic species. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, Gloucester Point, VA. Seitz, R.D., 2005. Craney Island Mitigation Plan Comments. E-mail to Craig Seltzer, USACE, Norfolk District, February 23, 2005. Thayer, G.W. (ed.), 1992. Restoring the nation's marine environment. Maryland Sea Grant, College Park, MD. 72 hers, Tiner, R.W., and D.B. Foulis, 1994. Wetland trends in selected areas of the Norfolk/Hampton region of Virginia (1982 to 1989-90). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA. Ecological Services Report R5-93/16, 18 pp., 1994. Hent: Ulanowicz, R.E., and J.H. Tuttle, 1992. The trophic consequences of oyster stock rehabilitation in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries, Vol. 15, No. 3 (298-306). ſysia . 1 Bay U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2000. ER 1105-2-100, “Policy and Planning Guidance for Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies” (Planning Guidance Notebook). 74 p. plus appendices. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2002. “Minutes of Meeting of Mitigation Subcommittee, Craney Island Expansion Feasibility Study, June 21, 2002.” Norfolk District, Norfolk, Virginia. (http://www.gisweb.nao.usace.army.mil/Craneyee/AboutCraney Island.asp) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002. Personal communication between George Ruddy (Chesapeake Bay Field Office, USFWS) and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. April 30, 2002. Van Veld, P.A., D.J. Westbrook, B.R. Woodin, R.C. Hale, C.L. Smith, R. J. Huggett, and J. J. Stegeman, 1990. Induced cytochrome P-450 in intestine and liver of spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) from a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon environment. Aquatic Toxicology 17: 119-132. Weisberg, S.B., Ranasinghe, J.A., Dauer, D.M., Schaffner, L.C., Diaz, R.J., and J.B. Frithsen, 1997. An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries, Vol. 20, No. 1, p. 149-158. 73 1 S E PA APELINE V.PEA ht istana pupist Craney sett 25 US ARMY TE DISPOSAL AREA INTERNET BOUN ہی سب سے CRANCY LIN ISLAND Craney Island SANAVAL SUPPLYCÉNTER SUÁRI Agara sang SW REACH RTSMOUTH Cranků wer ELWE win Pines berrifield Lobbers Point PORTSMOUTH O Legend Proposed East Expansion 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Kingman Source: USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Map, Norfolk North, VA PROJECT RECOMMENDED PLAN EIS Appendix B Craney Island East Expansion Figure 1 May 05 Figure 2 Conceptual Mitigation EIS Appendix B Plan(s) Bird Mgmt.Plan @ CIDMMA Consensus Mitigation 56 ac Plan Habitat Restoration Wetland & Aquatic June 02 Da Mitigation Plan Formulation - Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analysis (CE/ICA)00 Mitigation Committee Consensus Plan Development 0 ODO HEA Model(s) Production (Quantitative) Ecological Services (Qualitative) Background, Site Condition, & Impacts Evaluation Functional Assessment and Selection Criteria Committee Proposed Sites Habitat Units 30 Specific Sites Evaluated & Ranked VIMS Benthic Study Cum Impacts Study (EPA Funded) VIMS 3-D Hydro. Model(s) Cost Effectiveness/ Inc. Cost Analysis Sediment Restoration 411 ac B-IBI (Benthos) Natural Resources Inventory Impacts Evaluation Matrix Best Buy Plan(s) Oyster Restoration 20 ac Recommended Mitigation Plan Wetlands, Oysters, Sediments i ✓ One or Two Figure 3 Options EIS Appendix B ✓ All three options Mitigation Benefits Calculations 1 Qualitative Measure Quantitative Measure Water Column Bio-Filtration Species Abundance Food Web Stability Sediment & Water Quality Toxin Reduction HEA Secondary Production (kg/ac) Food Web Complexity Risk Species Diversity Production Output Ecological Benefits Product Score Habitat Units 出​制​, . > EIS Appendix B Fiqure 4. COST-EFFECTIVE PLANS Cost Effective Plans - Expected Cost Effective Plans Plans Of Interest 3500000 3000000 2500000 AAC 2000000 1500000 Gui 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 550000 600000 AAB Figure 5. "BEST BUY" PLANS Best Buy Plans - Expected O 17.5 15.0 1 ! 12.5 Plan V AAC - $3,682,000 AAB - 598,000 habitat units Incremental cost per output: $16.90 10.0 - Incremental Cost Plan R - LPP AAC - $2,981,000 AAB - 556,000 habitat units Incremental cost per output: $15.60 7.5 | 5.0 Plan L AAC - $2,514,000 AAB - 526,000 habitat units Incremental cost per output: $4.80 2.5 0.0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 550000 600000 AAB - S1 - Wyckoff Creosote & Pipe, S. Branch Elizabeth River Figure 6 General Description Atlantic Wood EIS Appendix B : • Likely source of contamination based on historical use • Adjacent restoration projects, including Superfund clean-up • Work at Wycoff may prevent recontamination of Atlantic Wood sediment site to the south (Former) Wyckoff Located just north of Atlantic Wood (Superfund Site) ProsVBA • Sediment samples taken offshore show elevated levels of PAH's So. Branch ER Currently little data to evaluate extent of contamination at this site ~ 7 acres • Collect and analyze samples to characterize • Develop & implement remediation plan, as appropriate h site boundary 50100 Scale Intel E -- S2 - Republic Creosote, S. Branch Elizabeth River (Former) Creosote Plant Sites General Description Elizabeth River Environmental Restoration Feasibinty Study • Just south of the mouth of Paradise Creek (on eastern shore) • Had a large creosoting facility operating on it for a number of years. Currently little data to evaluate extent of contamination at this site. • Collect and analyze samples to characterize site Develop & implement remediation plan, as appropriate Wyckoff Pipe) & Creosote cuffiatown a Atlantic Wood Republic- Creosote Pros: Eppinger & Russell • Likely source of contamination based on historical use · Adjacent restoration projects W EIS Appendix B Figure 7 -17 ac -:7uvo OVVIATJ 6 17 80 Figure 8 EIS Appendix B l S3 - Money Pt. (incl. Eppinger & Russell), S. Branch Eliz. River General Description • Elizabeth River Restoration Trust (ERRT) $5M mitigation funds to clean-up approx. 35 acres of severe contamination • Amount of funding may not cover entire cost of remediation • Some portion of the site (~17 ac) may be available for mitigation/remediation Pros: • Known significant source of contamination • Historical records & some existing data available Adjacent restoration projects • Upland clean-up currently underway (DEQ Voluntary Remediation Program) : 1' - Paradise Creek Figure 9 EIS Appendix B G b S4 - Paradise Creek, S. Branch Elizabeth River - 4 acres General Description Adjacent to Peck Iron and Metal facility • Limited sediment samples show PCB and PAH contamination • ERRT funded collection and analysis of PCB sediment samples (VIMS) Develop & implement remediation plan, as appropriate ER Southern Branch Pros: • Historical land use & existing sediment data available • Consistent with Paradise Creek Watershed Management Plan • Adjacent restoration projects, including Superfund clean-up(s), wildlife areas • Upland property (Peck Iron) participating in DEQ Voluntary Remediation Program - ) ) C EIS Appendix B Figure 10 S5 - Scuffletown Creek, So. Branch Eliz. River General Description • 6-acre sediment remediation Civil Works project (Corps/Sponsors) • In pre-construction final design phase (PED) • Removal of medium level PAH's Funding available for final design phase • Mitigation could fund construction if Federal or sponsor funds are lacking So. Branch Elizabeth R. Scuffletown Creek Pros: • Known source of contamination Comprehensive existing data available Design (will be) complete • Demo project potential Adjacent restoration projects i : - C VII ---I IV CS Old Dominion University Figure 11 EIS Appendix B Lambert Point/ODU Drainage Canal Elizabeth River General Description: • Receives stormwater drainage from ODU campus • 0.6 acre restorable saltmarsh on mainstem Elizabeth River Proposed wetland Pros: Stormwater Drainage Feature Design completed Supportive local sponsor (City of Norfolk) • Will provide nutrient uptake and stormwater filtering JUSGS) W2 - Former Exxon Terminal (Shotmeyer Property) W3 General Description: • 2 parcels, 1 owner • 1 acre restorable on SBR. Elizabeth River Pros: W6 So. Branch ER • Adjacent and opposite other proposed sites • Available for sale W-2 • No former creosoting operations EIS Appendix B Figure 12 -5 ac Figure 13 Paradise Creek EIS Appendix B W3 Paradise Creek Park, Paradise Creek St. Julian's Annex, Blows Creek General Description • 40 acres, Portsmouth • Partially wooded w/dredge disposal area (shell hash) Pros: Approximately 5 acres of wetland creation possible • Currently available for sale • Recreational/education opportunities for adjacent Cradock neighborhood • Contiguous to other proposed mitigation sites • Dredge material could be used for capping local sediment sites So. Branch ER EIS Appendix B Figure 14 I l O W4 - Elizabeth River Terminals General Description • 5 acres, City of Portsmouth Open field w/ small sand beach and fringe marsh • Located on S. Branch across from St. Juliens Annex S. Branch ER 00 ( SCC je u Pros: Approximately 5 acres of wetland creation possible -5 ac TOTIS • ER Terminal Master Plan has area slated for conservation/wetlands creation • Contiguous to other proposed mitigation sites .) W5 - Property Located Between Jones Creek and Gilligan's Creek L General Description • Forested / salt marsh peninsula between Jones and Gilligan Creeks • Approximately 10 acres • 2 adjoining parcels east of 1-464 (20 Acres) Figure 15 ~10 ac EIS Appendix B 23 • Easily connected to tidal inflow Pros: • Possible 30 ac of wetlands creation • Easily accessed • Area to be restored has been remediated • Blows Creek benthic studies available • Contiguous to other proposed sites 3 555 } W6 St. Julian's Annex, Blows Creek General Description • U.S. Navy Ammunition Depot, Chesapeake • Adjacent to Paradise Creek Land Co. property and Chesapeake Deep Water Terminals • Superfund Site Blows Creek So. Branch Pros: AUSGS • Possible 30 ac of wetlands creation • Easily accessed • Area to be restored has been remediated • Blows Creek benthic studies available • Contiguous to other proposed sites Easily connected to tidal inflow EIS Appendix B Figure 16 1 I Craney Island Consensus Mitigation Plan Connectivity With Other Restoration Areas LEGEND Consensus Mitigation Plan O Restored Oyster Reefs Proposed Sediment Clean-Up Proposed or Restored Wetlands Areas EIS Appendix B Figure 17 Ragged Island Figure 18 WMA EIS Appendix B -- Ragged Island Wildlife Management Area, James River General Description: • 1,537 acres of brackish marsh and small pine islands on west side of the lower James River • Major marsh vegetation is saltmarsh cordgrass and black needlerush • 50,000 feet of shoreline eroding at 1-2 feet per year (1-2 acres/year) • Results in loss of wetlands and benthic populations James River and large nutrient input Mitigation Concept: • Provide wetland restoration/erosion protection to halt erosion, nutrient input, and provide opportunity for shallow water benthic habitat (oysters/clams) restoration/protection Pros: Recognizable benefits • Preserves wetlands and wildlife (incl. bird) habitat near Craney Island DMMA Improves water quality in lower James River • (Adjacent) Ragged Is. Creek – “Exceptional Waterway” designation - 1 Craney Island Consensus Mitigation Plan - Southern Branch, Elizabeth River - LEGEND - Sediment Remediation Opportunities . - - 67 Acres S5 - Scuffletown Creek Wetlands Restoration Areas 57 Acres KEY TO SITES: W2 - Former Exxon Site Oyster Reef Creation, Site Shown - 2 Acres Total Oyster Reef Creation Proposed ~ 15 Acres - - Total River Restoration Area 411 Acres - - - DOWS S1 S5 W5 S2 W2 S3 W3 - Paradise Creek Park W4 - Elizabeth River Terminals W5 - Jones and Gilligan Creeks W6 - St. Julians S1 – Wycoff S2 - Republic S3 - Money Point S4 - Paradise Creek Slucuur Ontwii U $4 Spuuoa VN U W3 EIS Appendix B Figure 19 W6 W4 Craney Island Conse sus Mitigation Plan Hoffler Creek Oyster Reef Creation Site and Craney Island Bird Management Planning Area J!quod SVIZI Elizabeth uvyoumovy VOJN J River o LEGEND spoeawi əmlejning Craney Island Bird Management Spoda EH U mo Plan 1 Acre Hoffler Creek Oyster Reef Creation Site EIS Appendix B Figure 20 1 | 3 5556 036 097228 Craney Island Conselsus Mitigation Plan Lamberts Point Wetlands Restoration Area and Craney Island Bird Management Planning Area W1 W1 LEGEND Craney Island Bird Management Plan Elizabeth River W1 Lamberts Point Wetlands Restoration Area 1 Acre EIS Appendix B Figure 21 MJ VOJI Orquag SWIA 3 1 3 5556 036 0972.8 Craney Island Consensus Mitigation Plan Ragged Island Wetlands Area, Oyster Reef Creation and Clam Bed Restoration James River Elizabeth River Craney Island LEGEND Oyster Reef Creation & Clam Bed Restoration EIS Appendix B Figure 22 Total Area -8 Acres Wetlands Restoration Area 5 C 3 5556 036 097228 E. VIMS Benthic F. NEPA Coordination C. Cumulative impacts Assessment G Pertinent Cumulative Impacts Assessment ? D. HEA Reports 3 5556 036 0972:28 E. VIMS Benthic Please see attached disk for electronic version of this document. F. NEPA Coordination G Pertinent 1 n..... AnaLUAN D. HEA Reports 3 5556 036 097228 E. VIMS Benthic F. NEPA Coordination G A Pertinant . HEA Reports D. HEA Reports 1 3 5556 036 097228 E. VIMS Benthic Please see attached disk for electronic version of this document, F. NEPA Coordination c Dartinent 1 ) VIVO 3 5556 036 097228 Study E. VIMS Benthic F. NEPA Coordination VIMS Benthic Study ) ) » C 1 I 3 5556 036 097228 Please see attached disk for electronic version of this document. C 3 5556 036 097228 1 Table F. NEPA Coordination EPA Coordination Table Dartinent : 3 5556 036 097228 L Craney Island Eastward Expansion Feasibility Study ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION CHECKLIST PROJECT TITLE: Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area (CIDMMA) East Expansion Feasibility Study and (Draft) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ACTION DATE COMMENTS National Environmental Policy Act Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS Date of Notice in Federal Register 03/02/01 1 07/2005 Ongoing and future completion date NEPA Documentation Draft report prepared Determine if public review is required Mailing list prepared Preparation of draft ROD Public review process initiated Public review process completed Final EA or EIS prepared (incl. comments) Final (signed) FONSVROD Final EIS to EPA 07/2005 Ongoing and future completion date 07/2005 Ongoing and future completion date 08/2005 Ongoing and future completion date 10/2005 Future completion date 12/2005 Future completion date 01/2006 Future completion date 01/2006 Future completion date Main Report Input (Feasibility) Coordination, (Scoping) Environmental groups, Interest groups, etc. Letters or formal review process Ongoing A Stakeholders Group, NEPA Workshops/public meetings Ongoing Technical Committee, and Mitigation Informal coordination (phone calls, Ongoing Subcommittee meets regularly etc.) (27 meetings to date) Record of Decision (for EISs) Draft prepared, forwarded for review 07/2005 Future completion date Date ROD signed 01/2006 Future completion date Distribution to mailing list 01/2006 Future completion date Mitigation Planning/Compliance Plan developed > 06/2002 A “Consensus Mitigation Plan” has to been developed with stakeholder Present input. Presented in Draft EIS. 1 I ACTION DATE COMMENTS National Environmental Policy Act Mitigation Planning/Compliance (contd) Concurrence (Division, agencies, Ongoing Preliminary concurrence environmental groups) Monitoring requirements Ongoing Presented in Draft EIS 8/2005 Completed for Feasibility Phase Design Plans and Specifications Input to plans and specs prepared and coordinated with project manager and appropriate section for plans and specs Review of final project plans and specs (constuctability conference) 8/2005 Completed for Feasibility Phase Design Coastal Zone Management Act Informal coordination with agency staff Coastal Consistency Determination (CCD) prepared Transmittal of CCD to agency Receipt of letter from agency 11/2000 Ongoing and future completion date to Present 07/2005 CCD will be prepared and transmitted with Draft EIS. Future completion 07/2005 date. 12/2005 Concurrent with Final EIS Clean Air Act Determine with state input whether area is an attainment or non- attainment area. Determine conformity with State Implementation Plan (SIP) Hampton Roads is a non-attainment area for 8-hr. ozone standard (as of April 2004). Presently in compliance with the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants other than ozone. Coordination with appropriate state and local agencies will be needed to demonstrate conformity with future SIP for Hampton Roads regional area. Clean Water Act Determine need for 404 evaluation Prepare 404(b)(1) evaluation Determine 404(r) eligibility Submit to state agency for water quality certification unless pursuing 404(r) 11/2000 09/2005 Included in Draft EIS To be determined To be determined 2 3 5556 036 0972 8 1 ACTION DATE COMMENTS National Environmental Policy Act the area Endangered Species Act Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ongoing Coordination with F&WS has Service requesting a list of coordin- indicated that no threatened or threatened and endangered species in ation endangered species under their jurisdiction would be impacted by the Preparation of biological assessment N/A project. No Formal Section 7 (if needed) consultation required. Planning Aid Initiation of Section 7 Consultation N/A Report dtd 12/04/02. Formal USFWS Biological Opinion N/A Letter to NMFS Service requesting a Ongoing Coordination with NMFS has list of threatened and endangered coordin- indicated that threatened or species in the area ation endangered species under their jurisdiction may be impacted by sand borrow activities. Formal Section 7 consultation may be required. Preparation of biological assessment Ongoing To be determined (if needed) Initiation of Section 7 Consultation Ongoing To be determined Formal NMFS Biological Opinion Ongoing to be determined Dertinant N/A N/A Farmland Protection Policy Act Letter and Form AD 1006 requesting identification of Prime & Unique Farmlands Receipt of response from Natural Resource Conservation Service Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act -- 05/2000 Ongoing Participation on NEPA Committee and Mitigation Subcommittee U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination of scope of work and funding Informal coordination (phone, meetings, field trips, etc., especially if no FWCA document required Planning Aid Letter (for use as planning tool for alternative selection, mitigation) Coordination Act Report (include in EIS's) a. Draft CAR received 12/04/02 Planning Aid Report prepared by F&ws Will provide after review of Draft EIS 11/05 Will receive (projected date) 3 ACTION COMMENTS DATE C National Environmental Policy Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (cont'd) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service b. Final CAR received Mitigation Agreement (concurrence with recommendations) 12/05 12/05 Will receive (projected date) Ongoing participation with Mitigation Subcommittee State Resource Agency (Coordination under Coordination Act) Informal coordination (phone, site Ongoing Participation on NEPA Committee and visit, etc) Mitigation Subcommittee Letter of concurrence with project Ongoing Anticipated and mitigation National Environmental Policy Act National Marine Fisheries Service (Coordination under Coordination Act) Informal coordination (phone, site 09/25/02 visit, etc) Letter of concurrence with project Ongoing Anticipated and mitigation (if applicable) Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (if applicable to project) Notify NMFS that an EIS is being 03/2001 prepared Corps prepares EFH assessment Ongoing Submit Draft EIS with EFH 09/2005 Anticipated assessment section to NMFS for review Receipt of NMFS EFH Conservation 11/2005 Anticipated Recommendations Corps response to NMFS'EFH 12/2005 Anticipated Conservation Recommendations within 30 days Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act Section 103 - Bioassay protocol (Possible) Future completion date (Corps and EPA review) 4 3 5556 036 097228 ACTION DATE COMMENTS ational Environmental Policy Act Draft Letters transmitting results of remote Report sensing investigations with 10/11/00 recommendations of no further action. No response from SHPO received. ational Historic Preservation Act tter to SHPO documenting results the investigation (if investigations e required based on initial nsultation) including: a. A request for concurrence with aluation of eligibility for the ational Register of Historic Places b. Request for concurrence with aluations of the effect a proposed object may have on a National egister, or eligible, property c. Request for concurrence with ans to avoid, mitigate, or minimize Eects Final Report 01/02/01 ) ild and Scenic Rivers Act sting consulted, determination of n Dominant N/A; No effect ect formal agency coordination (NPS) 5 6 5 3 5556 036 097228 : 1 Pertinent Correspondence Correspondence G. Pertinent 6 i 1 G is I 3 5556 036 097228 STATE UNICO AGENCY UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONI 1660 Arch Street Philadelphla, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 MENTAL CTION : 14 $ 53 DEC 8 201 Colonel David L. Hansen District Engineer Norfolk District, Corps.of Engineers Fort Norfolk, 803 Front Street Norfolk, Virginia 23510-1096 Dear Colonel Hansen: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently reviewing information-in support of a Corps:of Engineers? proposal to expand an existing dredged material disposal.site in southeastero Virginia The Norfolk District Corps of Engineers (COE) bas indicated that the Norfolk Harbor and Channels Eastward. Expansion of Craney İstand: Feasibility Study, currently being conducted, will determine the need for and the federal interest in an eastward: expansion of the Craney Island Dredged: Material Management Area (CIDMMA). This projeç.is being coordinated with the Commonwealth of Virginia through the Virginia Port Authority CVPA). The Crapey Island Dredged Material Management Area (CDMMA) . Is 2,500-acſe confined dredged material disposal site located near Norfolk, VA receiving 3-5 million cubic yards of dredged material annually. CIDMMA was constructed in 1956-1958. and isfederally owned and operated. It is used by federal, state, and local governments as well as by private interests. CIEMMA was origtinally designed to have a capacity of 100-million cubic yards but due to compaction and implementation of intensive managemeat techniques its capacity has been considerably increased. At the end of 1997 CIDMMA contained over 200-million cubic yards of dredged material. CDMMA is authorized to handle all types of dredged material including material suitable and unsuitable for open ocean disposal. As described by Congressional Resolution 2539 on Craney Island Virginja (signed September 24, 1997) and the COE, the objectives of the expansion.project include: 1. Extending the useful life of the CIDMMA as a dredged material containment area, 2. Providing additional acreage for the development of projected long-term berthing and landside port facilities adjacent to the Norfolk Harbor Channel. 3. Providing a logistical and tactical area for support of the deployment of national defense forces. As an agency with jurisdiction by law (i.c., Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and.Clean Water Act) and with special expertise te.g., marine and.estuarine ecosystems) we intend to fully participate in the development of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for Norfolk Harbor and Chamels Eastward Expansion of Craney Island project. Because-scoping is such a critical step in definiog the direction and intensity of the analysis process, EPA respectfully submits the Printed on 100% recycled recyclable paper pick 100% post-consumerſiber and process chlorine free. Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474 following comments in order to facilitate an efficient and effective NEPA process. Although the following list is exhaustive we intend to work with the Corps of Engineers, through the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process, to identify the significant issues which should be analyzed in detail. We thank for the opportunity to participate in this process. If you have any questions regarding our comments please contact Regina Poeske of my staff at 215-814-2725. Sincerely, Thomas Hankins Thomas Slenkamp, Acting Director Office of Environmental Programs Attachment 2 : 3 5556 036 097228 Norfolk Harbor and Channels Rastward Expansion of Craney Island - Feasibility Study EPA Scoping Comments 1 In the resultant Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the objectives of the feasibility study, the scope of decisions to be made (including analysis of alternatives), and the effects to be considered in the environmental analyses and document must be clearly identified. The following comments should help raise periment issues related to creadon of additionat dredged material disposal options and port facility development for your consideration in the EIS. Where applicable we will work with the COE and the NEPA team to identify and eliminate from detailed studies those issues which are not significant. Purpose and Need The document should describe the umderlying problem (problem statement), the facts and analyses used to support the problem statement (including information about why in this particular location, at this particular time) and the context or perspective of the agency mission in relation to the need for action. For example, the basic problem appears to be lack of future capacity in the existing Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area (CIDMMA). The facts and analyses used to support this statement would include existing capacity at CIDMMA, existing and projected dredged material volumes from all sectors using CIDMMA, information documenting current management practices at CIDMMA, etc. The COE is responding to these problems because they have a mandate under Congressional Resolution (Resolution) 2539 as well as under separate authorities regarding dredging and disposal. : Additional issues noted in the objectives of the feasibility study include providing for additional acreage for the development of a port facility which could also serve for national defense purposes. Because it lies within the COE's scope of decisions to be made EPA considers the development of a port facility (and subsequent use for national defense) on the proposed eastward expansion of CIDMMA a connected action (as described under CEQ Regulations at 150825). As such it should be discussed in the same impact statement including, need for and alternatives to, development at this location. The purpose, need and development of these facilities is less well understood at this time, however, EPA believes it is incumbent upon the COE, in their EIS, to describe the underlying problems associated with port facilities in the area. The facts and analyses used should include a description of current port facilities in the Norfolk Harbor Channel and the projected lack of or deficiency in adequate port facilities in the area. This same type of information should also be included regarding current and projected needs for national defense deployment. : Furthermore, the Resolution directs the COE to give specific attention to rapid filling which appears to conflict with the primary purpose of an expansion of CIDMMA. This conflict between project objectives needs to be clearly articulated and understood in order for the public and decision maker to fully understand the scope of decisions to be made. The Purpose and Need Section of the EIS should also establish a clearly defined time frame for addressing the problems. When will CIDMMA reach full capacity? What is the planning 3 horizon for dredged material management in the Norfolk Harbor Charmel? Please define "useful life" as directed by the Resolution. What time frames exist for the port facility developers and those planning for national defense concerns? How do these time frames overlap or conflict? Alternatives The Alternatives Analysis Section must analyze all reasonable and feasible alternatives to the proposed project, including the No Action alternative. An alternative is considered reasonable and feasible, if it is practical in the technical, economic and social sense, even if it outside the jurisdiction of the lead agency (CEQ regulations at section 1502.14). Alternatives must meet the defined objectives and fulfil the need for action. A potential conflict with local or federal law does not necessarily render an alternative unreasonable, although such conflicts must be considered (Section 1506.2(d)). Alternatives that are outside the scope of what Congress has approved or funded must still be evaluated in the ELS if they are reasonable, because the EIS may serve as the basis for modifying the Congressional approval or funding in light of NEPA's goals and policies. Section 1500.1(a).. In determining the scope of alternatives, the emphasis is on what is "reasonable" rather than on whether the proponent or applicant likes or is capable of carrying out a particular alterdative (NEPA's Forty Most Asked Questions, 1981). Any alternative raised and then discarded from detailed study must be identified and the rationale for elimination briefly discussed. Current COB documentation indicates that the following are being considered as feasible alternatives: expansion of CIDMMA (options include east, west, north or combinations of these) placement of material at other confined sites ocean placement of suitable material demand reduction by alternative beneficial uses of dredged material combination of dredged material management plans evaluation of existing CIDMMA for possible joint use as a containment area and container port evaluation of use as a defense logistics and tactical support area no action alternative 1 EPA would add to this list the possibility of raising the berms at CIDMMA 10 increase capacity, alone or in conjunction with other alternatives mentioned above. Also, because the Congressional Resolution directs the COE to "give specific attention to rapid filling of the proposed eastern expansion "to accommodate anticipated port expansion” EPA believes that the COE is required to consider alternatives to port development at the proposed expansion site. This would include port development elsewhere within a prescribed geographic area and the No Action alternative (no port development at eastward expansion site). This analysis is critical since it could show that eastern expansion is preferable for extending the useful life of CIDMMA while port development is accommodated elsewhere. Affected Environment 4 .. 3 5: is section of the EIS should describe the affected environment in terms of the physical. logical, cultural and socioeconomic resources that would be impacted by the proposed Inatives and the No Action alternative. Examples of affected environment for the expansion ions include CIDMMA proper, the open and shallow water areas where the expansion will w and areas directly and indirectly affected by the proposed expansions (c.g, Elizabeth ter, Nansemond River, etc). Occan disposal options include the area of direct disposal, acent areas indirectly affected andt any areas that would be affected by transport of the dged material. This list is expansive, however, EPA recognizes that the resultant EIS should us on the issues that are truly significant and important in terms of decisions to be made. Physical Resources Section should provide a description of the physical cavironment at the posed project site including: Substrate - This section should describe the existing aquatic ecosystem substrate at project as associated with each alternative. Aquatic ecosystem substrate is considered to be the thic material underlying all open water areas and constitutes the soil-water interface of Hands. It is distinguished from soils by permanent inundation. Water Quality - Describe existing physical and chemical water quality of surface waters in the ject areas, including affected stream and rivers if applicable. These characteristics include inity gradients, suspended particulates/turbidity, temperature, nutrients, dissolved gas levels PH. Hydrology - Describe the existing surface water or groundwater hydrology in the project areas. ese characteristics include current patterns, and normal water fluctuations/tidal patterns (daily, sonal and annual tidal and flood fluctuations) as described in the Virginia Institute for Marine ence (VIMS) models. O Groundwater Resources - Describe groundwater resources at each project site or within areas could be impacted by project development. Soil and Mineral Resources - Describe soils and mineral resources located within the project as. Air Quality - Identify existing air quality in the vicinity of the project areas. Biological Resources Section should provide a description of the biological environment at proposed project sties. Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive Species - Section should provide a listing of all state or erally listed endangered or threatened species or sensitive species (or any candidates for ing) which could be affected by implementation of project alternatives. This should also lude critical habitat identification, 5 Critical habitat is defined as (1) the specific arcas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed, in accordance with provisions of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the ESA, upon determination of the Secretary (of the Interior) that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Critical habitats are described in 50 CFR Parts 17 or 226. O 2. Fish and Invertebrates - Section should list the fish and invertebrates and other aquatic organisms in the food web that may be affected by the implementation of the proposed alternatives. Aquatic organisms in the food web include fio fish, crustaceans, mollusks, insects, annelids, planktonic organisms and plants and animals on which they feed and depend on for their needs. Al forms of life stages throughout its geographic range should be included in this category. Data should be presented describing the type, composition and ecological value of the resource. Infomation related to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in the arca should also be included. EFH for federally managed fish species is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. I 3. Other Wildlife - Section should identify wildlife that may be affected by the implementation of the proposed alternatives which are not addressed in the Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive Species Category or the Fish and Invertebrates Category. Game and non-game species (resident and transient mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians) should be identified. Data should be presented describing the type, composition and ecological value of the resource. 4. Terrestrial Ecosystems - This section should identify terrestrial babitat that may be affected by the implementation of the proposed alternatives. If pertinent, data should be presented describing the amount, type, composition and ecological value of the resource and the relative rarity of the ecosystem on a national, regional and local level. 5. Sanctuaries and Refuges - This section should identify any sanctuaries or refuges which could be affected by the implementation of proposed alternatives. For the purposes of this analysis, sanctuaries and refuges are defined as areas designated under federal, state or local authority to be managed principally for the preservation and use of fish and wildlife resources. 6. Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows - This section should identify, delineate and describe the wetlands and vegetated shallows which could be affected by implementation of the proposed alternatives. Data should be presented characterizing the amount, type, composition (pattern diversity) and ecological value of the resource and the relative rarity of the ecosystem on a national, regional and local level. Wetlands are defined as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 6. T 3 5556 036 097228 1 Vegetated shallows are defined as permanently inundated areas that under normal circumstances support communities of rooted aquatic vegetation, such as submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). The recent decline in SAV areas in the bay should be noted and areas of historic and current communities should be noted for the lower James, Nansemond and Elizabeth River systerns as well as Hampton Roads and lower Chesapeake Bay arta. 7. Mudflats - This sectiou should identify any mudilat areas that may be affected by the implementation of the proposed alternatives. Mudflats are broad, flat areas along the coast, in coastalrivers to the head of tidal-inflacnice, and in inland lakes, ponds and riverine systems.- Tidal mudflats are typically exposed at low tides and inundated at high tides with water at or the surface of the substrate. C. Socioeconomic and Cultural Resources Sections should address the proposed alternatives potential effects on buman use characteristics as defined under Clean Water Act 40 CFR 230.50 to 230.54 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470(f)) which requires that the head of any Federal ageacy having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (see generally 36 CFR sec 800). If applicable, the existence of submerged historical resources should also be noted. Land use and watershed characteristics should be described for each alternative. The number of homes, commercial businesses and industrial developments that may be impacted by project implementation should be described. This section should also describe any communities of concern related to Executive Order 12898 "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations". Environmental Consequences The Environmental Consequences Section should be devoted largely to scientific analysis of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed actions and of each of the alternatives as well as the No Action alternative. This section provides the analytic basis for the comparison of alternatives in the EIS. This analysis should include impacts related to expansion of CIDMMA, operation and maintenance of the new cell, dredging related to rapid filling of eastern expansion, ocean disposal, beneficial use placement, operation and maintenance of the new port facility, impacts related to berthing of ships at this facility, and any other anticipated impacts related to project implementation This section of the document is needed to draw bard conclusions regarding the loss of aquatic and potentially wetland ecosystems. This section should discuss these losses on a direct, indirect and cumulative basis. The document should discuss what these impacts mean for the larger ccosystems of the Elizabeth, lower James, and Nansemond River ecosystems, Hampton Roads, the Chesapeake Bay, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the mid-Atlantic Region. The environmental effects related to the implementation of each alternative should be described 7 in the following categories: A. Physical Resources (as described above) B. Biological Resources (as described above) C. Cultural Resources (as described above) D. Socioeconomic Resources (as described above) E Unavoidable and Adverse Environmental Impacts F. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources G. Relationship Between-Short-Term-Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity A. Physical Resources 1. Substrate - This section should identify the potential impacts, individual and cumulative, of each alternative on aquatic ecosystem substrate. Consideration should be given to any potential changes in substrate elevation and bottom contours, including changes outside the disposal site that may occur as a result of erosion, sluwpage, or other movement of the discharged material. 2. Water Quality - This section should evaluate the potential impacts to surface water quality from the implementation of the proposed alternatives; include severity of any impacts, magnitude of any water quality changes, and relative probability that there would be an impact. Impaired Waters [as described by CWA section 303(d)) and sources of impairment should be described for all project areas: Impact assessment should also include a thorough description of the anticipated water quality impacts related to CIDMMA discharge. It should be noted that a Virginia Pollution Elimination Discharge System (VPDES) permit may required for the expansion site if new discharges are proposed for the Hampton Roads estuary. Particular attention should be given in this section to: dissolved oxygen content turbidity nutrients toxic pollutants development of pool habitats for water-bome vectors, primarily mosquitos 3. Hydrologic Impacts - Hydrologic impact analysis should include the potential environmental impacts of each proposal on surface water or groundwater hydrology, with particular attention to the Elizabeth River system. The nature and degree of effect that the proposed project will have individually and cumulatively on water current patterns, circulation including downstream flows and normal water fluctuations. 4. Groundwater Resources - This section should evaluate the impacts, if any, to groundwater quality and quantity related to project implementation. 3 G 8 3 5556 036 097228 5. Soil and Mineral Resources - This section should describe the impacts to soil and mineral resources from project implementation including prime agricultural soils, if applicable. 6. Air Quality - This section should describe the impacts of each alternative on air quality. Impacts should address construction and operation impacts as well as impacts related to operation of the port facility. B. Biological Resources ....... a 1. Threatened and Endangered Species - This section should address the potential for impacts to state or federally listed endangered or threatened species, or other sensitive species including sensitive babitat types. This section should include an evaluation of the loss of biodiversity in the immediate area as well as the state of Virginia. 2. Fish and Invertebrates - This section should address the potential for impacts to fish and invertebrates and other aquatic organisms in the food web. Impacts to resident, anadromous and catadromous fishes should be evaluated including all life cycles and habitat requirements; spawning, nursery, feeding and shelter. Loss of benthic food organisms and production export needs to be evaluated in detail. This section should include an evaluation of the loss of biodiversity in the immediate area as well as the state of Virginia. Also include impacts related to EFH. O 3. Other Wildlife - This section should evaluate potential impacts to wildlife species not addressed in the Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species and Fish and Invertebrate Section. If applicable, evaluate the loss or change of breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors and preferred food sources for resident and transient species. This section should also include an evaluation of the loss of biodiversity in the immediate area as well as the state of Virginia. 4. Terrestrial Habitat - If applicable, this section should evaluate the consequences associated with the loss of terrestrial habitat. This section should include an evaluation of the loss of biodiversity in the immediate area as well as the state of Virginia. 3. Sanctuaries and Refuges - This section should evaluate the potential impacts to sanctuaries and refuges as a result of project implementation. Evaluate the loss or change of breeding and nesting areas, escape cover, travel corridors and preferred food sources for resident and transient species. 6. Wetlands and Vegetated Shallows - This section should evaluate the consequences of losing wetlands and vegetated shallows as a result of project implementation. Impacts should assess not only acreages but the relative permanence of the impact and the function and value of the areas to be impacted. The analysis should include the value of these habitat types in the estuary or watershed, in the region or the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This section should include an evaluation of the loss of biodiversity in the immediate area as well as the state of Virginia. 9 The assessment should evaluate the adverse impacts to the biological productivity of the wetlands or shallows, reduction or elimination of autrient exchange, and the loss of habitat (spawning, nursery, feeding and shelter). 7. Mudflats - This section should evaluate the potential impacts to mudflats identified at each alternative site. Impact assessment should include loss of foraging and nursery areas for fish and other wildlite. -C. Cultural Resources-Potential direct-and-indirect-impacts-to known cultural resources-within the project area should be discussed in this section. D.Socioeconomic Resources 1. Municipal and Private Water Supplies - Describe the potential for alternatives to negatively or positively affect water supplies for the area based on quality and quantity criteria. 2. Recreational and Commercial Fisheries - This section should address the potential for impacts (direct or indirect) to recreational and commercial fisheries as a result of project implementation. 3. Water Related Recreation and Aesthetics - This section should describe the potential positive and negative impacts to water-related activities and aesthetics of the area as a result of project implementation 4. Parks and Preserves - This section should identify the potential impacts to parks and preserves which would result from project implementation. Parks and preserves are described as areas designated under Federal and State laws or local ordinances to be managed for their aesthetic, educational, historical, recreational or scientific value. 5. Land Use - This section should identify the potential impacts to existing and future land use patterns in the project area. This assessment should include impacts related to operation of a port facility or operations for national defense. 6. Noise - This section should describe the noise impacts of each project alternative, including impacts related to operation of the part and operations for national defense. 1 T- 7. Other Socioeconomic Impacts - This section should describe the degree to which the proposed project will impact residential homes, commercial businesses and industrial developments by displacement, increased/decreased property values etc... Also include the likelihood of secondary development as a result of project implementation (i.e, increased industrial development and infrastructure related to port facility). This section should also describe any impacts to communities of concern under Executive Order 12898 "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”. E. Indirect/Secondary Impacts - Indirect impacts are defined as those impacts that are likely to occur later in time or in a different location as a result of the proposed action. Indirect impact ) 10 UNI 3 55 nalysis requires identifying the indirect cause-effect relationships between the proposed actions and secondary actions and assessing the effects of the secondary actions on the environment. All actors influencing the secondary actions should be considered in the analysis. The analysis of the secondary impacts should include noise, air quality, soil erosion, increased tormwater rmoff, habitat loss, etc. related to development of all feasible alternatives and actuding developent of a port facility at CIDMMA. Landside infrastructure improvements ncluding rail spurs, new and improved roadways or interchanges should also be described and heir-impacts-evaluated and disclosed in the EIS. ndirect impacts include reduction in the diversity of the benthic population, impacts associated with support facilities for the port (roads, parking lots, etc), changes in property values, and hanges in land use from increased development dose to project construction. If applicable, mpact assessinent should include but not be limited to adverso impacts to wetlands, fish and vildlife resources, air quality, water quality, agricultural resources, socioeconomic resources and tuman health 5. Cumulative Impacts - Cumulative impacts are defined as effects resulting "from the acremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable uture action regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative mpacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a eriod of time." (40CFR1508.7). or shallow water areas and benthos, the historic loss of these important resources in the Campton Roads estuary, the Chesapeake Bay and Virginia needs to be recognized. When raney Island was originally constructed in Portsmouth, VA it filled approximately 2500 acres fopen water and presumably shallow water habitat in the Hampton Roads estuary. This impact, oupled with the proposed loss of benthic habitat, needs to be discussed and these losses ecognized on a regional, and Bay-wide scale. he cumulative impacts of the proposed projects at CIDMMA in conjunction with the impacts lated to the proposed Hampton Roads Crossing need to be assessed particularly for physical nd biological resources. 1. Mitigation - CEQ Regulations at Sec. 1508.20 describe mitigation as follows. "Mitigation" Icludes: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action (c) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 11 The mitigation measures discussed in an EIS must cover the range of impacts of the proposals. The measures must include such things as design alternatives that would decrease the footprint of an alternative, possible land use controls that could reduce the need for dredging, and compensation alternatives that could include a range of restoration efforts targeting the Hampton Roads estuary and the Chesapeake Bay. All relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project are to be identified, even if they are outside thejurisdiction of the lead agency. This will serve to alert agencies or officials who can implement these extra measures, and will-encourage them to do so. Because the EIS is the most comprehensive environmental document, it is an ideal vehicle in which to lay out not only the full range of environmental impacts but also the full spectrum of appropriate mitigation. However, to ensure that environmental effects of a proposed action are fairly assessed, the probability of the mitigation measures being implemented must also be discussed. Thus the EIS and the Record of Decision should indicate the likelihood that such measures will be adopted or enforced by the responsible agencies (NEPA's Forty Most Asked Questions, 1981). ) 1 . ز 12 -- ! 3 5556 036 097228 OF NT DEFENSE DET DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NORFOLK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS FORT NORFOLK, 803 FRONT STREET NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23510-1096 i REPLY TO UNITED ATTENTION OF STATES OF AMERICA March 25, 2005 Planning and Policy Branch Mr. Thomas Slenkamp Deputy Chief Environmental Programs Branch (3EA30) US Environmental Protection Agency, Region II 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Dear Mr. Slenkamp: Thank you for the opportunity afforded to Craig Seltzer of my staff and Mike Crist of Moffatt & Nichol, representing the Virginia Port Authority (VPA), to meet with you and Bill Arguto of your staff on March 24, 2005 at your office. This meeting was requested by the Corps and VPA in response to your letter of February 24, 2005. In part, your letter expressed that" EPA believes that the alternatives analysis for the project needs additional work..." and that "... To date, a limited discussion of " alternatives for this project has been presented..." The primary focus of our discussion and presentation, therefore, was on the alternatives analysis that has been performed both for dredged material placement and for port development. The PowerPoint we used in this briefing addressed all of the Corps' and VPA's work to date on this topic and was compiled from presentations made at various stakeholder and committee meetings over the last approximately five years. I You and Bill had a number of questions which, hopefully, were addressed to your satisfaction throughout the presentation. We believe that the end result was that you are satisfied that all reasonable alternatives have been thoroughly examined, and, as long as this is documented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for public review, you are satisfied with the progress made at this point in the EIS development. You also indicated that the conceptual mitigation plan that has been developed is adequate for this stage in the EIS scoping and development process. A copy of this correspondence is being sent to Mike Crist of Moffatt & Nichol, and Heather Wood Mantz of the Virginia Port Authority. Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this important project. If you have any questions about this letter, or need any additional information in the future, please contact Mark Mansfield at (757) 201-7764 or Craig Seltzer of my staff at (757) 201-7390. H. Section 404(b)/1) Sincerely, Thark Traus Mark T. Mansfield Chief, Planning and Policy Branch fuid STATES. OF LINN. ENVIA AGENCY UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 ENTAL PROTECTION February 24, 2005 Mr. Craig Seltzer, Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District Fort Norfolk 803 Front Street Norfolk, Virginia 23510-1096 Subject: Craney Island Mitigation Subcommittee: Opportunities for Comprehensive Mitigation and Conceptual Mitigation Plan Dear Mr. Seltzer: The Craney Island Mitigation Subcommittee has developed an Opportunities Assessment Package, as well as a Conceptual Mitigation Plan, for consideration of its members. These mitigation options are related to the proposed Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area (CIDMMA) in Hampton Roads Virginia. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has done a commendable job in identifying and developing mitigation sites for this project that will prove useful as the project progresses through the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. The work done to date by the Subcommittee will help to complete more detailed mitigation proposals for the eventual selected alternative. However, before the mitigation package can be further refined, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes that the alternatives analysis for the project needs additional work. As we have previously stated in our scoping comments for this project, the EIS must analyze all reasonable and feasible alternatives capable of meeting the project's purpose and need, including a no action alternative for comparison. It is difficult to determine the extent of mitigation requirements without knowing which alternatives are being considered and their resultant impacts to the environment. To date, a limited discussion of alternatives for this project has been presented. For example the mitigation discussions to date are based on the impacts of creating a third cell at CIDMMA. Without knowing whether there are other alternatives under consideration, it is difficult to determine if there are alternatives that require less mitigation or a different type of mitigation than that listed in the conceptual package. Until the more detailed alternatives analysis is completed, EPA recommends retaining all of the mitigation options developed by the Mitigation Subcommittee and making further progress in the NEPA process. The conceptual mitigation plan can then be updated to address the specific impacts of the eventual alternative(s) selected. In this way, the conceptual mitigation plan will serve as a broad, overall strategy from which the final package can then be designed and tailored to address the unavoidable impacts from the selected alternative. ' * Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free. E Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474 3 5556 036 097228 I hope the above is useful to you and the Subcommittee during upcoming deliberations on mitigation for the Craney Island project. Thank you for coordinating the mitigation opportunities and mitigation strategies for this project. EPA remains committed to continued collaboration with all of the involved agencies in the development of this EIS. i ! Sincerely, Willen as William Arguto NEPA Team Leader 1: V w ! Wetlands Watch, Inc. P.O. Box 9335 Norfolk, Virginia 23505 C March 1, 2004 Colonel Yvonne J. Prettyman-Beck, District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District 803 Front Street Norfolk, VA 23510-1096 Re: Craney Island and APM Terminal cumulative impacts 1 Dear COL Prettyman-Beck: » Members of Wetlands Watch are concerned about recent news reports (“Corps Revives Study of Craney Island Terminal,” Virginian Pilot, February 19, 2004) that indicate the Norfolk District has decided to reopen consideration of an eastward expansion of Craney Island for a new port facility. We believe that this calls into question its decision last year to issue a permit for the APM Terminals project. In response to the APM Terminals Public Notice, Wetlands Watch and others, including state and federal resource agencies, raised the issue of the cumulative impacts of these two projects. As you know, the Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) APM Terminasl reached a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in part because the eastward expansion of Craney Island for a port facility had been taken off the table by COL Hansen in his letter of July 30, 2003 to the Virginia Port Authority. C Wetlands Watch sought elevation of this FONSI. (Please see our letter dated August 7, 2003, enclosed.) Among other concerns, we argued that the District Engineer's letter was being used to neutralize concerns about cumulative impacts from the APM project. We pointed out that the letter was not a formal denial of the Craney Island expansion and could later be reversed, allowing the Corps to sequence these projects in a way to allow both of them to be approved eventually. It appears that our concern was justified. Were the APM permit application open and under active review today, with the Norfolk District reconsidering the eastward expansion of Craney Island, we believe it would be required to undergo an EIS to assess the cumulative impacts of the two projects. Our research has determined that recent and current projects of the magnitude of the APM Terminals project have consistently been required to have Environmental Impact Statements. If the Corps is to reverse its decision on the Craney Island expansion, it is only logical that it reconsider its Finding of No Significant Impact for the APM Terminals project. ) Wetlands Watch has not yet taken a position on the construction of a port facility at Craney Island. But we are very concerned about the lack of attention being paid to the cumulative environmental impacts of this and other development projects on the Elizabeth River, projects like the APM facility ! 2 2 --- 2.1 3 5556 036 097228 as well as smaller ones like recreational dredging projects. If the Corps proceeds to reconsider the eastward expansion of Craney Island without reconsidering the APM Terminals FONSI, it will be showing, we believe, disregard for the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires full and serious consideration of cumulative impacts. We would like to better understand your decision to reopen consideration of the eastward expansion of Craney Island. We would also appreciate having your thoughts on how the several reasons Col. Hansen gave to support his decision to close further consideration of the eastward expansion of Craney Island would be resolved: i.e., the minimal basis for cost sharing, even if it was found to be in the Federal interest; the lack of need for additional dredged material placement area; navigational safety problems; and the significant environmental impact of filling 580 acres at the mouth of the Elizabeth River. According to CFR Section 325.7, Title 33 - Navigation and Navigable Waters, the district engineer may reevaluate the circumstances and conditions of any permit... at the request of... a third party... and initiate action to modify, suspend, or revoke a permit as may be made necessary by consideration of the public interest.” We will determine whether or not to ask the Norfolk District to take such action on the APM Terminal permit after reading whatever reports and other materials you may be able to provide to us and after conferring with you and your staff. > We look forward to receiving your response to this letter, and we hope to meet with you and your staff about this matter soon. Sincerely, Johny Blandin John Blandin President Enclosure: Wetlands Watch letter to EPA, August 7, 2004. ... . : 6 Wetlands Watch, Inc. P.O. Box 9335 Norfolk, Virginia 23505 August 7, 2003 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, Virginia 20192 1 Attn: Peter Stokely . Re: APM Terminals/Maersk Project, Application # 02-V1913-14 Dear Mr. Stokely: Wetlands Watch has carefully monitored the Maersk Project over the past two years. In May we submitted detailed comments to the Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers in response to its Draft Environmental Assessment and requested that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared. After having reviewed the just-released Final Environmental Assessment (FEA), we believe that the matter should be elevated to a higher level of review because the FEA is not responsive to many of the important concerns raised by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in their comment letters. . Elevation of this matter is required because more than 15 days will be required for a thorough review and evaluation of the FEA and supporting documents, not only by Wetlands Watch and other interested parties, but also by the federal resource agencies. We hope that the Corps' "rush to judgment” will not be repeated by the federal resource agencies. Elevation to a higher level of review will provide for a more comprehensive and objective assessment of this project, a project that offers the promise of significant economic benefit to the Hampton Roads community, but also threatens major damage to its environment As EPA has pointed out the tidal wetland fringe, the inter-tidal mudflats and the adjacent shallow water can be considered ARNI (Aquatic Resources of National Importance).” USFWS stated that it is the position of the Service that the proposed marine container terminal, as proposed, will result in substantial and unacceptable impacts to aquatic resources of national importance." USFWS recommended, as we did, that an EIS be prepared. 1 We have carefully compared each of the resource agencies' comment letters to the FEA. We are pleased that compensatory mitigation has been increased. Unfortunately, however, we have 3 5556 036 097228 .... . found so many instances in which the Corps has either not responded to resource agency concerns, or responded inadequately, that we cannot determine objectively whether or not the proposed compensatory mitigation would actually be sufficient. Nor can we determine if the economic benefits would actually outweigh the environmental damage. Described below are the findings of our comparison. 1. The FEA does not include a complete references section and in many instances does not cite the source document, as requested by EPA, when data is being cited to sup conclusions. The FEA is weakened by its reliance on assumptions and speculations, rather than on facts and conclusions. 2. The FEA does not describe the history of the Elizabeth River and restoration efforts to provide a context for the proposed project, as requested by EPA and USFWS, thus preventing a conclusive assessment of the environmental risks and benefits. 3. Benthic impacts: a the FEA contains errors - two of the July sampling sites are incorrectly labeled "severely degraded” when their B-IBI index is 2.0. Therefore, only a minority (4) of the 10 sites is “severely degraded,” not a majority as the FEA reports. b. the FEA fails to provide a comprehensive review of Dr. Dauer's samplings, as requested by EPA, only selectively citing Dr. Dauer to support its conclusions. C. the FEA's documentation of the July, 2003, benthic sampling is inadequate to provide a basis for judging its scientific validity. d. the FEA fails to address the effects of maintenance dredging on the benthic community, as requested by EPA. e. the FEA merely reiterates the Draft EA treatment of the effects of turbidity and redeposition of sediments on aquatic life, despite the request for more information by USFWS. - 4. Stormwater impacts – the stormwater management plan is not adequately responsive to EPA comments: 1 a. the FEA does not provide any further evidence for the adequacy of plans to filter potential and grease runoff than was provided in the Draft EA. b. the FEA still does not explain if the modeling that was performed to size the basins took into consideration the effect of the locally high ground water levels on the capacity of these basins to store and treat runoff. c. the FEA admits that the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and the - Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department (CBLAD) have not yet approved the stormwater management plan. It leaves that for the future, as it does other important matters that should be resolved before the permit is issued. 5. Craney Island Dredged Disposal Site - while the Corps believes it can suspend its Management Plan "for the next few years,” to accommodate the initial dredging, there is no explanation of the legal basis for that move. Nor is there any discussion of its impact upon already-permitted activities. In addition, the FEA does not address the future storage of maintenance dredge spoil, as requested by EPA. 6. Other Fish and Wildlife Issues I » a USFWS recommended that a survey be conducted to determine bird use of the sandflats that would be destroyed “so that compensation can be targeted toward those species that will be impacted by the loss of over 10 acres of sandflats.” Wetlands Watch questions the adequacy of the one-day survey that was conducted on 7/14/03. On the basis of that limited survey, and without reporting data in any detail, the FEA concluded that “No effect on the piping plover is anticipated.” This is based in part on the finding that the project shoreline “has not been designated critical habitat for the Piping Plover and no Piping Plover has been observed to occur on the site,” even though they are known to use Craney Island nearby. Repeatedly, the Corps uses a lack of information in the files” about a natural resource as a basis for finding no significant environmental impact when information could be found if it were sought. a b. Furthermore, the FEA finds that no significant adverse effects are anticipated for more than a dozen species that Dr. Beck did observe on the property that day. Wetlands Watch believes that the shorebird survey was inadequate to fully address the serious concerns of USFWS. The Corps' superficial treatment of this and other equally important issues is evidence of its "rush to judgment.” c. USFWS noted that the Draft EA “fails to identify what fish species occur within the project area or address potential impacts to them.” The FEA goes no further than the Draft EA did in addressing this concem. - 7. Cumulative Effects - USFWS stated that it does not concur” with the Draft EA conclusion that cumulative effects of the proposal are expected to be minimal without better supporting data. The “supporting data" provided in the FEA is not persuasive. Indeed, it is hardly responsive to USFWS and EPA concerns. The EPA informed the Norfolk District Engineer that, “Without a comprehensive study of the cumulative effect of these projects, the combined effects can not be determined ” The FEA does not report on a comprehensive study. The impacts of the known and anticipated major projects are still addressed in isolation, not cumulatively. Furthermore, the Corps' recent decision about the permit application for the eastward expansion of Craney Island suggests that rather than comprehensively addressing cumulative impacts, the Corps is simply seeking 3 5556 036 0972 3 to sequence these projects in a way to allow both of them to be approved eventually. Two days before it issued this FEA, the Norfolk District Engineer sent a letter to the Virginia Port Authority indicating his intention to deny the permit for the eastward expansion of Craney Island for a new cargo handling facility. Locally, this has been widely construed to mean that the cumulative impacts issue for the Maersk facility is resolved. However, the legal status of that letter is not clear, nor is its impact upon the ongoing permit process. In addition, of course, the applicant is free to submit a new plan and, with the high level of state and local interest in a new port facility at Craney Island, it most certainly will. Therefore, the Corps has not resolved the cumulative impacts issue, but has merely postponed it. Unfortunately, elevation is required to force the Corps to connect the dots.” 8. Mitigation - While promises of mitigation have been improved, as reported in the FEA, there are no legally binding assurances that proposed mitigation steps will ultimately be successfully carried out. Furthermore, several significant mitigation issues have not been addressed adequately in the FEA: > a EPA stated that “only through a comprehensive mitigation commitment agreement signed by all parties, can a project of this magnitude be considered for a Finding of No Significant Impact.... This document should be made available to the public for formal comment and be finalized prior to a decision.” No such agreement has been signed nor presented to the public. On page 29 of the FEA, it is stated that mitigation plans are to be "circulated for review and comment to the federal resource agencies and VIMS before they are approved and implemented by the Corps. But Wetlands Watch believes that the Corps is "putting the cart before the horse.” The failure of the Corps to obtain a comprehensive mitigation commitment agreement before issuing its “letter of intent” is further evidence of its "rush to judgment.” b. NMFS stated that its “ability to assess potential impacts on EFH and associated marine resources was confounded by the lack of information provided in the EFH assessment included in the EA.” NMFS recommended that, “A detailed mitigation plan be prepared delineating the type, location, and extent of the habitats to be restored, created, or enhanced as replacement for those impacted by project implementation....” The FEA indicates only that the applicant's consultant performed an EFH assessment and that it is incorporated in the FEA by reference. Since it is not included in the FEA itself, the public (and perhaps the federal resource agencies) is impaired in its ability to determine whether or not this assessment was competently performed and whether or not it addresses the concerns about EFH raised by NMFS. More time than 15 days will be required to review and evaluate the EFH assessment and the benthic study that were conducted in July c. The mitigation plan described in the FEA does not offer documented evidence for adequate mitigation of EFH impacts, as requested by NMFS. d. The proposed location of the oyster reef mitigation is not given in the FEA, though it was requested by USFWS. Nor are any performance criteria listed for the mitigation. e. No consideration is given in the FEA to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) restoration, as suggested by USFWS. Wetlands Watch has not yet taken a position on the building of this container handling facility because there are too many unanswered questions about the potential environmental impacts. We are also concerned about the cultural, land use, transportation, noise, recreational and commercial fisheries, water-related recreation and aesthetics and environmental justice issues, about which we are less competent to comment. But we would point out that these issues have been only briefly addressed in the FEA, whereas they deserve the expanded treatment of an EIS. While we would welcome the economic benefits that the Maersk project can bring to the community, we also are aware that the environmental impacts of this project are large. We believe that NEPA requires a more comprehensive and objective assessment of this project. We feel it is our duty to ask that this matter be elevated to provide for that assessment. While we can be reasonably assured of a full assessment through the EIS process, we would be open to other approaches to answering the serious questions that have been raised by EPA, USFWS and NMFS and many more interested organizations and individuals. > Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Respectfully submitted, Jay Taylor President Cc: Donald Welsh, EPA Richard Bennett, Ph.D. and Karen Mayne, USFWS Patricia Kurkul, NMFS Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District Corps of Engineers, HQ, Washington VIMS VA DEQ VMRC Portsmouth Wetlands Board 3 5556 036 097228 O DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NORFOLK DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FORT NORFOLK 803 FRONT STREET NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23510-1096 Staniso 44 RICA April 1, 2004 Planning, Programs & Project Management Division Mr. John Blandin President Wetlands Watch, Inc. P.O. Box 9335 Norfolk, Virginia 23505 Dear Mr. Blandin: Thank you for your March 1, 2004 letter expressing your concerns with the continuation of the Craney Island eastern expansion study and the issuance of a permit to APM Terminals (APM). I have attempted to respond to your concerns below, but am also available to meet with you in the event that you would like to discuss this matter further. Our permit decision on the APM Terminal project was based on information contained in the Environmental Assessment of the project and comments received from Federal, State and tal agencies and the general public. Mitigation played a major role in reaching this determination. The environmental consequences of the project, notably the impacts to benthic habitat, may have exceeded the threshold of significance that would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) when considered without mitigation. However, the extensive compensatory mitigation discussed in the Environmental Assessment, reduced the net impacts on the quality of the human environment to a level of non-significance. . a ) The scope of work for the Craney Island Eastward Expansion Feasibility Study includes development of an EIS. The EIS will include a cumulative impacts assessment. Cumulative impacts refer to the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). This cumulative impacts assessment will evaluate the construction and operation of a new marine terminal by APM, the Norfolk Harbor and Channels deepening, the Virginia Department of Transportation's proposed Third Crossing of Hampton Roads, and the ecosystem restoration program for the Elizabeth River. My decision to continue the Craney Island Eastward Expansion Feasibility Study is based upon several factors: the results of an independent technical review that I directed to be accomplished, a written request from the VPA to continue the study and new economic information regarding shipping and transportation. The July 30, 2003 letter from Col. David Hansen to the VPA that you mentioned in your correspondence acknowledges that the District would move forward to draft a report on the potential easter expansion following an 1 ܨ:܂ -2- independent technical review of the navigational studies and engineering analysis. This course of action is consistent with the Congressional authorization to conduct the study. Please be assured that my decision to continue the study in no way dictates a particular project outcome. All of the interested stakeholders including the project proponent, the federal, state and local resource agencies, interest groups and the public will be included in the study process. All of the concerns raised by the stakeholders, as well as those outlined in Colonel Hansen's July 30h letter will be considered during the review. We hope that your organization will also participate in the study process as we move forward. Finally, I would like to address the suggestion that the Craney Island study was somehow suspended so that the APM permit could be issued without considering the eastern expansion in the cumulative impacts analysis. As I noted above, while the July 30, 2003, letter to VPA expressed many concerns with the potential expansion project, it also indicated that the study would be processed to a conclusion. As many of the concerns expressed in the July 30, 2003, letter remain unresolved, the outcome of the study is still undetermined. The District has not changed its views of the project in any significant manner since the July 30, 2003, letter. I Courtesy copies of this letter are being provided to the Virginia Port Authority, APM Terminals, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III. I would be glad to meet with you to further discuss your questions and concerns if you feel such a discussion would be helpful. You may contact Ms. Sheila Venoit at 441-7674 to arrange scheduling. Sincerely, I Woon Littyman Yvonne J. Prettyman-Beck Colonef, District Engineer Commanding 3 5556 036 097228 . AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 PROTECTION February 24, 2005 Mr. Craig Seltzer, Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District Fort Norfolk 803 Front Street Norfolk, Virginia 23510-1096 Subject: Craney Island Mitigation Subcommittee: Opportunities for Comprehensive Mitigation and Conceptual Mitigation Plan Dear Mr. Seltzer: The Craney Island Mitigation Subcommittee has developed an Opportunities Assessment Package, as well as a Conceptual Mitigation Plan, for consideration of its members. These mitigation options are related to the proposed Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area (CIDMMA) in Hampton Roads Virginia. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has done a commendable job in identifying and developing mitigation sites for this project that will prove ful as the project progresses through the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. The uk done to date by the Subcommittee will help to complete more detailed mitigation proposals for the eventual selected alternative. However, before the mitigation package can be further. refined, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes that the alternatives analysis for the project needs additional work. As we have previously stated in our scoping comments for this project, the EIS must analyze all reasonable and feasible alternatives capable of meeting the project's purpose and need, including a no action alternative for comparison. It is difficult to determine the extent of mitigation requirements without knowing which alternatives are being considered and their resultant impacts to the environment. To date, a limited discussion of alternatives for this project has been presented. For example the mitigation discussions to date are based on the impacts of creating a third cell at CIMMA. Without knowing whether there are other alternatives under consideration, it is difficult to determine if there are alternatives that require less mitigation or a different type of mitigation than that listed in the conceptual package. H. Section 404(b)(1) Until the more detailed alternatives analysis is completed, EPA recommends retaining all of the mitigation options developed by the Mitigation Subcommittee and making further progress in the NEPA process. The conceptual mitigation plan can then be updated to address the specific impacts of the eventual alternative(s) selected. In this way, the conceptual mitigation plan will serve as a broad, overall strategy from which the final package can then be designed and tailored to address the unavoidable impacts from the selected alternative. Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free. Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474 I hope the above is useful to you and the Subcommittee during upcoming deliberations on mitigation for the Craney Island project. Thank you for coordinating the mitigation opportunities and mitigation strategies for this project. EPA remains committed to continued collaboration with all of the involved agencies in the development of this EIS. Sincerely, hillenas William Arguto NEPA Team Leader 3 5556 036 097228 s'i Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation Evaluation H. Section 404(b)(1) e. Description of the Proposed Discharge Site - Dredged sediments resulting from the proposed improvements will be placed at the CIDMMA and the Norfolk Ocean Placement Site. Dredged material placement in the Norfolk Ocean Placement site is evaluated separately under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuary Act (MPRSA) which governs transport of dredged material seaward of the baseline (in ocean waters) for the purpose of disposal. This ocean placement will not be evaluated in this Section 401 (b)(1) report. Dredged sediments generated from periodic maintenance dredging of the project features will be placed at CIDMMA or the ocean placement site. CIDMMA is a three-cell, 2,500-acre facility in Hampton Roads harbor near the confluence of the James, Nansemond, and Elizabeth Rivers. The site is projected to have a dredged material capacity of approximately 323,790,000 million cubic yards. f. Description of Discharge Method- Foundation Dredging. Pre-dredging along the (proposed) main dike is anticipated to be completed by a combination of bucket and pipeline cutter-head dredges. 10% of the pre-dredge foundation and access channel dredging material is assumed to go into the existing CIDMMA via a pipeline dredge. The remaining 90%, anticipated to be dredged by bucket dredge, would be disposed of in the Norfolk Ocean Placement Site or overboard in the expansion cell. EIS Figure II-5 shows the limits of pre-dredging. 1 Access Channel Dredging. The Access Channel dredging is defined as the area between the federal navigation channel (Norfolk Harbor and Craney Island Reaches) and the new wharf. The Access Channel is generally 500 feet in width. The Access Channel will be flared at both ends where it adjoins the federal channel. The dredging depth will be to -50 feet MLLW with 2 advance maintenance dredging. Maintenance material within the existing channel template was not included in the estimated quantities. EIS Figure II-5 shows the limits of the Access Channel. Area Pre-Dredge Foundation to -60' Access Channel to -52' (50' +2' Advance Maintenance) Estimated Quantity (CY) 15,400,000 3,700,000 Basis for 10% going to CIDMMA. The predominately clayey material to be dredged in both locations is likely undisturbed, with contamination transport through layers unlikely. However it is thought that by placing the upper few feet of material in CIDMMA all remaining material will be suitable for ocean disposal. The upper several feet will be defined as 10% of material dredged. At this time it is not known exactly what percent of material going into CIDMMA would be unsuitable for ocean placement, however 10% is thought to capture a conservative upper limit. Environmental testing to verify the material is suitable for ocean placement is anticipated to be completed during PED. The 10% 2 3 5556 036 097228 (estimated to be up to 1.8 MCY) could be placed into CIDMMA without impacting operations. Production rate for a single bucket dredge is estimated to be 5,000 CY/Day. For this project a minimum of two bucket dredges would be used Sand Fill. In order to construct the dikes, sand will be dredged from offshore channel areas by hopper dredge. Once transported to the eastward expansion site the material will be offloaded using a self-contained offshore transfer station buoy ("SCOTS buoy"). EIS Figure II-6 shows dike layout. EIS Figures II-7 and II-8 show dike geometry for the two dike geometries. The total amount of sand fill required is estimated to be 19.5 million CY (in-place at dikes), broken down as follows: Phase 1 - 220-acre cell Main Dike (3,000 LF) 5.3 million CY South Dike (2,800 LF) 1.5 million CY Division Dike (2,800 LF) 1.5 million CY Phase 2 to +- completes remaining 380-acre cell Continue Main Dike (5,500 LF) 9.7 million CY North Dike (2,800 LF) 1.5 million CY Total 19.5 million CY Riprap. To provide protection to the dikes from erosion, slopes will be protected with riprap. Exterior Slope of Main Dikes. As the dikes are constructed the slopes along the exterior of the dike along the wharf will be protected from +8' to -3' MLLW. The riprap section for this reach will consist of a 4-foot thick layer of VDOT Class III riprap underlain by a 1.5-foot thick layer of VDOT No. 1 stone, underlain by geotextile. Interior Slopes of North Cell and Exterior North and South Dike Slopes. The interior slopes of the dikes in the northern cell, including the division dike, will also be protected. Interior slope riprap will consist of a 2.8-foot thick layer of VDOT Class II riprap underlain by a l-foot thick layer VDOT No. 1 stone, underlain by geotextile. The riprap will be placed on the exterior of the slopes from elevation +8' to -3'. Construct Spillboxes. To allow dewatering of the dredge fill spillboxes will be installed. Four spillboxes are anticipated, two at the division dike, and two along the north dike. 3 G Rapidly Fill Phase 1 Cell. Corps modeling estimated that it would take 12 months to rapidly fill the southem port cell to elevation +15 feet MLLW. Surcharge and ground improvements can begin approximately 3 to 6 months after this rapid filling. After that time a surface crust would form allowing the surcharge and strip drains to be installed. Wharf Construction. Construction of the wharf would start concurrent with filling of the cell, as it is envisioned that shaping the main dike and beginning installation of wick drains could begin soon after the dike has be constructed. 1 It is expected that the proposed dredged material will be dredged mechanically and placed in barges; the filled barges will be towed or pushed to the proposed placement site where the sediments will be pumped into the containment cells. The dredged material will be allowed to settle and consolidate. Supernatant water will be discharged into the adjacent waters. II. FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS a. Physical Substrate Determinations - (1) Substrate Elevation and Slope – The proposed placement site at CIDMMA has been used previously for the placement of dredged material. The elevation of the north cell of the CIDMMA is approximately +34 feet MLLW. The proposed placement site east of CIDMMA averages -10-15 feet MLLW with little slope. . (2) Sediment Type - Sediments proposed for dredging in both the access channel and for the dike foundations are generally soft to very soft, highly plastic, organic silty clay with occasional fractions of shell or shell fragments, sand, gravel, cobbles, wood pieces, and slag. The upper layer of sediment in the project area exists primarily in a semi-liquid state generally from 12 to 3 feet thick. Sediments proposed for dredging contain a variety of organic and inorganic contaminants at concentrations at which biological effects are expected The soils at the CIDMMA consist of multiple layers of dredged material, primarily silts and clays ranging from low to high moisture content. (3) Discharge Material Movement The discharge material will be placed within containment dikes at the proposed placement site and allowed to settle and consolidate. The spillways and weirs will be managed to minimize movement of dredged material solids beyond the containment dikes. Sand discharged for dike construction The main dike will be approximately 8,500 feet in length and constructed to elevation +18 feet MLLW, with a 5H:1V side slope below elevation +5' and 2H:1V side slope above +5 feet. The remaining dikes, which run east-west, will be constructed with a 10H:1V side slope from the mudline to elevation +5 feet MLL W and an 8H:1V side slope from +5 feet to +18 feet. 4 3 5556 036 097228 (4) Physical Effects on Benthos – The area of proposed dredging and cell construction supports a degraded benthic community. Minor impacts are expected at the access channel dredging site and recolonization of dredged areas by the same species or by similar species is likely between maintenance dredging episodes. CIDMMA is an isolated upland site subject to drying during dewatering of the dredged material. Benthos at this site site, if present, will be covered with dredged material. There will be a total and permanent loss of benthos within the footprint of the proposed 580 acre expansion cell. a (5) Other Effects - N/A (6) Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts - Dredged material will be contained behind the CIDMMA dikes. Best management practices will be implemented for dredging and placement. Actions will comply with the Commonwealth of Virginia water quality standards and the District Regulation (DR 1130-2-4) which governs operation of CIDMMA. b. Water Circulation, Fluctuation, and Salinity Determinations See Feasibility Report, Appendix A (Engineering Appendix) for synopsis and full report(s): Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Modeling Study, VIMS, Gloucester Point, Virginia. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area Expansion Study. (1) Water - Temporary changes are expected in clarity, color, and quality of Elizabeth River and Hampton Roads Harbor waters in the immediate vicinity of the proposed dredging and cell construction. Supernatant water released from the placement site should not affect clarity or color of nearby waters. - (a) Salinity – Based upon 3-D hydrodynamic modeling, no change in surface or bottom - 3 salinity is expected. (b) Chemistry - Minor and temporary changes are possible in the immediate vicinity of the dredging operations due to the resuspension of sediments. No changes are expected once work is complete. Minor and temporary changes are possible at the placement site outfalls. (c) Clarity - Minor and temporary changes are expected in the immediate vicinity of the dredging operations due to increased turbidity during dredging operations. Pre-dredge water clarity will return once work is completed. Minor and temporary changes are possible within the allowed mixing zones. Discharge will be in compliance with the CIDMMA District Regulation (DR 1130-2-4). 5 - (d) Color - Minor and temporary changes are possible in the immediate vicinity of the dredging operations due to turbidity normally associated with dredging operations. No permanent change is expected following completion of work. Minor and temporary changes are possible at the placement site. (e) Odor-Minor and temporary changes are possible in the immediate vicinity of the dredging operations due to resuspension of sediments during dredging operation. Minor and temporary changes are possible in the immediate vicinity of unloading operations at the placement site. (f) Taste - N/A. . (g) Dissolved Gas Levels - Temporary changes increase and/or decrease of dissolved oxygen) may occur in the immediate vicinity of the dredging operations due to increased turbidity levels. No permanent change is expected after dredging is complete. No change is expected outside the placement site. (h) Nutrients - Temporary (24 to 72-hour) localized increase expected at dredging site due to resuspension of sediment during dredging operations. Dredging will occur at any time of year. A slight and also temporary increase in nutrients may occur at placement site outfalls. Neither increase is likely to cause an increase in algal blooms. (i) Eutrophication - Not expected to occur. 6) Others as Appropriate - None (2) Current Patterns and Circulation - Based upon 3-D hydrodynamic modeling, no change is expected (a) Current Patterns and Flow - Minimal effects are expected under normal conditions. (b) Velocity - Based on 3-D hydrodynamic modeling, a minor increase of of 1.6 cm/s to 2.4 cm/s in surface and bottom current is expected. (c) Stratification - No change is expected. (d) Hydrologic Regime - Little to no change is expected, See Feasibility Report, Appendix A. (3) Normal Water Level Fluctuations -No change is expected. (4) Salinity Gradients - No change is expected. (5) Actions to Minimize Impacts - None. 6 3 5556 036 097228 c. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations - (1) Expected Changes in Suspended Particulate and Turbidity Levels in Vicinity of Project Sites - Minor and temporary increase of suspended particulate and turbidity are expected in the immediate vicinity of the dredging operations, cell construction, and placement site outfalls. (2) Effects on Chemical and Physical Properties of the Water Column - Minor and temporary changes are expected in the immediate vicinity of the dredging operations, cell construction, and placement site outfalls due to resuspension of the sediments. The placement site will be operated in compliance with DR. a. Light penetration - A minor, temporary decrease is anticipated in the immediate vicinity of the dredge plant during dredging operations due to increased turbidity. A minor, temporary decrease is possible at the placement site outfalls. b. Dissolved Oxygen - A minor temporary change is possible in the immediate vicinity of dredging operations. Impacts are expected to be minor because of the tidal flushing which occurs in this area of confluence of 3 major rivers and the Chesapeake Bay. c. Toxic Metals and Organics - Dredging operations are not expected to cause contaminants in the dredged material to be released in a significant amount of the water column. A minor and temporary change is possible in the immediate vicinity of the dredging operations. Any metals or organics in the dredged material are expected to be sequestered within CIDMMA. Clean sand will be used for dike construction. d. Pathogens - No change is expected. e. Aesthetics - No change is expected. f. Temperature - No change is expected. g. Others as Appropriate - None. O d. Contaminant Determinations. The predominately clayey material to be dredged is likely undisturbed, with contamination transport through layers unlikely. However it is thought that by placing the upper few feet of material in CIDMMA all remaining material will be suitable for ocean disposal. The upper several feet will be defined as 10% of material dredged. Although no one knows, on average, what percent of material going into CIDMMA would be unsuitable for ocean placement, 10% is thought to capture a conservative upper limit. Environmental testing to verify the material is suitable for ocean placement is anticipated to be completed during PED. The 10% (estimated to be up to 1.8 MCY) could be placed into CIDMMA without impacting operations. Some priority pollutants, including several heavy metals, are known to be present in the Elizabeth River but are more typically found in the southern reaches of the river. 7 Discharge from the CIDMMA is authorized by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). Water quality monitoring is conducted at CIDMMA and the results are reported to VDEQ. Water quality data acquired to date suggests that contaminants remain in the placement site. Sediment quality data within CIDMMA suggest that contaminants degrade within the cell over time due to natural weathering. e. Aquatic Ecosystem and Organism Determinations (1) Effects on Plankton - Plankton will be preset in the project area, especially during the spring and summer months. Plankton in the immediate vicinity of the dredging site maybe displaced or entrained with the dredged material. These effects are expected to be temporary and are not significant. A significant area of open water will be filled within the 580 acre footprint and existing and future plankton production will be lost within this area. (2) Effects on Benthos - Benthos in the immediate vicinity of the dredging site will be destroyed, displaced and/or entrained with the dredged material. Effects are expected to be temporary. Benthic re-colonization should begin within three to nine months and should be complete in two years. Benthos within the CIDMMA will be smothered with sediments. The effect to benthos in the CIDMMA is not expected to significant. The site is isolated from the bay environment, and has been used only for placement for many years. Consequently, the benthos are subject to drying out as the site is dewatered. (3) Effects on Nekton - Some nekton in the immediate vicinity of the dredging site may be displaced or entrained with the dredged material. Most should be able to swim away from the operations. Effects are expected to be temporary and minor. An Essential Fish Habitat Assessment was conducted for the sandbar shark in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. It was determined that there would be no adverse effect to the sandbar shark, its habitat, or prey species. (4) Effects on Food Web - No significant effects are expected. - (5) Effects on Special Aquatic Sites - The proposed dredging and placement of dredged material will not impact special aquatic sites. (6) Threatened and Endangered Species - There are no known threatened or endangered species in the immediate project area. Least tern and piping plover have been known to nest on the west side of CIDMMA but construction activities on the east would not affect these birds. No impacts are expected. (7) Other Wildlife - Impacts to wildlife at CIDMMA are not significant during placement. The site is most valuable as habitat after placement when there is ponded water and mudflats. 8 3 5556 036 097228 (8) Actions to Minimize Impacts - The dredged material placed at the upland site will be confined to the diked area and will be discharged in compliance with the permit. Best management practices will be implemented. f. Proposed Placement Site Determinations - 1. Mixing Zone Determinations - N/A. 2. Determination of Compliance with Applicable Water Quality Standards – The proposed work will be performed in accordance with all applicable Commonwealth of Virginia water quality standards. A complete water quality assessment will be conducted during the planning engineering and design (PED) phase. 3. Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics (a) Municipal and Private Water Supply - No effects are expected from dredging or placement of dredged material at CIDMMA. No direct public water supply impacts would be associated with the expansion of the CIDMMA. further, there are no groundwater aquifers in the study area that are used for public drinking water supplies (b) Recreational and Commercial Fisheries - Project actions will occur during the colder months. Very minor temporary and localized effects are possible from tug and barge traffic. There are no significant recreational or commercial fisheries in the area to be dredged. (c) Water Related Recreation -- Project actions will occur during the colder months. Very minor temporary and localized effects are possible from tug and barge to and from dredge plant operation. (d) Aesthetics - Very minor local and temporary effects are possible from tug barge traffic and from dredge plant operation. (e) Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Seashore, Wilderness Areas, Research Sites, and Similar Preserves -No effect expected. g. Determination of Cumulative Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem - A total of 17 types of actions have been identified as contributing to cumulative effects in the Hampton Roads area, including the Elizabeth River basin. These actions include those that have occurred since the mid-1950s, are now taking place, or are anticipated to occur in the future to the year 2050. The 17 types of actions include: (1) continuing use of the 3 existing cells at the CIDMMA; (2) an approximate 600-acre eastward expansion of the CIDMMA (the potential proposed action); (3) historical navigation channel deepening and provision of anchorages; (4) presently authorized channel deepening and anchorages (not yet constructed); (5) continuance of maintenance dredging for navigation; (6) planning for future channel deepening and maintenance dredging; (7) water-related laws, regulations, and programs; (8) other existing and continuing industrial and military 9 projects and facilities in the local area; (9) a new marine terminal (APM Terminals, Inc.); (10) sediment cleanup and (11) wetland restoration components of the Elizabeth River Ecological Restoration Program; (12) Pinner's Point Flyover; (13) Craney Island Terminal (proposed by the Virginia Port Authority for construction on the eastward expansion area of the CIDMMA); (14) the Third Crossing of the Hampton Roads area (a bridge-tunnel connector); (15) pre-authorization studies by the Norfolk District of the Corps; (16) the Midtown Tunnel Project; and (17) the Virginia Intermodal Transportation Center. The Draft EIS describes the respective time periods (past, present, and/or future) for the 17 actions. The cumulative effects of these 17 types of actions have been addressed for water quality, hydrodynamics, air quality, noise, biological resources (including benthic habitat in the approximate 600-acre eastward expansion area for the CIDMMA), protected species and critical habitat, recreation (boating and fishing), aesthetics, cultural resources, and socioeconomics (including area traffic and environmental justice). The Draft EIS summarizes the connections between these resources ecosystems, and human , communities and the major affecting actions from the 17 types of actions. In the absence of appropriate monitoring and mitigation efforts, potentially significant adverse cumulative effects could occur on water quality, benthic habitat, and protected species and critical habitat. Beneficial cumulative effects are anticipated for the socioeconomic conditions of the Hampton Roads area. See EIS, Appendix C, for full Cumulative Impacts Assessment report. h. Determination of Secondary Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem - No secondary effects to the aquatic ecosystem are anticipated. III. FINDING OF COMPLIANCE ima No adaptations of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines were made relative to this evaluation. Upland placement of dredged material is not of itself considered a water dependent activity; however, it is water dependent when supernatant waters are returned to the waterways, as is the case for the placement site(s). An exhaustive search for dredged material placement sites, including sites that could accommodate future port development, has been undertaken in order to meet the long- term needs of the Port. A Eastward Expansion of CIDMMA has been identified as the most practical, least environmentally damaging site identified to date that can accommodate the volume of dredged material needed to maintain navigability of nearby channels and anchorages and accommodate the construction of a marine terminal . b. The use of the proposed placement site is not contrary to other state and Federal laws for the protection of water quality, aquatic species, or habitat, as follows: Tahun 10 3 5556 036 097228 (1) The proposed dredging and placement of dredged material will be in compliance with State water quality standards. !! (2) The proposed dredging and placement of dredged material is not anticipated to violate the toxic effluent standard of Section 307 of the Clean Water Act. If a toxicity issue arises during construction, it will be properly addressed. (3) The proposed project will not negatively affect any threatened or endangered species: ! (4) No marine sanctuaries, as designated in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, are located in the area of the proposed construction. (5) The proposed project will not result in significant adverse effects on human health and welfare, including municipal and private water supplies, recreation and commercial fishing, plankton, fish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites. The life stages of aquatic life and other wildlife will not be adversely affected. No contaminants will be discharged in toxic concentration in violation of Section 307 of the Clean Water Act. c. Parts I and II of the analysis (preceding) show that the utilization of the proposed placement site will not contribute to the degradation of waters of the United States. ! d. Appropriate steps to minimize potential impacts of the placement of the material in aquatic systems will be followed in accordance with the conditions of the Section 401 water quality certification.. ing The mandatory sequence of the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines has been applied in evaluation of the proposed action. The proposed dredging of access channels and foundation conditions and the east expansion of the CIDMMA to accommodate dredged material and port development is in compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. : .. 11 3 5556 036 097228 is) 的​。 . 54249160013 4