DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory Prepared for: ADG Engineering 3909 W. Congress Street, Suite 201 Lafayette, LA 70506 Prepared by: AECOM Technical Services, Inc. February 2018
139
Embed
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - NOAA … · Research (OAR), Great Lakes ... Michigan Field Station (LMFS) in western Michigan. ... List of Acronyms Draft Environmental Assessment
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
Prepared for:
ADG Engineering
3909 W. Congress Street, Suite 201
Lafayette, LA 70506
Prepared by:
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
February 2018
[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing]
Executive Summary Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research (OAR), Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), operates the Lake
Michigan Field Station (LMFS) in western Michigan. The purpose of GLERL is to conduct scientific
research on the Great Lakes and coastal ecosystems essential for understanding and developing future
ecological practices and decision-making. GLERL is comprised of 12 NOAA employees including
research professionals, a vessel crew, a marine superintendent and administrative personnel.
NOAA is proposing to demolish, remove and rebuild Building #3 at the LMFS due to structural
deformities and inadequate space for its current and continuing use as a marine laboratory and repository
for marine specimen storage. The proposed action would remedy serious structural deformities and other
challenges caused by foundation subsidence, and consolidate space for laboratory work and specimen
storage at LMFS to better meet its administration, office, maintenance and other storage functions.
Three action alternatives are being evaluated by NOAA per Section 102 of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) under 42 U.S. Code (USC) §4332, and Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations for Implementing Procedural Provisions of NEPA at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
1500-1508.
Action Alternative 1 would provide a new 5,000 SF wood-frame, two-story structure that would set on
the existing building exterior foundation footprint. Action Alternative 2 would provide a new pre-
engineered metal 2-story structure placed on the existing building foundation footprint. Action
Alternative 3 would provide a new wood-frame, single-story structure placed on the existing building
foundation and cantilever out to provide square footage needed to meet a minimum space requirement of
4,500 SF. All Action Alternatives would provide for architectural consistency with nearby structures,
including Building #1. The No-Action Alternative is a condition in which LMFS Building #3 is not
replaced or removed.
NOAA has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) analyzing the potential environmental
consequences of implementing any one of three action alternatives, as well as effects of the No-Action
Alternative. In accordance with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, Environmental Review
Procedures for Implementing the NEPA, as amended April 2016 and the Companion Manual for NOAA
Administrative Order 216-6A, NOAA has analyzed and considered the potential environmental
consequences of its preferred action, the two viable action alternatives, and the No-Action Alternative,
before committing to a specific course of action. Should NOAA conclude that the EA supports a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI), an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would not be required.
This EA identifies anticipated environmental consequences and, if applicable, presents mitigation
measures that could be expected to reduce environmental effects.
No significant effects to the resources analyzed in the environmental assessment would result. A
summary of anticipated impacts and recommended mitigation measures are presented in Table ES-1.
Executive Summary Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory ii
Table ES-1: Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation
Resources Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation
Land Use
Water Resources
Recreational Resources
Flora and Fauna
Wetlands
Floodplains
Coastal Zone Management
Farmlands
Noise
Transportation
Utilities and Solid Waste
Hazardous Materials
Environmental Justice
Cumulative
Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are
recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are
recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are
recommended.
Air Quality Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
Standard and customary BMPs during
construction should be applied to
minimize construction-related emissions.
Action Alternative 2:
Standard and customary BMPs during
construction should be applied to
minimize construction-related emissions.
Action Alternative 3:
Standard and customary BMPs during
construction should be applied to
minimize construction-related emissions.
Visual Impacts Action Alternative 1:
Minor effect
Action Alternative 2:
Minor effect
Action Alternative 3:
Minor effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are
recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are
recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are
recommended.
Geological Resources Action Alternative 1:
Less than Significant
Action Alternative 2:
Less than Significant
Action Alternative 3:
Less than Significant
Action Alternative 1:
Best management practices would be
utilized for soil erosion control.
Action Alternative 2:
Best management practices would be
utilized for soil erosion control.
Action Alternative 3:
Best management practices would be
utilized for soil erosion control.
Cultural Resources Action Alternative 1:
Less than Significant Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are
Executive Summary Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory iii
Action Alternative 2:
Less than Significant
Action Alternative 3:
Less than Significant
recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are
recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are
recommended.
This Draft EA will be made available for public comment over a 30-day period, Wednesday, February 28 through Friday, March 30, 2018. An announcement in the Public Notices section of the Muskegon
Chronicle will be issued in printed and e-editions for seven days notifying the public of the availability
of the Draft EA on a NOAA website, with instructions provided for receiving a printed copy for
review and comment prior to the end of the comment period.
Comments received prior to the end of the 30-day comment period will be reviewed and considered by
NOAA. Where appropriate, these comments will be further addressed in a Final EA and considered in
advance of any determination by NOAA to issue a FONSI or prepare an EIS.
Executive Summary Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory iv
[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing]
Table of Contents Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... I
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ V
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................... 1-7
2.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Action Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Action Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Action Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4 No-Action Alternative .................................................................................................................. 2-1
* These are Ldn values, assuming listed construction equipment operate for up to a
cumulative total of eight (8) hours per work day; and construction activity only occurs
during daytime hours from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. as permitted by the City of Muskegon, WI.
Table 4.12-1 illustrates that the anticipated construction noise levels by phase range from 51 to 54 dBA
Ldn and are therefore less than the EPA guidance threshold of 55 dBA Ldn. The range is also
comparable to the estimated existing outdoor ambient sound level of 52 dBA Ldn at the nearest NSA,
and would thus be expected to result in no more than a 4 dBA change in the Ldn. While temporary
project construction noise would likely be perceptible at the nearby NSA, it would only occur during
permitted (i.e., daytime) hours and thusly not be considered an adverse effect requiring mitigation
measures.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-48
Although the anticipated construction activities would involve some heavy equipment that can produce
ground-borne vibration, the 750-foot distance to the closest NSA would be expected to attenuate
vibration velocity to levels that are likely to be indistinguishable from existing ambient vibration sources
(e.g., vehicles on local roadways) and far less than FTA-based guidance assessment criteria for human
annoyance and building damage risk. By way of example, a loaded truck produces 86 VdB (decibels of
root-mean-square [rms] vibration velocity, referenced to one micro-inch) at a distance of 25 feet; but at
750 feet, and under typically expected soil/strata conditions, the vibration velocity would only be 42
VdB and much less than the 80 VdB guidance threshold for FTA “Category 2” receivers where people
normally sleep.
Operation
As described by the Purpose and Need section of this EA, replacement of LMFS Building #3 with a new
2-story wooden structure would be expected to create little or no net change in building occupancy and
functions. Hence, for purposes of this analysis, the new HVAC and other noise-producing mechanical
systems replacing existing equipment would not be expected to have substantially different loads, power
consumption, or other factors that influence sound emission. On this basis, project-attributed operation
noise would be anticipated to be comparable to—or potentially less than—existing operation sound
levels experienced at the nearest NSA and therefore not result in an adverse effect requiring noise
mitigation measures.
Action Alternative 2
Replacement of LMFS Building #3 with a new 2-story metal-framed structure would, in summary and
for purposes of this analysis, involve construction activity similar to what has been described and
assessed for Alternative 1. Likewise, expected project-attributed operation noise from the metal-framed
new building and its HVAC/mechanical systems would also be comparable to noise produced from
existing conditions.
For these reasons, construction and operation noise from Alternative 2 would not be expected to create
an adverse effect at nearby NSA requiring noise mitigation measures.
Action Alternative 3
Replacement of LMFS Building #3 with a new single-story structure would, in summary and for
purposes of this analysis, involve construction activity similar to what has been described and assessed
for Alternative 1. Likewise, expected project-attributed operation noise from the new building and its
HVAC/mechanical systems would also be comparable to noise produced from existing conditions.
For these reasons, construction and operation noise from Alternative 3 would not be expected to create
an adverse effect at nearby NSA requiring noise mitigation measures.
No-Action Alternative
The No-Action alternative would not involve any construction activity, and LMFS Building #3 would
continue to operate and produce noise that already contributes to the existing outdoor ambient sound
environment at the nearby NSA.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-49
Hence, Alternative 3 would not be expected to create an adverse effect at nearby NSA requiring noise
mitigation measures.
4.12.4 Mitigation Measures
Given the lack of expected noise and vibration adverse effects attributed to either construction or
operation for the three project Alternatives and the No Action Alternative, no mitigation measures are
anticipated. However, this analysis assumes that project construction activities would be adequately
managed and performed to reflect—to the extent practical—good construction practices with respect to
site noise control and sound abatement that could include (but not be limited to) the following:
Locate stationary, “steady-state” sources of noise (e.g., portable electrical generator or air
compressor) as far away from NSA as possible, and behind trailers or other onsite structures or
walls that can occlude direct sound paths between the noise sources and the NSA.
Reduce construction equipment and vehicle idling times.
Ensure that construction equipment and vehicles feature factory-approved engine combustion
exhaust mufflers and other noise control or sound abatement and that these features are properly
maintained or are otherwise in good working order.
Provide advanced notice to occupants of nearby NSA that construction activity is expected to
occur over some defined period of time during daytime-only hours. In particular, such prior
notice is strongly recommended if activity is anticipated outside of normally-permitted hours.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-50
4.13 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
4.13.1 Regulatory Setting
The transportation impact analysis assesses the effects of the proposed action on the transportation
network in the community. A qualitative analysis is used to assess whether the proposed action has the
potential to result in a significant impact, and whether a quantitative analysis and prospective
improvements to transportation infrastructure may be necessary. The approach applied involves the use
of trip generation data, essentially the number of inbound and outbound vehicle trips expected to be
generated due to the proposed action during an average day or during peak hour traffic. The expected
trip generation is compared to accepted thresholds to determine whether a more comprehensive traffic
analysis is needed. The trip generation process applied provides an estimate of the number of trips that
would be generated under worst-case conditions. Trip generation rates are then compared to the latest
available traffic counts. When available, a roadway Level of Service (LOS) is identified and the
potential to change to the LOS to a more adverse condition due to the proposed action is considered.
LOS is a qualitative measurement used to describe traffic conditions of a transportation route.
The City of Muskegon Department of Public Works (DPW) is responsible for the operation and
maintenance of the City’s streets, highways, bridges and traffic control.
4.13.2 Affected Resources
The City roadways primarily used to access the project area are also used for access to portions of the
Lake Michigan shore and include adjacent beaches, parks and residential neighborhood access. There
are two main through routes from central City of Muskegon that are used to reach the project site:
Route 1: Via Lakeshore Drive westbound to Beach Street northbound into the project area
Route 2: Via Sherman Boulevard westbound to Beach Street northbound to the project area.
These are two-lane paved roads. Segments of Beach Street are one-way, including at the entry driveway
to the GLERL LMFS property. Based on 2016 data received from the West Michigan Shoreline
Regional Development Commission, the 2-way volume count for Lakeshore Drive was 8,161 and
Sherman Boulevard was 3,978 (West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission, 2016).
4.13.3 Environmental Consequences
Action Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)
Implementation of the preferred alternative would not result in a detectable increase in traffic volume on
the roads leading to and from the project site. The proposed action would increase the number of NOAA
employees working at and commuting to and from the station by an estimated 1 employee.
Implementation of the proposed action would not result in an increase of delivery vehicles or other
vehicles coming to and from the station. During construction, equipment and worker vehicles would be
located within the LMFS property, and equipment staged at that location during demolition and
construction phases of the project.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-51
There would be no discernable changes to existing volume count to roadways or in the estimated LOS of
affected intersections due to the proposed action. Based on the negligible number of vehicles associated
with construction and operation of the proposed replacement of Building #3, as well as the current level
of vehicles using affected roadways and the observed capacity of the roads to accommodate traffic, no
adverse effects would result.
Action Alternative 1 would have no adverse effect on transportation resources.
Action Alternative 2
The effects of Action Alternative 2 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. No adverse
environmental effects with respect to transportation would result from the proposed Action Alternative
2.
Action Alternative 3
The effects of Action Alternative 3 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. No adverse
environmental effects with respect to transportation would result from the proposed Action Alternative
3.
No-Action Alternative
Under No-Action Alternative, the demolition and rebuilding of Building # 3 would not occur. No
adverse effects to transportation would result.
4.13.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required or recommended in relation to transportation systems and
circulation.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-52
4.14 UTILITIES AND SOLID WASTE
4.14.1 Regulatory Setting
There are no directly applicable federal regulations pertaining to effects of federal actions on local
utilities and public services (i.e., solid waste disposal). Regulatory constraints related to the existing
capacity and distribution of utility services is typically considered through local zoning or land use law.
While the federal government is not required to follow local regulations under the Public Building
Amendments of 1988 (Public Law 100-678), they strive to assess potential effects of projects and
conform to local requirements to the extent practicable. Muskegon County provides solid waste disposal
via its Solid Waste Management System. The land fill offers disposal for municipal solid waste,
demolition debris, and other materials; no hazardous waste is accepted.
This assessment considers the apparent capacity of utility services and the effects of extending those
services to the project area.
4.14.2 Affected Resources
The City of Muskegon supplies the project site with potable water and sewage disposal services.
Electrical power service is provided be Consumers Energy and natural gas service is provided by DTE
Energy. Frontier Communications serves the LMFS with telephone and internet connectivity.
The Muskegon Water Filtration Plant is a conventional water treatment plant with a treatment capacity
of 40 million gallons per day, though it typically treats about 25 million gallons. Customers include the
City of Muskegon and Norton Shores Township, among other communities. An expansion built in 2015,
expands capacity to serve new customers in Fruitport Township and Norton Shores. System wide
storage capacity is currently 19.266 million gallons of treated water storage. The system draws water
from Lake Michigan and the intake pipe extends about a mile shore at a depth of 33 feet (City of
Muskegon, 2017).
Surface features indicating utility locations at the LMFS were identified in a 2011 Prein & Newhof
Topographic Survey (see Appendix D: Reference Materials). Based on conversations with NOAA,
sewer and water utility services pass beneath the adjacent USCG station, and the sewer line from
Building #3 is connected directly to a main sewage line on the USCG facility. Water service is first fed
to Building #1, then to Building #2, and passes under Building #2 to supply water to Building #3.
4.14.3 Environmental Consequences
Action Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)
Existing utility services have supported Building #3, which provides space for laboratory,
administration, maintenance and storage space. The Proposed Action would double the size of Building
#3 and is expected to meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification.
Action Alternative 1 would not result in a substantive increase in staff. The potential increase in the
demand for existing public services, such as water, sewer, gas and electric, solid waste disposal and
communication infrastructure, is negligible.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-53
No adverse environmental effects with respect to utilities and service systems would result from the
preferred alternative.
Action Alternative 2
The effects of Action Alternative 2 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. No adverse
environmental effects with respect to utilities and service systems would result from the proposed
Action Alternative 2.
Action Alternative 3
The effects of Action Alternative 3 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. No adverse
environmental effects with respect to utilities and service systems would result from the proposed
Action Alternative 3.
No-Action Alternative
Under No-Action Alternative, the demolition and rebuilding of Building # 3 would not occur. No
change to existing utility services or infrastructure would result.
No adverse effects to utilities and service systems would result.
4.14.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required for any of the three Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action
Alternative in relation to utility services and infrastructure.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-54
4.15 VISUAL IMPACTS
4.15.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43, U.S.C. Section 1701 (a)(8) states that public lands must
be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of the scenic values. Additionally, Section 1701(c)
identifies scenic values as a resource that should be managed by the public.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
While NEPA does not establish particular guidance for determining the significance of visual/aesthetic
resources impacts, in 43 U.S.C. Section 4331(b)(2), it requires measures be taken to assure that
esthetically pleasing surroundings are available for all Americans.
Bureau of Land Management’s Visual Resource Management System
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) developed a system for analysis of visual effects on federal
lands. This system is called Visual Resource Management, which involves inventorying scenic values
and establishing management objectives for those values. While Visual Resource Management is
typically applied to large federal landholdings requiring an EIS, these concepts can be applied to provide
a basis for assessing effects within an EA for less expansive federal actions proposed on non-federal
land parcels.
The concepts include actions to:
Identify those views potentially affected and for which the public may express concern.
Describe the existing visual conditions and potentially affected critically sensitive views.
Estimate the intensity of possible adverse visual impacts on those views.
Evaluate the significance of the possible impacts; mitigate, as needed.
Visual/scenic resources, such as, national, state or local parks, areas adjacent to designated wild and
scenic rivers, and regionally scenic byways, routes or views from designated viewing areas have a social
setting, which includes public expectations, values, awareness, and concern regarding visual quality.
This social setting is addressed as “visual sensitivity,” and is important to assessing how important a
visual impact may be and whether or not it represents a significant impact. The visual condition and
degree of visual sensitivity is expressed as one of the following four levels:
High sensitivity: A great potential for the public to react strongly to a threat to visual quality.
Moderate sensitivity: A substantial potential for the public to express concern.
Low sensitivity: A small minority of the public may have a concern.
No sensitivity: There is no ‘sensitivity’ where the potentially affected views are not “public” (not
accessible to the general public).
Levels of visual quality consist of three components evaluated using the following general definitions:
Low quality: Landscape is common to the region and exhibits few, if any, memorable features or
patterns which provide visual diversity.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-55
Moderate: Landscape exhibits reasonably attractive natural and human-made features.
High: Landscape exhibits distinctive and memorable visual features.
4.15.2 Affected Resources
The anticipated level of visual sensitivity at surrounding LMFS is considered to be low given the
existing and long-established facilities and other visual elements at LMFS and USCG Station
Muskegon. These consist of one- and two-story structures from different periods and a range of exteriors
(e.g., wood, metal), with chain link fencing and shoreline rip rap. Despite the low sensitivity in the
region, there is a moderate level of visual quality is estimated to be present from public vantage points.
The public access areas within the City of Muskegon Margaret Drake Elliot Park lie to the east
immediately beyond the USCG Station Muskegon facility and its structures. To the south of the LMFS
is the City of Muskegon Pere Marquette Park between Lake Michigan and Beach Street. To the west
approximately 700 feet is the Muskegon Lighthouse. To north beginning about 600 feet from Building
#3 in LMFS is Muskegon State Park. It is an area of natural landscapes situated across the navigation
channel linking Lake Michigan and Muskegon Lake, within which are trails and beaches.
Approximately 2,000 feet northeast is the state park’s Channel Campground. View from Lake Michigan
by recreational boaters, mariners and Milwaukee-Muskegon route ferry passengers is also of interest and
have direct views of structures with the LMFS.
Views of Lake Michigan, the Muskegon Lighthouse and the architecture of Building #1 at LMFS
represent an assemblage of attractive natural and man-made physical features; however, they are not
considered highly distinctive, as similar features (lighthouses or early-20th Century structures) are
represented in other locales throughout the Great Lakes region’s shorelines and harbors.
4.15.3 Environmental Effects
Action Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)
The level of visual sensitivity at LMFS is considered to be low. While a moderate level of visual quality
exists based on the natural and man-made features described above, the existing setting would not be
substantially changed due to implementation of Action Alternative 1. The project would replace an
existing single-story metal frame laboratory building with a two-story wood replacement structure. The
exterior design would be guided by measures described in Section 4.7 Cultural Resources, and therefore,
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, specifically Standards 3, 9, and 10. However, the footprint
(horizontal extent) of the structure would be unchanged, and a second story would change the height of
the existing roof top from approximately 16 feet to 26 feet above ground level. This would result in a
minor degree of change when viewed from adjacent public areas, including state and city parks, beaches
and from Lake Michigan.
The impact to visual resources would be minor due to implementation of Action Alternative 1.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-56
Action Alternative 2
The effects of Alternative 2 would be the same as Action Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative. The
impact to visual resources would be minor due to implementation of Action Alternative 2.
Action Alternative 3
The level of visual sensitivity at LMFS is considered to be low. While a moderate level of visual quality
exists based on the natural and man-made features described above, the existing setting would not be
substantially changed due to implementation of Action Alternative 3. The project would replace an
existing single-story metal frame laboratory building with another single-story replacement structure on
the same foundational area would be built with articulated horizontal elements to add to the gross square
footage. The design would be guided by measures described in Section 4.7: Cultural Resources and,
therefore, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, specifically Standards 3, 9, and 10. However, the footprint
(horizontal extent) of the structure would be expanded by 50%, and little to no change the height of the
existing roof top of approximately 16 feet above ground level would occur. This would result in a minor
degree of change when viewed from adjacent public areas, including state and city parks, beaches and
from Lake Michigan.
The impact to visual resources would be minor due to implementation of Action Alternative 3.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, NOAA would retain its existing Building #3. No visual impacts would
result.
4.15.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required for either of the Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action
Alternative, relative to aesthetics and visual resources.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-57
4.16 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.16.1 Regulatory Setting
In an effort to promote safe handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, hazardous materials
and waste management in the State of Michigan are subject, but not limited, to Federal regulatory
requirements contained in 40 CFR of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as well as
State regulatory requirements contained in the NREPA 451 of 1994 and the Michigan Department of
Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (DLARA). These laws and regulations seek to promote the safe
handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials to prevent unnecessary harm to human and
environmental health.
At the Federal level, the USEPA, U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (USNRC), and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (USDEA) provide
oversight of proper waste management practices. Many of the State rules have adopted federal
requirements set forth by the USEPA under RCRA. In Michigan, oversight of proper waste management
at the local level is conducted by the MDEQ, DLARA, the Michigan Department of Agricultural and
Rural Development (DARD) and the Michigan State Police (MSP). Local jurisdiction regarding proper
waste management may also be conducted by solid waste management authorities, wastewater treatment
plant authorities, fire department, and county health departments.
The following hazardous waste regulations (as overseen by the MDEQ) potentially to pertain to the
proposed action at the GLERL LMFS for the replacement of Building #3:
Solid waste regulations under Part 115 of NREPA Public Act 451 of 1994, as amended;
Liquid industrial by-product regulations under Part 121 of NREPA Public Act 451 of
1994;
Transportation of hazardous materials (DEQ requirements) under the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act (Public Act 138 of 1998);
Wastewater regulations under Part 2(Water Resource Protection) of NREPA Act 451;
and
Air pollution regulations under Part 55 (Air Pollution Control) of NREPA Act 451.
Other Federal regulations include:
RCRA Title 40 CFR Parts 260-279;
Federal wastewater regulations under the CWA; and
Federal air pollution regulations under the CAA.
Safety during construction and workplace activities are also subject to the MIOSHA requirements. This
includes training for persons working with asbestos and asbestos-containing materials (ACM) under Part
602 “Asbestos Standards for Construction” as amended.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-58
4.16.2 Affected Resources
Building #3 at the GLERL LMFS in Muskegon, Michigan, is an approximately 2,600 gross square feet
(GSF) marine laboratory building predominantly used for preparing and working with small preserved
samples and for sample storage. Subsidence of the sub-slab has created hazardous walking conditions
within the building and at exterior doors. The cause of subsidence was determined to be improperly
prepared soils below the construction of the building in the mid-1960s.
Building #3 contains a small staging area used to prepare equipment and materials for sample collection,
refrigerators for sample storage, and several overhead lofts utilized for preserved sample storage. Also
housed in Building #3 is a filtration desktop (water filtration, bottle preparation, short-term sample
storage in incubators), dark room, and office space. Several hazardous chemicals, including formalin
(Formaldehyde) and ethanol are stored in Building #3 within corrosive materials and flammable
materials cabinets and are mostly used for preserving chlorophyll samples.
The GLERL LMFS is situated atop of a near-shore dune environment on Lake Michigan coast. The
Point Betsie Lighthouse and marine ship channel leading into Muskegon Lake border the site to the
north, while the USCG Station Muskegon, Pere Marquette City Park, and Lake Michigan bound the site
to the east, south, and west, respectively. A geotechnical report prepared in 2011 for construction
activities immediately north of the project area at Building #2 indicates groundwater depth to be
approximately 6 to 7 feet bgs.
Environmental databases and governmental records, provided by Environmental Data Resources Inc.
on December 3, 2017, were utilized and reviewed (“environmental records review”) to characterize the
obvious and apparent uses of the site and surrounding properties, and identify potential recognized
environmental conditions that might affect the project site. The GLERL LMFS is listed under the
RCRA database as a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG). CESQG’s produce less
than 220 pounds (100 kilograms) of non-acute hazardous waste per month and never accumulate 2,200
pounds (1,000 kilograms) or more at a time. Regulatory requirements for CESQG’s do not limit how
long waste can be accumulated, provided the following conditions are not exceeded. Database search
results also indicate that a gasoline service station was operated approximately 600 feet from the
GLERL LMFS from 1998 to 2014 and may correspond to the historical underground storage tank
(UST) installed at the Point Betsie Lighthouse located roughly 600 feet from the site. A small hydraulic
fluid spill (250 milliliters) was reported during maintenance activities on the research vessel (R/V)
Shenohan in 1997; however, no other spills or violations associated at or near the GLERL LMFS were
obtained.
The USCG facility adjacent to the eastern property border of the LMFS property is also listed in the
RCRA database as a CESQG. The USCG Station Muskegon also houses an active 2,000 gallon above
ground diesel storage tank. No reports of leaks or spills associated with the USCG facility were
obtained.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-59
4.16.3 Environmental Consequences
Action Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)
It is assumed that prior to demolition of the existing Building #3, all samples, preservatives, and
hazardous waste would be removed from the construction site. Hazardous waste should be removed
from the site prior to construction activities as outlined in Michigan’s Part 121 Liquid Industrial By-
Products of NREPA Act 451 of 1994, as amended. Archived samples no longer needed should also be
discarded appropriately to minimize, if not eliminate, the amount of hazardous materials encountered
and handled during construction activities. A hazardous materials management plan should be prepared
in advance of construction activities detailing how to properly handle, transport, and store materials, if
encountered, during construction activities.
The proximity of the project area to Lake Michigan would require adherence to Michigan’s Part 91 (Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control) Rules which typically require a permit when a construction project is
within 500 feet from a lake or stream regardless of size. Additionally, observed depth to groundwater,
reported to be between 6 and 7 feet bgs, would require dewatering of the construction site. Wastewater
from discharging groundwater is subject to permit requirements under Act 451.
Construction equipment utilizing diesel fuel, hydraulic oil, and other fuel/oils may also cause adverse
environmental impacts in the event of a spill. Loose to very loose sands at the site and the proximity to
surface water increase the potential for adversely impacting the environment during the event of a spill
and as such, spill prevention procedures should be considered. Catch basins and storm water runoff
must be considered by NOAA and its construction contractor when devising erosion control measures
and in the preparation and execution of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).
Building #3 was constructed in approximately circa1970, prior to the majority of EPA bans regarding
ACM and lead-based paint. Therefore, the demolition of Building #3, including ceiling and floor tiles,
may expose workers to ACM and/or lead-based based. If an ACM or lead-based paint survey has not
already been completed prior to demolition within Building #3, an ACM survey shall be conducted by
an approved contractor in compliance with State and Federal requirements.
Action Alternative 1 would have no adverse effects associated with interactions with known hazardous
materials provided standard mitigation measures are implemented and associated permits are acquired.
Action Alternative 2
The effects of implementing Action Alternative 2 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative.
Action Alternative 2 would have no adverse effects associated with known hazardous materials provided
standard mitigation measures are implemented and associated permits are acquired.
Action Alternative 3
The effects of implementing Action Alternative 3 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative.
Action Alternative 3 would have no adverse effects associated with hazardous materials provided
standard mitigation measures are implemented and associated permits are acquired.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-60
No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative would have no adverse effects associated with known hazardous materials.
4.16.4 Mitigation Measures
Given the proximity of the proposed construction site to Lake Michigan, appropriate erosional control
measures would be necessary.
Given the likely need for dewatering of the construction site, conditions of approval within required
state permits would be followed prior to implementing construction/demolition activities.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-61
4.17 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
4.17.1 Regulatory Setting
EO 12898, known as the Federal Environmental Justice Policy, requires all federal agencies to identify
and develop strategies to address disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
impacts of its programs, policies and activities on minority and low-income populations in the United
States and its territories to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law (Federal Register, 1994).
Federal agencies are required to make all documents, notices and hearings related to human health and
the environment accessible to the public. The EO is intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal
programs, as well as provide minorities and low income populations with access to information and
public participation.
Impact assessment criteria associated with environmental justice require that a significant adverse
impact will not be predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population, and
that the impact not be appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than would be suffered by the
non-minority population and/or non-low-income population. This section evaluates regional and census
tract population and economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to assess affected populations and the
potential for disproportionately high adverse effects to occur.
4.17.2 Affected Resources
The proposed action would be implemented in the City of Muskegon, County of Muskegon, Michigan.
Muskegon is located in western Michigan, adjacent to Muskegon Lake to the north and the eastern
shores of Lake Michigan to the west. The City of Muskegon population in 2015 was estimated at
37,861, the County of Muskegon was estimated at 171,483 and Census Tract 10 was 1,181. The City
and Census Tract 10 experienced a population decline, while the County experienced a slight population
increase between the years 2000 to 2015. Table 4.17-1 summarizes the change in the population for the
City, County and U.S. Census Tract 10 between the years 2000, 2010 and 2015.
Table 4.17-1 Population Change by Geographic Area
Geographic Area 2000 2010
(% Change ) 2015 (% Change 2000-
2015)
US Census Tract 10 1,301 1,339 1,181 -9.2%
City of Muskegon 40,105 38,401 37,861 -5.6%
County Muskegon 170,200 172,188 171,483 0.75%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, 2010, 2015
Individuals identified as White made up over half of the population in the City and were the
predominate race identified in the County and Census Tract 10 during 2015 (US Census Bureau, 2015).
Between the years 2000 to 2015, minorities represented in the City, County and Census Tract 141.05
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-62
either increased slightly or remained static. Table 4.17-2 illustrates the racial profile of County, City,
and U.S. Census Tract 10 from 2000 to 2015.
Table 4.17-2 Racial Profile by Geographic Area
Race 2000 2010 2015
Census
Tract
Muskegon
City
Muskegon
County
Census
Tract
Muskegon
City
Muskegon
County
Census
Tract
Muskegon
City
Muskegon
County
White
98% 61% 82% 95% 57% 80% 94% 59% 81%
Minority 2% 39% 18% 5% 43% 20% 6% 41% 19%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, 2010, 2015
The percentage of the population living in poverty is determined by the family size and earning less than
a certain amount of income, which is adjusted each year by the U.S. Census Bureau based on inflation
and other factors.
Poverty thresholds are the dollar amount used by the U.S. Census Bureau to determine a family’s
poverty status. The following values represent the National poverty thresholds since 2000 for a family of
four, two adults and two dependents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; 2010; 2015):
2000 – $ 13,874
2010 – $ 22,314
2015 – $ 24,036
Table 4.17-3 illustrates the mean income for a household, families living under poverty status, the
percentage of the population over 16 years of age in the labor force and the percentage of the population
that is unemployed in the City, County, and Census Tract 10. The mean income of a household in 2015
in Census Tract 10 was $83,733, which was substantially higher than the City and Census Tract (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2015). Census Tract 10 also experienced substantially lower percentage of families
living in poverty compared to the City and County, but a slightly higher unemployment rate.
Table 4.17-3 Socioeconomic Factors by Geographic Area
Geographic Area Mean Household
Income
Poverty Status for all
Families
Labor Unemployment
Census Tract 10 $ 83,733 2.1% 49.6% 10.1%
Muskegon City $ 38,818 29.8% 49.4% 9.1%
Muskegon County $ 58,526 14.5% 58.6% 7.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-63
4.17.3 Environmental Consequences
Action Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)
The Preferred Alternative would have negligible socioeconomic effects. Existing conditions in housing,
incomes and poverty rates are expected to remain unchanged due to the proposed actions. Some short-
term economic benefits to the communities in or near Muskegon may be experienced, as Building #3
demolition and replacement would require a small number of workers related to construction and
evaluation activities. Imperceptible increases in noise and air emissions may occur during the project
construction period. However, these effects are temporary and not expected to be substantial based on
the analysis of these topics in other sections of this EA.
Therefore, no minority or low-income populations are present that would be adversely affected. There
would be no adverse effects from the Preferred Alternative with respect to environmental justice.
Action Alternative 2
The effects of Action Alternative 2 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, no
minority or low-income populations are present that would be adversely affected.
There would be no adverse effects from Action Alternative 2 with respect to environmental justice.
Action Alternative 3
The effects of Action Alternative 3 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, no
minority or low-income populations are present that would be adversely affected.
There would be no adverse effects from Action Alternative 3 with respect to environmental justice.
No-Action Alternative
Under No-Action Alternative, the demolition and rebuilding of Building # 3 would not occur. No
adverse effects to environmental justice or socioeconomic resources would result.
4.17.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required for any of the three Action Alternatives, or for the No-Action
Alternative in relation to environmental justice and socioeconomics.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-64
4.18 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
4.18.1 Regulatory Setting
A cumulative impact must be evaluated under the NEPA and is defined as “the impact on the
environment which results 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, Part 1508.7).
Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or interact with other effects in a
particular place and within a particular time. It is the combination of these effects, and any resulting
environmental degradation, that is the focus of this cumulative impact analysis. While impacts can be
differentiated by direct, indirect, and cumulative, the concept of cumulative impacts takes into account
all foreseeable disturbances, since cumulative impacts result in the compounding of the effects of all
actions over time. Thus, the cumulative impacts of an action can be viewed as the total effects on a
resource, ecosystem, or human community no matter what entity (federal, non-federal, or private) is
taking the action.
This analysis of cumulative effects summarizes the evaluation of resources, ecosystems, and human
communities identified and discussed in this EA relative to other foreseeable future actions. It considers
the proximity and timing of other concurrent or future foreseeable actions and the potential for
exacerbated effects or conflicts that would result in a potentially significant impact. The evaluation
considers resources subject to potential cumulative effects and refers back, if necessary, to information
presented in the earlier discussion of project-only effects.
In general, the proposed action is not reliant upon or connected to other actions, nor is it relied upon for
the occurrence of other actions. For each of the subject areas analyzed, the contribution of the proposed
action is not expected to be considerable provided that appropriate mitigation measures are
implemented.
4.18.2 Affected Resources
Recent, on-going and foreseeable future projects were considered that may occur at and near LMFS.
This information is based on readily available publications and websites. No foreseeable and
substantive actions were identified.
The focus of the City of Muskegon regarding its adjacent parklands is to concentrate its resources on
maintaining and upgrading existing facilities, rather that expansion. Given the lack of available funding,
not substantial projects within adjacent parklands and open space were identified. One exception may be
the purchase of land for the Lakeshore Trail bike path following the sale and conversion of the Chase
Hammond Golf Course. Additional property may be needed as sections of the trail are linked
throughout the city to the State of Michigan Trail System and additional linkages to the lakeshore are
desired.
No specific, local projects were identified for the residential, recreational, and commercial land use
areas existing along the banks of Muskegon Lake. A 2015 evaluation of benefits for development in this
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-65
lakeshore region was conducted (Development Research Partners, 2015). The study generally examined
the potential temporary and on-going economic and fiscal benefits of expanded commercial activities
and port revitalization to Muskegon County. While clear benefits were identified, specific and
foreseeable programs or projects were not introduced.
4.18.3 Environmental Consequences
Action Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)
No readily available or foreseeable development actions were identified that would be considered as a
cumulative impact, in addition to project-specific impacts. No adverse cumulative effects with respect
to Cumulative Impacts upon each of the resources analyzed are anticipated to occur under Action
Alternative 1.
Action Alternative 2
The effects of Alternative 2 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. No adverse environmental
effects with respect to Cumulative Impacts upon each of the resources analyzed would result from the
proposed Action Alternative 2.
Action Alternative 3
The effects of Alternative 3 would be the same as the Preferred Alternative. No adverse environmental
effects with respect to Cumulative Impacts upon each of the resources analyzed would result from the
proposed Action Alternative 3.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, no contribution to regional development would occur at or near the
project area. No adverse effects would result.
4.18.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are recommended or required relative to Cumulative Impacts.
4 Affected Resources and Environmental Consequences Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 4-66
[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing]
5 Community Involvement Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 5-1
5.0 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
This Draft EA will be made available for public comment over a 30-day period, Wednesday, February 28 through Friday, March 30, 2018. An announcement in the Public Notices section of the Muskegon
Chronicle will be issued in printed and e-editions for seven days notifying the public of the availability
of the Draft EA on a NOAA website, and instructions provided for receiving a printed copy, for
review and comment prior to the end of the comment period.
Comments received prior to the end of the 30-day comment period will be reviewed and considered by
NOAA. Where appropriate, these comments will be further addressed in a Final EA and considered in
advance of any determination by NOAA to issue a FONSI or prepare an EIS.
5 Community Involvement Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 5-2
[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing]
6 Summary of Anticipated Impacts and Suggested Mitigation Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 6-1
6.0 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS AND SUGGESTED
MITIGATION
No anticipated environmental impacts were identified in relation to the No-Action Alternative. Table
6.0-1 summarizes the anticipated environmental impacts by environmental resource identified for each
action alternative and the mitigation measures required to support a finding of no significant impact.
Table 6.0-1 Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation
Resource Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation
Land Use Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Geological
Resources
Action Alternative 1:
Negligible
Action Alternative 2:
Negligible
Action Alternative 3:
Negligible
Action Alternative 1:
Best management practices would be utilized for
soil erosion control.
Action Alternative 2:
Best management practices would be utilized for
soil erosion control.
Action Alternative 3:
Best management practices would be utilized for
soil erosion control.
6 Summary of Anticipated Impacts and Suggested Mitigation Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 6-2
Table 6.0-1 Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation
Resource Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation
Air Quality Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
Standard and customary BMPs during construction
should be applied to minimize construction-related
emissions, including (but not limited to) dust
suppression on unpaved areas, minimization of
vehicle and equipment idling, covering of materials
stockpiles, and recycling construction and
demolition materials where possible.
Action Alternative 2:
Standard and customary BMPs during construction
should be applied to minimize construction-related
emissions, including (but not limited to) dust
suppression on unpaved areas, minimization of
vehicle and equipment idling, covering of materials
stockpiles, and recycling construction and
demolition materials where possible.
Action Alternative 3:
Standard and customary BMPs during construction
should be applied to minimize construction-related
emissions, including (but not limited to) dust
suppression on unpaved areas, minimization of
vehicle and equipment idling, covering of materials
stockpiles, and recycling construction and
demolition materials where possible.
Water Resources Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Recreational
Resources
Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Cultural
Resources
Action Alternative 1:
Less than significant
Action Alternative 2:
Less than significant
Action Alternative 3:
Less than significant
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
6 Summary of Anticipated Impacts and Suggested Mitigation Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 6-3
Table 6.0-1 Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation
Resource Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation
Flora and Fauna Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Wetlands Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Floodplains Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Coastal Zone
Management Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Farmlands Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
6 Summary of Anticipated Impacts and Suggested Mitigation Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 6-4
Table 6.0-1 Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation
Resource Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation
Noise Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
Reduce construction equipment and vehicle idling
times. Provide advanced notice to occupants of
nearby NSA that construction activity is expected
to occur. Ensure that construction equipment and
vehicles feature factory-approved engine
combustion exhaust mufflers and other noise
control or sound abatement, and that these features
are properly maintained or are otherwise in good
working order.
Action Alternative 2:
Reduce construction equipment and vehicle idling
times. Provide advanced notice to occupants of
nearby NSA that construction activity is expected
to occur. Ensure that construction equipment and
vehicles feature factory-approved engine
combustion exhaust mufflers and other noise
control or sound abatement, and that these features
are properly maintained or are otherwise in good
working order.
Action Alternative 3:
Reduce construction equipment and vehicle idling
times. Provide advanced notice to occupants of
nearby NSA that construction activity is expected
to occur. Ensure that construction equipment and
vehicles feature factory-approved engine
combustion exhaust mufflers and other noise
control or sound abatement, and that these features
are properly maintained or are otherwise in good
working order.
Transportation Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Utilities and
Solid Waste
Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Visual Impacts Action Alternative 1:
Minor effect Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
6 Summary of Anticipated Impacts and Suggested Mitigation Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 6-5
Table 6.0-1 Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts and Suggested Mitigation
Resource Anticipated Impact Suggested Mitigation
Action Alternative 2:
Minor effect
Action Alternative 3:
Minor effect
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Hazardous
Materials Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
Apply appropriate erosional control measures and
dewatering of the construction site.
Action Alternative 2:
Apply appropriate erosional control measures and
dewatering of the construction site.
Action Alternative 3:
Apply appropriate erosional control measures and
dewatering of the construction site.
Environmental
Justice Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Cumulative Action Alternative 1:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 2:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 3:
No adverse effect
Action Alternative 1:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 2:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
Action Alternative 3:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
7 Findings Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 7-1
7.0 FINDINGS
Based on the analysis potential effects to key natural and man-made resources due to the proposed
action, no significant impacts would result from the implementation of either of the three Action
Alternatives, or the No-Action Alternative.
A FONSI is warranted for the proposed action evaluated in this EA.
7 Findings Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 7-2
[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing]
8 Preparers Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 8-1
8.0 PREPARERS
John A. Chamberlain
Mr. Chamberlain is a certified Senior Project Manager for AECOM’s San Jose office and served as the Project
Manager. Mr. Chamberlain has an MS in Environmental Studies with over 30 years of experience in National
Environmental Policy Act analysis and related studies.
Otto Alvarez
Mr. Alvarez is a Senior GIS Specialist for AECOM’s Oakland office and served as a GIS Specialist. He holds a
PhD in Environmental Systems. Mr. Alvarez has conducted research on ecological niche modeling and
specializes in ArcGIS.
Trina Meiser
Ms. Meiser is an Environmental Planner for AECOM’s San Diego office and served as the Cultural Resource
specialist. Ms. Meiser has an MA in Historic Preservation Planning with over 17 years of experience and
specializes in Section 106 of NHPA compliance, NEPA and CEQA compliance.
Elizabeth Vanderhoef
Ms. Vanderhoef is a Geologist for AECOM’s Grand Rapids office and served as the Geology, Water Resources
and Hazardous Materials specialist. Ms.Vanderhoef has a BS in Geology with over five years of experience and
specializes in field oversight for environmental and remedial investigations.
Michelle Dunn
Ms. Dunn is an Environmental Planner for AECOM’s San Jose office and served as the Air Quality specialist.
Ms. Dunn has a BA in Environmental Analysis and Design with over 11 years of experience and specializes in
environmental planning.
Clara Austin
Ms. Austin is a Biologist for AECOM’s Grand Rapids office and served as the Flora and Fauna and Wetlands
specialist. Ms. Austin has a BS in Biology with over four years of experience and biological resource assessment.
Geoff Thorton
Mr. Thornton is a Senior Environmental Planner for AECOM’s Oakland office and served as the Floodplains
policy specialist. Mr. Thornton has BS in ecology and over 18 years of experience in CEQA and NEPA and
specializes in environmental compliance for vegetation management, wildfire mitigation and water resources.
Mark Storm
Mr. Storm is a Principal Environmental Noise Specialist from AECOM’s San Diego office and served as the
Noise specialist. An Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) Board Certified member, Mr. Storm has a BS
in aeronautical engineering with over 25 years of experience and specializes in noise modeling and analyses.
Stephanie Osby
Ms. Osby is an Environmental Planner for AECOM’s San Jose office and served as a Project Planner. Ms. Osby
holds an MS in Environmental Management with over six years of experience and specializes in land use,
agricultural and ecological evaluations.
8 Preparers Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 8-2
[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing]
9 References Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 9-1
9.0 REFERENCES
Cardno Government Services Division, 2017. Final Report: Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Facility
Condition Assessment, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL).City of Muskegon,
2017. Draft Source Water Intake Protection Plan, City of Muskegon Water Supply, WSSN 4570,
prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., October 2017.
City of Muskegon, 2016. Muskegon Parks & Recreation Master Plan, Watch Muskegon, 2016.
City of Muskegon, 2012. City of Muskegon: Zoning Ordinance Article 17. Available online at
http://www.muskegon-mi.gov/departments/planning/zoning/. Accessed December 13, 2017.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2016. Floodplain Management. Available online at:
https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/floodplain-management. Accessed December 5,
2018.
Detroit Free Press, 1904. New Station for Muskegon. Printed on December 28, 1904.
Development Research Partners, 2015. The Economic and Fiscal Benefits of the Port of Muskegon, A Study of
the Current Port Benefits and Potential for Increased Economic Activity by 2020, prepared by
Development Research Partners for Consumers Energy, December 2015.
Environmental Data Resources Inc., 2017. EDR report for NOAA Muskegon, 1431 Beach Street, Muskegon, MI.,
49441, Inquiry Number 5124594.2s. Accessed December 3, 2017.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015. Flood Insurance Rate Map Muskegon County, Michigan, Panel
252 of 475, Map Number 26121C0252D, July 6, 2015.
Federal Highway Administration, 2006 (January). Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Final
Report. FHWA-HEP-05-054, DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01. Prepared for FHWA Office of Natural and
Human Environment, Washington, DC. Prepared by U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and
Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center,
Acoustics Facility, Cambridge, MA.
Federal Transit Administration, 2006 (May). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Final Report. FTA-
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing]
Appendices Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
Appendix B: Biological Site Inspection Photographs
A
Bldg 3 (east side) looking NW
Bldg 3 (west side) looking N
Bldg 3 (west side) looking SSE
Bldg 3 (south side) looking WNW
Building 3 (north side) looking S
Building 3 (north side) looking SW
Building 3 (north side) looking W
Building 3 (west side) looking NE
Building 3 (south side) looking NW
NOAA vehicle-pedestrian access looking N
Appendices Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing]
Appendices Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
Appendix C: Michigan Natural Feature Inventory Information
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request
Clara Austin
GLERL LMFS Bldg Replacement
Muskegon, MI
November 21, 2017
Requestor:
Project:
Location:
Request submission date:
November 21, 2017Print Date:
Detailed information on the species listed in this report can be found in abstracts and the rare species explorer on the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) website. The MNFI website can be found at: http :// mnfi . anr . msu . edu /
The species in this report are listed alphabetically by scientific name. Each record from the database is listed individually. Therefore you may see multiple listings for the same species. The locational and survey date information may be the only differentiating factors when looking at multiple occurrences for a given species. Heritage methodology is followed when entering species occurrences into the MNFI database. Detailed information on heritage methodology can be obtained on NatureServe’s website at the link listed below. http :// www . natureserve . org / prodServices / heritagemethodology . jsp
By acceptance of the information services made available through MNFI the recipient understands that access to the information is provided for primary use only. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of the information. There should be no redistribution of the information. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection. Additionally, since the information is constantly being updated MNFI requests that any information service provided by MNFI is destroyed upon completion of the primary use. This information should be considered valid for one year only.
Any comments or questions can be directed to MNFI via our e-mail at mnfi @ msu . edu < mailto : mnfi @ msu . edu > or by calling 517-373-1552.
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request November 21, 2017Print Date:
Information valid for one year.
Acipenser fulvescens Lake sturgeon Vertebrate Animal
FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2STATE RANK:G3G4 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2008-09-04
FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2S3STATE RANK:G4G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE:
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS12, 13, 14, 23T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West, 4308633/Dalton
Muskegon
Muskegon
There should be no redistribution of these data. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of these data. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection.
Contact MNFI at (517) 373-1552
Page 3 of 16
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request November 21, 2017Print Date:
FEDERAL STATUS: ESTATE STATUS:LE GLOBAL RANK: S2STATE RANK:G3 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2015
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS20, 21, 28, 29T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West
Muskegon
Pere Marquette-White
Cirsium pitcheri Pitcher's thistle Vascular Plant
FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS:LT GLOBAL RANK: S3STATE RANK:G2G3 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2012-07-24
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS21T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West
Muskegon
Pere Marquette-White
There should be no redistribution of these data. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of these data. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection.
Contact MNFI at (517) 373-1552
Page 4 of 16
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request November 21, 2017Print Date:
Information valid for one year.
Coastal Plain Marsh Infertile Pond/marsh, Great Lakes Type Terrestrial Community - Other Classification
FEDERAL STATUS: STATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2STATE RANK:G2 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2010-07-21
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS16, 17T10NR17W
4308633/Dalton
Muskegon
Muskegon
Dry-mesic Northern Forest Terrestrial Community - Other Classification
FEDERAL STATUS: STATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S3STATE RANK:G4 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2010-07-21
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS16, 17, 20, 21T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West, 4308633/Dalton
Muskegon
Muskegon, Pere Marquette-White
Euxoa aurulenta Dune cutworm Invertebrate Animal
FEDERAL STATUS: SCSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2S3STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1989
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS20, 21, 28, 29T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West
Muskegon
Pere Marquette-White, Lake Michigan, Muskegon
There should be no redistribution of these data. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of these data. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection.
Contact MNFI at (517) 373-1552
Page 5 of 16
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request November 21, 2017Print Date:
Information valid for one year.
Fuirena pumila Umbrella-grass Vascular Plant
FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2STATE RANK:G4 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2000
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS16, 17T10NR17W
4308633/Dalton
Muskegon
Muskegon
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Vertebrate Animal
FEDERAL STATUS: SCSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S4STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2012
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS21T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West
Muskegon
Muskegon
Hardwood-Conifer Swamp Terrestrial Community - Other Classification
FEDERAL STATUS: STATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S3STATE RANK:G4 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2010-06-11
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS21T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West
Muskegon
Muskegon
There should be no redistribution of these data. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of these data. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection.
Contact MNFI at (517) 373-1552
Page 6 of 16
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request November 21, 2017Print Date:
Information valid for one year.
Interdunal Wetland Alkaline Shoredunes Pond/marsh, Great Lakes Type
Terrestrial Community - Other Classification
FEDERAL STATUS: STATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2STATE RANK:G2? LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2010-07-19
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS20, 21, 28T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West
Muskegon
Muskegon, Pere Marquette-White
Ligumia recta Black sandshell Invertebrate Animal
FEDERAL STATUS: ESTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S1?STATE RANK:G4G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1936
FEDERAL STATUS: SCSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2STATE RANK:G2 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1992-10-22
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS21T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West
Muskegon
Muskegon
There should be no redistribution of these data. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of these data. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection.
Contact MNFI at (517) 373-1552
Page 7 of 16
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request November 21, 2017Print Date:
Information valid for one year.
Mesic Northern Forest Terrestrial Community - Other Classification
FEDERAL STATUS: STATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S3STATE RANK:G4 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2010-07-21
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS17, 20, 21T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West, 4308633/Dalton
Muskegon
Pere Marquette-White, Muskegon
Mikania scandens Mikania Vascular Plant
FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S1STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1894-09-23
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24T10NR17W
4308633/Dalton, 4308623/Muskegon West
Muskegon
Muskegon
Open Dunes Beach/shoredunes, Great Lakes Type Terrestrial Community - Other Classification
FEDERAL STATUS: STATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S3STATE RANK:G3 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2010-07-19
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS20, 21, 28T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West
Muskegon
Muskegon, Pere Marquette-White
There should be no redistribution of these data. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of these data. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection.
Contact MNFI at (517) 373-1552
Page 8 of 16
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request November 21, 2017Print Date:
Information valid for one year.
Open Dunes Beach/shoredunes, Great Lakes Type Terrestrial Community - Other Classification
FEDERAL STATUS: STATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S3STATE RANK:G3 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2015-09-04
FEDERAL STATUS: SCSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: SNRSTATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE:
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS21, 28T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West
Muskegon
Muskegon
There should be no redistribution of these data. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of these data. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection.
Contact MNFI at (517) 373-1552
Page 9 of 16
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request November 21, 2017Print Date:
Information valid for one year.
Pyganodon subgibbosa Round lake floater Invertebrate Animal
FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S1STATE RANK:G1Q LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1930-PRE
FEDERAL STATUS: SCSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S3S4STATE RANK:G4 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2010-07-21
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS16, 17T10NR17W
4308633/Dalton
Muskegon
Muskegon
Rhynchospora scirpoides Bald-rush Vascular Plant
FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2STATE RANK:G4 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1959-09-13
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS16, 17T10NR17W
4308633/Dalton
Muskegon
Muskegon
There should be no redistribution of these data. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of these data. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection.
Contact MNFI at (517) 373-1552
Page 10 of 16
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request November 21, 2017Print Date:
Information valid for one year.
Rorippa aquatica Lake cress Vascular Plant
FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2STATE RANK:G4? LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1898-06-22
FEDERAL STATUS: ESTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S3STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1998-06
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS21T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West
Muskegon
Muskegon
There should be no redistribution of these data. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of these data. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection.
Contact MNFI at (517) 373-1552
Page 11 of 16
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request November 21, 2017Print Date:
FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S1STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1936-pre
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS12, 13, 14, 23T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West, 4308633/Dalton
Muskegon
Muskegon
There should be no redistribution of these data. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of these data. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection.
Contact MNFI at (517) 373-1552
Page 12 of 16
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request November 21, 2017Print Date:
Information valid for one year.
Utricularia subulata Bladderwort Vascular Plant
FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S1STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1992-10-22
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS21, 28T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West
Muskegon
Muskegon
Zizania aquatica Wild rice Vascular Plant
FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2S3STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 1916-08-10
4308621/Sullivan, 4308622/Muskegon East, 4308632/Twin Lake, 4308623/Muskegon West, 4308633/Dalton
Muskegon
Muskegon, Pere Marquette-White
There should be no redistribution of these data. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of these data. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection.
Contact MNFI at (517) 373-1552
Page 13 of 16
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request November 21, 2017Print Date:
Information valid for one year.
Zizania aquatica Wild rice Vascular Plant
FEDERAL STATUS: TSTATE STATUS: GLOBAL RANK: S2S3STATE RANK:G5 LAST OBSERVED DATE: 2000-10-02
USGS TOPOQUAD MAPSHEET CODE/NAME:
COUNTY:
WATERSHED:
TOWN RANGE SECTIONS21T10NR17W
4308623/Muskegon West
Muskegon
Muskegon
There should be no redistribution of these data. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of these data. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection.
Contact MNFI at (517) 373-1552
Page 14 of 16
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request November 21, 2017Print Date:
Information valid for one year.
Enclosed is the data requested from Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI). This information is a list of Element Occurrences (EO) at the section level. In some cases, the extent of an animal's range or a community type may extend past the sections listed.
The MNFI database is an ongoing and continuously updated information base. The database is the only comprehensive single source of existing information on Michigan's endangered, threatened, or otherwise significant plant and animal species, natural plant communities, and other natural features. This database cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence, absence, or condition of the natural features in any given locality, since most sites have not been specifically or thoroughly surveyed for their occurrence. Furthermore, plant and animal populations and natural communities change with time. Therefore, the information services provided should not be regarded as a complete statement on the occurrence of special natural features of the area in question. In many cases the information may require the interpretation of a trained scientist.
The recipient(s) of the information understand that state endangered and threatened species are protected under state law (Act 451 of 1994, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Part 365, Endangered Species Protection). Any questions, observations, new findings, violations or clearance of project activities should be conducted with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Contact Lori Sargent or Todd Hogrefe at (517) 373-1263. The recipient(s) of the information understand that federally endangered and threatened species are protected under federal law (Endangered Species Act of 1973). Any questions, observations, new findings, violations or clearance of project activities should be conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in East Lansing. Their phone number is (517) 351-2555. Recipients of the information are responsible for ensuring the protection of protected species and obtaining proper clearance before project activities begin.
By acceptance of the information services made available through MNFI the recipient understands that access to the information is provided for primary use only. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of the information. There should be no redistribution of the information. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection. Additionally, since the information is constantly being updated MNFI requests that any information service provided by MNFI is destroyed upon completion of the primary use. This information should be considered valid for one year only.
This information is used to guide conservation and land management activities. Some of the element records are historical. While this information may not be important for regulatory purposes, it is important for management and restoration purposes and for scientific use.
State Protection Status Code DefinitionsE = Endangered T = Threatened SC = Special concern X = Presumed extirpated (legally 'threatened' if rediscovered)
Federal Protection Status Code DefinitionsLE = Listed endangered LT = Listed threatened LELT = Partly listed endangered and partly listed threatened PDL = Proposed delist E(S/A) = Endangered based on similarities/appearance PS = Partial status (federally listed in only part of its range) C = Species being considered for federal status
Global Heritage Status Rank DefinitionsThe priority assigned by NatureServe < http :// www . natureserve . org >'s national office for data collection and protection based upon the element's status throughout its entire world-wide range. Criteria not based only on number of occurrences; other critical factors also apply. Note that ranks are frequently combined.
G1 = Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences range-wide or very few remaining individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction. G2 = Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. G3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) in a restricted range (e.g. a single western state, a physiographic region in the East) or because of other factor(s) making it vulnerable to extinction throughout its range; in terms of occurrences, in the range of
21 to 100. G4 = Apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. G5 = Demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. GH = Of historical occurrence throughout its range, i.e. formerly part of the established biota, with the expectation that it may be rediscovered (e.g. Bachman's Warbler). GU = Possibly in peril range-wide, but status uncertain; need more information. GX = Believed to be extinct throughout its range (e.g. Passenger Pigeon with virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered). G? = Incomplete data Q = Taxonomy uncertain T = Subspecies U = Unmappable through out the global geographic extent ? = Questionable
Subnational Heritage Status Rank DefinitionsThe priority assigned by the Michigan Natural Features Inventory for data collection and protection based upon the element's status within the state. Criteria not based only on number of occurrences; other critical factors also apply. Note that ranks are frequently combined.
S1 = Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation in the state. S2 = Imperiled in state because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S3 = Rare or uncommon in state (on the order of 21 to 100 occurrences). S4 = Apparently secure in state, with many occurrences. S5 = Demonstrably secure in state and essentially ineradicable under present conditions. SA = Accidental in state, including species (usually birds or butterflies) recorded once or twice or only at very great intervals, hundreds or even thousands of miles outside their usual range. SE = An exotic established in the state; may be native elsewhere in North America (e.g. house finch or catalpa in eastern states). SH = Of historical occurrence in state and suspected to be still extant. SN = Regularly occurring, usually migratory and typically nonbreeding species. SR = Reported from state, but without persuasive documentation which would provide a basis for either accepting or rejecting the report. SRF = Reported falsely (in error) from state but this error persisting in the literature. SU = Possibly in peril in state, but status uncertain; need more information. SX = Apparently extirpated from state.
There should be no redistribution of these data. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of these data. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection.
Contact MNFI at (517) 373-1552
Page 15 of 16
Michigan Natural Features Inventory Information Request November 21, 2017Print Date:
Information valid for one year.
There should be no redistribution of these data. MNFI requests that the user respect the confidential and sensitive nature of these data. Indiscriminate distribution of information regarding locations of many rare species represents a threat to their protection.
Contact MNFI at (517) 373-1552
Page 16 of 16
Appendices Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing]
Appendices Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
Appendix D: Reference Materials
U/
G
TELE
U/
G
ELE
C
U/G T
ELE
U/G E
LEC
SAN MH
RIM 585.93
6" SSW 582.63
6" E 582.53
4" W 583.73
4" METAL
6" CLAY
6"
CLA
Y
SAN MH
(PAVED OVER)
62.7’
36.1’
2’ TELE
PANEL
A/C
UNIT1 STORY METAL BLDG
2" CONDUIT
GAS SERVICE
ELEC METER
8" ROOF DRAIN
INV. 585.73
2" CONDUIT
2" CONDUIT
TOWER
LEGS
CONC BLOCK
RET WALL
w/ FENCE
36.1’
40.2’
13.9’
26.3’
2’ FLOOR DRAIN
NO PIPES VISIBLE
(UNDER TOOL CRIB)
DOOR
DOOR
1 STORY METAL BLDG
61.6’
61.6’
36.1’
DOOR
DOOR
8.0’
5.9’
SHED
CHEMICAL
STORAGE
METAL BLDG8.
7’
6.7’
26.3’
ELEC
JUNCTION
BOXES
ELEC
JUNCTION
BOXES
TELE
CABINET
ELEC METER
w/ GAS SERVICE
BELOW
GR
AVEL P
ATH
6"X6" WOOD
RET WALL
SEA WALL
METAL HANDRAIL
WATER ELEV 577.5
2-01-11
WOOD
FENCE
ELEC
PANELS
8" ROOF DRAIN
INV. 585.23
1 STORY
BLOCK BLDG
2 STORY
FRAME BLDG
COVERED PORCH
LAKE
MIC
HIG
AN
8" CONC
ST. CURB
ELEC
TRANSFORMER
FF = 586.50
FF = 585.85
BE
AC
H STR
EET
NOAA
LAKE MICHIGAN FIELD STATION
BM
BM-1
BM
BM-2
584.9X
586.7X
585.5X
585.3X
585.8X
585.6X
585.3X
585.9X
586.5X
586.5X
583.4X
583.4X
583.7X
RIP-RAP
RIP-RAP
RIP-RAP
RIP-RAP
RIP-RAP
2" CONDUIT
ABOVE GROUND
2" CONDUIT
UNDERGROUND
EX
GAS
EX
GAS
ESTIMATED LOCATION OF
4" DUCT w/ 1-50 PAIR
OF COPPER CABLES
INSIDE.
SANITARY SERVICE
NORTH TO 2 STORY
NOT VISIBLE
COAST GUARD FACILITY
PW
PW
MUSKEGON CHANNEL
BMBM
BM
585
580
585
580
580
583
585
588
587
587
585
589
581
586
587
589
588
588
587
586
585
586
586
580
579
585
584
587
SUITE 400
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
NOAA LAKE MICHIGAN FIELD STATION
CITY OF MUSKEGON, MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN
TRANSYSTEM INC.
2400 PERSHING ROAD
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49525
Fax : (616) 364-6955
Date : 2/07/11Project No. : 2110057
Telephone : (616) 364-8491
3355 Evergreen Drive NE
OF
BY
1431 BEACH STREET
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108
FOR
N
SCALE: 1" = 20’
40’20’10’0’
= HANDRAIL
= FENCE
= SANITARY SEWER
= MANHOLE
= STORM SEWER
= FLOOR DRAIN
= U/G TELEPHONE
= U/G ELECTRICAL
= HYDRANT
1. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE BASED ON OBSERVED
EVIDENCE AS WELL AS INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE VARIOUS
UTILITY COMPANIES AND THESE LOCATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
APPROXIMATE. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
NOT SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING.
2. UTILITY INFORMATION
SANITARY SEWER CITY OF MUSKEGON
WATERMAIN
ELECTRIC
TELEPHONE
GAS
CITY OF MUSKEGON AND NOAA FURNISHED PLANS
CONSUMERS ENERGRY (MARKED IN FIELD)
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS (TELEPHONE/INTERNET)
DTE ENERGY (NOAA FURNISHED PLANS)
NOTES
= PORTABLE WATERPW
BRASS DISK SE CORNER OF CONC BASE
BM-1 EL. 585.15
TO TOWER (FLAGPOLE) 30’ WESTERLY OF
2 STORY NOAA BUILDING (1988 DATUM)
SET CHISELED \+" TOP SOUTHWEST
BM-2 EL. 585.69
CORNER OF ROUNDED METAL SEA WALL
FOR COAST GUARD & NOAA MARINA
(1988 DATUM)
3. THIS IS A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY
BY ARTHUR W. BRINTNALL P.S. 28407
PREIN&NEWHOF
4. IMAGERY SOURCE IS ESRI, USGS - 2008. PHOTOGRAPHY IS FOR REFERENCE USE
ONLY. USE UNDERLYING LINEWORK FOR DESIGN.
Appendices Draft Environmental Assessment
NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 2018
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
[Page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing]