DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR BEDDOWN AND OPERATION OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD HELICOPTER AERIAL INTERCEPT WING AT HANGAR 14 JOINT BASE ANDREWS, MARYLAND USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200 December 2020 U.S. Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit Cleveland 316th Wing CES/CEIE Joint Base Andrews, Maryland United States Air Force
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 FOR BEDDOWN AND OPERATION OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD HELICOPTER AERIAL INTERCEPT WING AT HANGAR 14 JOINT BASE ANDREWS, MARYLAND USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
December 2020
U.S. Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit Cleveland
316th Wing CES/CEIE Joint Base Andrews, Maryland United States Air Force
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
i
Table of Contents SECTION 1 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................ 1-3 1.3 Interagency / Intergovernmental Coordination and Consultations ............................. 1-7
1.3.1 Interagency Coordination and Consultations ................................................ 1-7 1.3.2 Government-to-Government Consultations .................................................. 1-7 1.3.3 Other Agency Consultations .......................................................................... 1-7
1.4 Public Review ................................................................................................................ 1-8 1.5 Decision to be Made ..................................................................................................... 1-8 1.6 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ..................................................................... 1-8
2.1.1 Beddown and Ground-Based Operations at MSF .......................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Flight Operations ............................................................................................ 2-2
2.2 Selection Standards ...................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Screening of Alternative Locations ............................................................................... 2-5
2.3.1 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Beddown and Operation of HAIW and Relocation of MSF at Hangar 14 at JBA .......................................................... 2-5
2.3.2 Alternative 2: Dulles International Airport .................................................... 2-5 2.3.3 Alternative 3: Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International
Airport ............................................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.4 Alternative 4: Manassas Regional Airport ..................................................... 2-6 2.3.5 Alternative 5: Leesburg Executive Airport ..................................................... 2-6 2.3.6 Alternative 6: Stafford Regional Airport ........................................................ 2-6
2.4 Description of the Alternatives to be Carried Forward ................................................ 2-9 2.4.1 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Beddown HAIW at Hangar 14 ................... 2-9 2.4.2 No-Action Alternative .................................................................................... 2-9
2.5 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration ................................................. 2-10 SECTION 3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .............................................................. 3-1
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
iii
5.1.1 Approach to Cumulative Impacts Analysis ..................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Cumulative Projects at JBA ............................................................................ 5-2 5.1.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis ......................................................................... 5-2 5.1.4 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Enhancement of Long-Term
Productivity .................................................................................................... 5-7 SECTION 6 List of Preparers ................................................................................................... 6-1 SECTION 7 Persons and Agencies Consulted/Coordinated ..................................................... 7-1 SECTION 8 References ........................................................................................................... 8-2 Figures Figure 1-1. Regional Location ........................................................................................................ 1-5 Figure 1-2. Hangar 14 at Joint Base Andrews ............................................................................... 1-6 Figure 2-1. Project Location and Candidate Training Facilities ..................................................... 2-8 Figure 3-1. FAA Airspace Classification ......................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2. 2020 Existing Noise Contours ................................................................................... 3-16 Figure 4-1. 2020 Proposed Noise Contours .................................................................................. 4-7 Tables Table 2-1. Screening of Alternatives ............................................................................................. 2-7 Table 3-1. Existing Daily Aircraft Operations at JBA...................................................................... 3-7 Table 3-2. Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments .............................. 3-11 Table 3-3. Lmax Associated with Direct Overflight of Based KC-135R, C-40, F-16, UH-1N, and
Proposed MH-65D ...................................................................................................... 3-13 Table 3-4. Land Area Affected by DNL Noise Levels Above 65 dB .............................................. 3-14 Table 3-5. National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Local Attainment Status ..................... 3-19 Table 3-6. Stationary-Source Emissions at JBA ........................................................................... 3-20 Table 3-7. JBA ERP Sites .............................................................................................................. 3-25 Table 3-8. On-Base Roadway Conditions and LOS ...................................................................... 3-29 Table 3-9. Off-Base Roadway Conditions and LOS ...................................................................... 3-30 Table 3-10. Population Trends .................................................................................................... 3-33 Table 3-11. Estimated Per Capita Income (2014-2018) for ROI, State, Nation ........................... 3-34 Table 4-1. Proposed Daily Aircraft Operations at JBA .................................................................. 4-2 Table 4-2. Land Area Affected by DNL Noise Levels Greater than 65 dB ..................................... 4-5 Table 4-3. Proposed Action Annual Emissions and NAAQS Thresholds........................................ 4-9 Table 5-1. Cumulative Projects at and in the Vicinity of JBA ........................................................ 5-3
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
% percent %NC fan speed %NF core engine fan speed µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 1 HS 1st Helicopter Squadron 11 WG 11th Wing 316 WG 316th Wing 4 MAW 4th Marine Aircraft Wing 89 AW 89th Airlift Wing 89 OG 89th Operations Group 113 WG 113th Wing 457 AS 457th Airlift Squadron 459 ARW 459th Air Refueling Wing 844 CG 844th Communications Group AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic ACAM Air Conformity Applicability Model ACS American Community Survey ADIZ Air Defense Identification Zone AFCEC Air Force Civil Engineer Center AFDW Air Force District Washington AFI Air Force Instruction AFMAN Air Force Manual AGE aerospace ground equipment AGL above ground level AICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use Zone ANG Air National Guard ARFF Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting AST aboveground storage tank AT/FP Anti-Terrorism / Force Protection ATC Air Traffic Control ATCAA Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace BMP best management practice BWI Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments CATEX Categorical Exclusion CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFA Controlled Firing Area CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGAS Coast Guard Air Station CO carbon monoxide CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act dB decibel
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
v
dBA A-weighted decibel DCA Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport DERA Defense Environmental Restoration Act DNL day-night average A-weighted sound level DoD Department of Defense DoDI Department of Defense Instruction dRWAI deployable Rotary Wing Air Intercept EA Environmental Assessment EHS Extremely Hazardous Substances EIAP Environmental Impact Analysis Process EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ERP Environmental Restoration Program ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulation FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise FL Flight Level FOB Forward Operating Base FOC Full Operational Capacity FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Federal Register FRZ Flight Restricted Zone GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System HAIW Helicopter Aerial Intercept Wing HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant HEF Manassas Regional Airport HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development HWMP Hazardous Waste Management Plan Hz hertz I- Interstate IAD Dulles International Airport IAP Initial Accumulation Point IBD Inhabited Building Distance IDP Installation Development Plan IFR Instrument Flight Rules ILD Intraline Distance ILS Instrument Landing System IMD Intermagazine Distance INM FAA Integrated Noise Model IR instrument route IRP Installation Restoration Program ITLO Installation Tribal Liaison Officer JBA Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility Washington JBAI Joint Base Andrews Instruction JYO Leesburg Executive Airport
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
vi
Lmax maximum noise level LOS level of service LTOs landing take-off training sorties MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MDE Maryland Department of the Environment MDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources MMRP Military Munitions Response Program MOA Memorandum of Agreement MSF Mission Support Facility MSL mean sea level MTR Military Training Route MWR morale, welfare, and recreation NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAFW Naval Air Facility Washington NAS National Airspace System NAVAID navigation aid Navy U.S. Navy NCPC National Capital Planning Commission NCR National Capital Region NCRADF National Capital Region Air Defense Facility NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NM nautical miles NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOA Notice of Availability NORAD North American Aerospace Defense Command NVG Night-vision Goggle O3 ozone Pb lead PCA Positive Control Area PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in size POL petroleum, oils, and lubricants ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million PTRD Public Transit Route Distance QD Quantity-Distance RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RMN Stafford Regional Airport RNAV Area Navigation ROI region of influence RWAI Rotary Wing Air Intercept
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
vii
SCIF Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility SEL A-weighted Sound Exposure Level SFRA Special Flight Rules Area SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SO2 sulfur dioxide SUA Special Use Airspace SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TDY Temporary Duty Travel TEMP Terminal Instrument Procedures TIM Time in Mode tpy tons per year TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control USAF U.S. Air Force USC U.S. Code USCG U.S. Coast Guard USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USMC U.S. Marine Corps UST underground storage tank VFR Visual Flight Rules VMR Andrews U.S. Marine Corps Transport Squadron Andrews VOC volatile organic compound vph vehicles per hour vphpl vehicles per hour per lane VR visual route W- Warning Area
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 1-1
SECTION 1
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility Washington (JBA) is a 6.9-square-mile installation located in
unincorporated Prince George’s County, Maryland, approximately 4.5 miles southeast of Washington, DC.
The U.S. Air Force (USAF) 316th Wing (316 WG) serves as the host unit at JBA and is responsible for the
facilities on the base. (The 316th Wing was activated on 11 June 2020, becoming the host wing for JBA
and taking on the Airmen and units of the 11th Wing [11 WG].) The 89th Airlift Wing (89 AW) is a tenant
unit at JBA; however, the 89th Operations Group (89 OG) is responsible for airfield operations at JBA.
Other tenant units include: the Air Force District of Washington (AFDW), 844th Communications Group
(459 ARW) of the USAF Reserve Command, 113th Wing (113 WG) of the District of Columbia Air National
Guard (ANG), U.S. Army Priority Air Transportation, Naval Air Facility Washington DC, 4th Marine Aircraft
Wing (4 MAW) – Marine Transport Squadron Andrews of the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC), and Fleet Logistics
Support Squadrons One and Five Three of the U.S. Navy (Navy), Department of Energy, Defense
Intelligence Agency, Maryland State Police Aviation Command, and Civil Air Patrol.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Air Station Atlantic City, NJ operates the National Capital Region Air Defense
Facility (NCRADF) using MH-65D “Dolphin” helicopters to accomplish the Rotary Wing Air Intercept
(RWAI) mission. The NCR RWAI mission includes visual identification of low, slow-moving, aerial targets
that have entered restricted airspace established by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) above
the National Capital Region (NCR) and enforced by the North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD). In addition to the existing NCR RWAI mission, USCG also supports the deployable RWAI (dRWAI)
mission, where USCG aircraft temporarily relocate to provide air intercept outside the NCR. The USCG
HAIW oversees two facilities that support the NCR RWAI mission: 1) the NCRADF; 2) the Mission Support
Facility (MSF). The existing hangar for the NCR RWAI mission is located at Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport (DCA), established in 2006 via a lease agreement with the local Airport Authorities. The
existing MSF for the NCR RWAI mission is located at Coast Guard Air Station (CGAS) Atlantic City.
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 1-2
CGAS Atlantic City operates MH-65D Dolphin aircraft: at least three of these aircraft are at the NCRADF.
The remaining aircraft are located at CGAS Atlantic City for maintenance and pilot proficiency training.
The HAIW will include pilots, aviation maintenance personnel, and support personnel (including
civilians/contractors). Pilots and aviation maintenance personnel operate the aircraft at the NCRADF and
rotate from CGAS Atlantic City to the NCRADF on a “temporary duty status” to staff the NCR RWAI
mission. Ferrying personnel between the NCRADF and CGAS Atlantic City – a distance of 184 miles –
routinely requires approximately 4 hours one-way in regular traffic with significant increases during
holidays or inclement weather. Once at the NCRADF, in addition to response missions, the pilots
conduct training.
The USCG proposes to relocate the existing MSF to Hangar 14 at JBA and beddown up to 7 aircraft for
maintenance and pilot proficiency training. The proposed relocation of the MSF would reduce transit
times and costs related to the movement of aircraft and personnel between CGAS Atlantic City and the
NCRADF (see Section 1.2, Purpose and Need). Hangar 14 is located along the airfield of JBA.
(see Figure 2).
Hangar 14 is currently occupied by USMC
Transport Squadron Andrews (VMR Andrews),
which permanently occupies approximately
27,400 square feet (SF) (i.e., 20 percent) of the
hangar, and the 113 WG, which has been
temporarily relocated during renovations to
their existing hangar south of Hangar 14 in the
East Operations District. The facilities in Hangar
14 consist of the hangar deck, offices,
warehouse area, and ancillary spaces (e.g.,
breakrooms, restrooms, etc.).
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been
prepared to evaluate potential environmental
Hangar 14 is located on the airfield of JBA. This hangar would provide office space and support and maintenance facilities for up to 7 MH-65D Dolphin Helicopters to support the NCR RWAI mission.
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 1-3
impacts of the proposed relocation and operation of the USCG HAIW MSF at JBA.1 The EA complies with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S. Code [USC] §§4331 et seq.), the regulations
of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that implement NEPA procedures (40 Code of
Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508). Further, because the USCG would be a tenant of the USAF at
JBA, the EA is being prepared in accordance with USAF Environmental Impact Assessment Process
Regulations codified at 32 CFR Part 989, and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7061 as promulgated in 32 CFR
Part 989, Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP).
The information presented in this document will serve as the basis for deciding whether the Proposed
Action would result in a potentially significant impact to the human environment, requiring the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or whether no significant impacts would occur,
in which case a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be appropriate.
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED
Currently, USCG RWAI personnel are
temporarily assigned from one of four home
locations (CGAS Atlantic City, Savannah,
Detroit, or New Orleans) to the NCRADF.
Personnel retain their home base at those
locations, and all maintenance and support
activities occur at those locations rather than
The MH-65D Dolphin is a twin-engine helicopter capable of operating from land or flight deck- equipped USCG cutters.
at NCRADF. Ferrying personnel between the NCRADF and the MSF at CGAS Atlantic City – a distance of
184 miles – routinely requires approximately 4 hours one-way in regular traffic with significant increases
during holidays or inclement weather resulting in substantial annual recurring Temporary Duty Travel
(TDY) expenditures. The proposed relocation of the existing MSF to Hangar 14 at JBA would reduce the
distance between the MSF and the NCRADF from 184 miles to 10 miles, reducing personnel and aircraft
transit times between mission facilities. It is anticipated that reaching Full Operational Capacity (FOC) for
the NCR RWAI mission would eliminate requirements for personnel and aircraft from other USCG air
stations.
1 A NEPA-compliant Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) A2.3.8 was prepared to address interior renovations to Hangar 14, per 32 CFR 989 (USAF 2019). Physical modifications to the Hangar 14 structure would include interior and exterior renovations within the 5-foot line of the structure as well as the abatement of asbestos, lead, hexavalent chromium, and seismic retrofit.
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 1-4
RWAI pilots assigned to CGAS Atlantic City currently average 15-17 flight hours per month, below the
USCG Air Operations Manual (2018) recommended a minimum of 20-25 hours per month. Additionally,
aircrews assigned to the RWAI mission average 120 deployed days per year beyond standard duty
rotations at CGAS Atlantic City. The Proposed Action is needed to increase permanent personnel and
aircraft associated with the RWAI mission, reduce annual recurring TDY expenditures, and increase pilot
proficiency.
Purpose Statement. The purpose of the beddown and creation of the USCG HAIW, including the
relocation of the MSF to Hangar 14 at JBA, is to reach FOC of the RWAI mission by providing a
permanent MSF with assigned pilots, aviation maintenance and support personnel, and dedicated MH-
65D Dolphin aircraft within the NCR. The NCR RWAI mission has existed at initial operating capability
since its inception in 2006, and achieving FOC would allow the USCG to create a center of excellence for
this mission, freeing up personnel at Air Stations Atlantic City, Savannah, Detroit, and New Orleans to
return to a single mission focus. (See Section 2.3, Proposed Action and Alternatives, for a more detailed
description of the Proposed Action.) Impact analyses for the Proposed Action and its alternatives are
presented in Section 4, Environmental Consequences.
Need Statement. The need for the proposed beddown at Hangar 14 at JBA stems from the expanded
demand for RWAI and dRWAI in support of inter-agency partners. The geographic separation of the
NCRADF and the existing MSF at CGAS Atlantic City results in transit delays and costs associated with
rotating crews and aircraft between the NCRADF and the MSF. Further, CGAS Atlantic City currently
offers inadequate space for training, aircraft maintenance, warehouse storage, administrative areas, and
community services. Space constraints require aircraft and ground support equipment to be stored
outside on the ramp, exposed to the weather, degrading the aircraft and equipment’s integrity. Under
the Proposed Action, the entirety of operations and maintenance supporting all RWAI/dRWAI
missions would be located at the MSF within the NCR Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA). Additionally, all five
resulting air stations (HAIW, Atlantic City, Savannah, New Orleans, and Detroit) would return aircrews to
a single-mission focus, increasing flight safety and mission proficiency.
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 1-7
1.3 INTERAGENCY / INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND CONSULTATIONS
1.3.1 Interagency Coordination and Consultations
Per the requirements of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (42 USC §4231[a]) and Executive
Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, Federal, state, and local agencies with
jurisdiction that could be affected by the Proposed Action were notified during the development of this
EA (see Appendix A). Consultation regarding potential impacts of the Proposed Action was also initiated
with the following agencies: Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Maryland State
Clearinghouse Office of Planning, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), Prince George’s
County Department of Planning, National Capital Parks-East, and National Capital Planning Commission
(NCPC). JBA did not coordinate with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) because no marine
resources will be impacted by implementation of the Proposed Action.
1.3.2 Government-to-Government Consultations
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and its implementing regulations (36 CFR
Part 800), requires Federal agencies to consult with interested federally recognized Native American tribal
governments whose interests might be directly and substantially affected by activities on federally
administered lands. Consistent with EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 4710.02, Interactions with Federally-Recognized
Tribes, and AFI 90-2002, Air Force Interaction with Federally-Recognized Tribes, federally recognized
Native American tribes that are historically affiliated with lands in the vicinity of JBA have been invited to
consult on all proposed undertakings that have a potential to affect properties of cultural, historical, or
religious significance to the tribes (see Appendix B). The tribal consultation process is distinct from NEPA
consultation or the interagency coordination process, and it requires separate notification of all relevant
tribes. The timelines for tribal consultation are also distinct from those of other consultations. The 316 WG
Tribal Liaison Officer is the point-of-contact (i.e., Installation Tribal Liaison Officer [ITLO]) for government-
to-government consultation with appropriate Native American tribes.
1.3.3 Other Agency Consultations
Per the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA and implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) a finding
of effect and request for concurrence have been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) by the 316 WG (see Appendix A). Because the Proposed Action is located within Maryland’s Coastal
PM10 Primary and Secondary 24-hourh (µg/m3) 150 Attainment
Note: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion a. Not to be exceeded more than once per year; b. 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years; c. Annual mean; d. Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentrations, averaged over 3 years; e. 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years; f. 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years, g. Annual mean, averaged over 3 years; h. Not to be exceeded more than once per year, on average over 3 years
Source: USEPA 2016.
3.3.2.3 Climate
JBA’s geographic location near the eastern seaboard provides for a humid subtropical climate where
winters are cold but short and summers are long, warm, and humid (11 WG 2018). Based on data collected
between 1943 and 2016, the average annual temperature at JBA is 57°F, ranging from a minimum of 49°F
to a maximum of 66°F. The record high temperature is 105°F and the record low is -7°F. The warmest
months of the year are May through September, with average temperatures in the mid- to high-70s and
80s. The coldest months of the year are December, January, and February when the average annual
temperature remains in the 40s (USAF 2018).
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 3-20
JBA receives an average annual rainfall of 42.4 inches and the average annual snowfall at JBA is 19.2
inches, with snowfall recorded during every month from October through April. Winter ice storms are
common in the area, which can be particularly disruptive to road travel and flight operations. Freezing
rain occurs on average 4 days annually, during the months of January, February, and March. These
conditions are sufficiently severe to require de-icing capability at the airfield (USAF 2018).
3.3.2.4 Existing Emissions at JBA
Air emissions at JBA originate from two sources, stationary and mobile emissions sources. Stationary
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 3-21
Mobile emission sources at JBA include: on- and off-road vehicles and equipment, Aerospace Ground
Equipment (AGE), and aircraft operations. JBA is a busy aircraft operations hub, averaging 310 daily flight
operations (Table 3-1) for the U.S. military and includes a wide variety of aircraft and associated emissions,
including cargo transport, fighter jets, and large personnel transport aircraft along with limited rotary-
wing aircraft. The installation currently emits HAPs during operational activities, which include storing
fuel, using paints, and running generators. However, with respect to NESHAP and Urban Air Toxics
regulations, JBA is considered to be an Area source, as it is not a Major source with the potential to emit
10 tpy or more of a single HAP. Consequently, the NESHAP program developed for major
industrial/manufacturing categories does not apply to the base.
3.4 LAND USE
3.4.1 Definition of Resource
Land use can be separated into two primary categories: natural and human modified. Natural land cover
includes woodlands, rangelands, grasslands, and other open or undeveloped areas. Human modified land
uses include residential, commercial, industrial, communications and utilities, agricultural, institutional,
recreational, and generally other areas developed from natural land cover conditions. Land use is
regulated by management plans, policies, regulations, and ordinances that determine the type and extent
of land use allowable in specific areas along with protecting specially designated or environmentally
sensitive areas.
3.4.2 Existing Conditions
JBA encompasses 6.9 square miles and is located in unincorporated Prince George’s County, Maryland
approximately 4.5 miles southeast of Washington, DC. Located on the Capital Beltway (I-495),
communities surrounding the base are part of the greater Washington, DC metropolitan area and include
Morningside, Forestville, Westphalia, Woodyard, Clinton, and Camp Springs. Land use on JBA is
characterized by past and ongoing development with much of the existing land area previously disturbed
by construction consisting of impervious surfaces including airfields, hangars, offices, parking lots, and
other structures and uses typical of a fully developed military installation.
Within JBA, a variety of land uses can be found that are typical of military installations across all service
branches. The three largest land uses at JBA include airfield, open space, and outdoor recreation. In
general, the base is divided by the airfield, which is oriented in a north-south direction. Beyond the airfield
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 3-22
to the west, most land is dedicated to morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) facilities with limited
industrial uses located in the northwest section of the base. The primary MWR land uses on the western
half of the base consist of housing and community support services, a golf course, and a medical center.
Beyond the airfield to the east, land use primarily supports airfield operations and includes administrative
and industrial facilities.
JBA’s 2016 Installation Development Plan (IDP; USAF 2016) divided JBA into nine planning districts, which
include:
1. Airfield
2. West Operations
3. East Operations
4. Industrial
5. Training
6. Historic Residential
7. Administrative and Support
8. Residential
9. Recreation
Of the nine JBA planning districts, Hangar 14 is located in the East Operations District adjacent to the East
Airfield where USCG HAIW training sorties would take off from and land.
Planning District 1, Airfield, is characterized by two parallel runways, associated taxiways, ramps, aprons,
and a hazardous cargo pad. District 1 is classified as a common shared utility area for all mission partners
at the base, as the West Operations, East Operations, and Industrial Districts host unique facilities and
infrastructure to provide direct support for each specific mission partner.
Planning District 3, East Operations, focuses on flightline operations and airfield missions including the
459 ARW, 113 WG, and Naval Air Facility Washington (NAFW) units. The 459 ARW area consists mainly of
hangar and aircraft support facilities. The 113 WG area includes a maintenance hangar, aircraft shelters,
squadron operations, storage, and maintenance support facilities. Within the NAFW area there are a
mixture of hangars, administrative support, squadron operations, and storage. The current layout and
facilities in District 3 have led to constraints on parking, personnel, and hangar space due to needed facility
upgrades. For example, adequate parking spaces and accessibility are not available on drill weekends,
vehicle circulation is constrained, and several existing hangars are not an adequate size to accommodate
larger airframes.
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 3-23
Hangar 14 is currently unoccupied with the exception of approximately a quarter of the facility, which is
utilized by the USMC as a tenant of the USAF-owned facility. The existing and future land use of the
Hangar 14 project site is categorized as Aircraft Operations and Maintenance as depicted in the current
JBA IDP (USAF 2016).
3.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES
3.5.1 Definition of Resource
The term hazardous materials refers to substances defined as hazardous by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the term hazardous waste refers
to wastes defined as hazardous by the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Hazardous materials are substances that, because of their quality,
concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, could present substantial danger to
public health or the environment when released into the environment.
Under 40 CFR Part 261, hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA are defined as solid, liquid, contained
gaseous, semisolid waste, or any combination of wastes that either are listed or exhibit one or more of
the hazardous characteristics. Petroleum products—including petroleum-based fuels, oils, and their
wastes—are not covered under CERCLA but might be covered under RCRA.
Issues associated with hazardous materials and wastes typically center on waste streams; underground
storage tanks (USTs); above ground storage tanks (ASTs); and the storage, transport, use, and disposal of
pesticides, fuels, lubricants, and other industrial substances. Implementation and operation of the
Proposed Action would raise issues related to hazardous materials and waste management Environmental
Restoration Program (ERP) sites and are examined further in this EA.
3.5.2 Existing Conditions
Activities on JBA require the use of hazardous materials and result in the generation of hazardous wastes,
and as such the base is regulated as a hazardous waste generator under Subtitle C of RCRA and its
amendments. JBA is responsible for the acquisition, use, storage, and ultimate disposal of hazardous
materials, including hazardous materials primarily associated with aircraft operations. Primary types of
hazardous wastes generated at JBA include batteries, solvents, used fuel, petroleum, oils, and lubricants
(POLs), paints, deicing fluid, fluorescent bulbs, rags, fuel filters, and solvent-contaminated solids. These
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 3-24
materials could adversely impact surface water and groundwater resources should they enter any of those
resource areas. JBA must comply with various water quality requirements and regulations, including the
Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater program;
the Maryland Stormwater Management Guidelines for State and Federal Projects; the Energy
Independence Security Act (Section 438): EO 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration;
Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load requirements; the Maryland Watershed Implementation Plan;
and an installation-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
JBA does not store hazardous wastes on-site beyond the 90-day period which would require the base to
secure a Hazardous Waste Storage Permit. Additionally, JBA does not treat or dispose of hazardous wastes
on-site and a permit for treatment or disposal of hazardous waste is not held by the base. However, as a
hazardous waste generator, JBA must properly identify its hazardous waste streams, collect and
temporarily store hazardous waste in compliance with RCRA rules, ensure hazardous waste is taken off-
site by haulers licensed to transport hazardous waste pursuant to 49 USC §§5101 et seq., and that
hazardous waste is taken to a permitted treatment or disposal facility.
Hazardous waste is accumulated at 56 locations on base, most of which are Initial Accumulation Points
(IAPs) located throughout JBA (USAF 2017). Whenever the quantity of hazardous waste at an IAP reaches
55 gallons (or solids fill a 55-gallon container), it is transported to a designated central hazardous waste
storage area. Hazardous waste is removed from the hazardous waste storage area on JBA and disposed
of by licensed private contractors no less frequently than every 90 days (USAF 2017). In addition to the
hazardous wastes, universal wastes, or wastes that would otherwise be considered hazardous waste if
not recycled, are generated by JBA operations. Universal wastes that is not recycled reverts to hazardous
waste status.
Solid waste containers are serviced regularly at JBA. In addition to typical solid waste, operations and
maintenance activities also result in the generation of industrial non-hazardous waste which is collected
and tracked in a manner similar to hazardous waste and universal waste.
Consistent with federal guidance and the Prince George’s County Comprehensive Ten-Year Solid Waste
Management Plan, 2012–2022 (Prince George’s County 1997), JBA strives to minimize solid waste
generated on the base and operates a recycling program that diverts 54 percent of the solid waste
generated on base and 85 percent of the construction and demolition debris generated on base from
disposal (Michael Baker International 2015).
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 3-25
Environmental Restoration Program Sites
As of March 2015, 153.7 acres, or 4% of the land area at JBA, are designated ERP sites (USAF 2016),
including a total of 60 ERP sites, of which 29 sites have achieved No Further Remedial Action Planned
(NFRAP) status and six are Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) sites (USAF 2016).
AFI 32-7020, The Environmental Restoration Program, provides guidance and procedures for executing
the USAF ERP within the U.S. The JBA ERP includes sites from the Installation Restoration Program (IRP)
and the MMRP, both of which are funded through the Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA)
to fulfill the requirements of AFI 32-7020. These investigation and cleanup activity areas include spill sites,
former fire training areas, former landfills, storage tank sites, a sludge disposal area, areas where
munitions were used, and solid waste management units. Sites at JBA are at varying stages of
investigation, cleanup, and closeout. Table 3-8 below provides a brief summary of ERP sites in the vicinity
of the Proposed Action.
Table 3-7. JBA ERP Sites
Name Description Phase1 ECOP Category2
LF-05 Leroy’s Lane Landfill LTM 5 SA-056 Boston Avenue Storage Area NFA 2 SS-13 POL Storage Yard Spill SC 2 SS-22 Hangar 13 Navy Area RA 2 SS-26 Former Hangar 15 FS 6 SS-721 Outdoor Fuel Cell Storage Area
SC 2
ST-08 UST Leak - MOGAS - Government Refueling Station LTM 2 ST-14 East Side Service Station Tank Site RA 5 SWMU-12 District of Columbia Air National Guard Motor Pool
Waste Oil UST 3227 RI 7
SWMU-56 Civil Engineering Storage Yard near Building 3459 RI 7 TU-139 Contaminated Soil Site at UST, Building 3139 SC 2 TU-167 UST at Building 3167 PA/SI 2 TU-214 UST at Building 3214 PA/SI 2
1Phase: ECOP – Environmental Condition of Property FS – Feasibility Study LTM – Long Term Monitoring NFA – No Further Action RA – Remedial Action SC – Site Closure SI – Site Investigation PA – Preliminary Assessment
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 3-26
RI – Remedial Investigation 2The seven ECOP categories are applied IAW AFI 32-7066 standard environmental condition categories: Category 1: An area or real property where no storage, release, or disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum products or their derivatives has occurred into the environment or structures or disposed on the subject property (including no migration of these substances from adjacent properties). Category 2: An area or real property where only the release or disposal of petroleum products or their derivatives has occurred. Category 3: An area or real property where release, disposal, or migration or some combination thereof, of hazardous substances has occurred, but at concentrations that do not require a removal or remedial action. Category 4: An area or real property where release, disposal, or migration, or some combination thereof, of hazardous substances has occurred, and all remedial actions necessary to protect human health and the environmental have been taken. Category 5: An area or real property where release, disposal, or migration, or some combination thereof, of hazardous substances has occurred and removal or remedial actions or both, are under way, but all required actions have not yet been taken. Category 6: An area or real property where release, disposal, or migration or some combination thereof, of hazardous substances has occurred, but required response actions have not yet been initiated. Category 7: An area or real property that is unevaluated or requires additional evaluation.
3.6 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
3.6.1 Definition of Resource
Transportation and circulation refer to the movement of vehicles throughout a road and highway
network. Primary roads are principal arterials, such as major interstates, designed to move traffic and not
necessarily provide access to all adjacent areas. Secondary roads are arterials such as rural routes and
major surface streets, which provide access to residential and commercial areas, hospitals, schools, and
military installations. Other transportation modalities include commuter bus and rail as well as air travel.
3.6.2 Existing Conditions
JBA is located 5 miles southeast of Washington, DC. The primary roadway providing regional access to JBA
and the surrounding communities is I-95/495, the “Capital Beltway,” located along the west side of the
base. Other, smaller highways and local roadways provide direct access to the base. Transportation and
circulation within JBA is achieved via internal road and street networks.
3.6.2.1 On-Base Transportation
Access to and from JBA is regulated by five entry-control facilities including: Main Gate, Pearl Harbor Gate,
North Gate, Virginia Gate, Maryland Gate, and West Gate. Of these, Main Gate serves as the primary
entrance and exit point of the base and processes the most vehicles per day (USAF 2016). The existing
capacity of access gates present no constraints to future development and existing conditions present
minor constraints (Gannett Fleming 2009, 2013; USAF 2016, 2010).
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 3-27
There is a total of 101 miles of paved roads within JBA, not including vehicular travel lanes associated with
the active airfield and taxiways. These roads provide access to administrative, operations, housing,
industrial, medical, recreation, and airfield areas. Based on the most recent evaluation available, the
overall pavement condition of roads and parking lots on JBA is adequate, and the majority are in good
condition (USAF 2016). The base’s roadway network generally forms a series of east-west and north-south
roads bounded by the perimeter roads (North, East, South, and West Perimeter roads) which are the
primary roadways within the JBA boundary that carry and distribute traffic throughout the base. In total,
these four primary perimeter roads form a two-lane, 8.2-mile loop around the base.
Hangar 14 is located off East Perimeter Road and is accessible via Main, Pearl Harbor, and North Gates.
Main Gate is operated 7 days per week, 24 hours per day, and is accessible from MD 337 via Robert M.
Bond Road, and accounts for over 90% of vehicles accessing JBA. Pearl Harbor Gate is operated 7 days per
week, 24 hours per day, is accessible from Dower House Road via Pennsylvania Avenue, and is the only
gate used for commercial traffic as well as serving as a primary access to the east side of the base. North
Gate is accessible from the north via Suitland Parkway; however, North Gate is not currently utilized. All
gate access hours may be altered as needed in response to local or global events.
Main Gate
Main Gate, located at the northeast area of the base, is typically
accessible 24 hours a day but hours may be altered in response to local
and global events, as needed. Main Gate is the primary access point for
JBA. Main Gate receives the greatest A.M. peak-hour demand of all
gates on base at 1,181 vehicles (USAF 2016). Main Gate operates at a
capacity that would not constrain future development and has excess
capacity during peak A.M. hours. Processing rate of Main Gate is 1,400
vehicles per hour (vph) with a headroom of 219 vph.
Although it has adequate capacity, Main Gate does not meet AT/FP
requirements per UFC 4010-01, resulting in a degraded condition rating
(USAF 2016). However, design projects that would improve the
configuration of the Main Gate were included in the JBA IDP’s list of
necessary projects and would improve traffic flow and security conditions (USAF 2016).
The JBA Main Gate is accessible 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 3-28
Pearl Harbor Gate
Pearl Harbor Gate provides direct access to the eastern end of the base. While specific data on vehicle
processing rate, peak-hour demand, and headroom are not available for Pearl Harbor Gate – which
experiences delays when the commercial traffic cannot be processed fast enough – the general capacity
of all gates on base is considered sufficient and physical conditions are considered good (USAF 2016).
Redesign, repair, and reconstruction of Pearl Harbor Gate was included in the JBA IDP’s list of short-
range (1-5 years) projects and would include improved traffic flow for both personal and commercial
vehicles (USAF 2016).
North Gate
North Gate is currently out of service. When in use, the standard North Gate processing rate is 350 vehicles
per hour per lane (vphpl) when single processing (one guard per lane). The two lanes at the North Gate
are sufficient to meet vehicle demand with a single processing system in place (Gannett Fleming 2009).
However, North Gate does not meet AT/FP requirements per UFC 4010-01, resulting in a degraded
condition rating. Improvements to North Gate to meet AT/FP requirements have been identified as a
planning constraint but no specific capital improvement project has been identified (USAF 2016).
Roadways and Intersections
The existing capacity and conditions of the on-base roadway network are considered satisfactory and do
not present constraints to future development (USAF 2016). Vehicles accessing Hangar 14 from Pearl
Harbor Gate would travel Pearl Harbor Drive before turning right (i.e., northbound) onto East Perimeter
Road. Vehicles accessing Hangar 14 from North Gate would travel south from Patrick/Fetchet Avenue to
East Perimeter Road.
Level of service (LOS) is a measure of the operational conditions on a roadway or at an intersection. LOS
ranges from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (i.e., free flow, little delay) and
LOS F representing the worst conditions (i.e., congestion, long delays). LOS A, B, or C is typically considered
a good operating condition. A roadway congested during peak traffic periods would be represented with
a LOS D, E, or F.
Table 3-9 lists on-base roadways and intersections near the proposed site and in the area, their morning
and evening peak hour traffic volumes, and their estimated existing LOS.
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 3-29
Table 3-8. On-Base Roadway Conditions and LOS
Intersection A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volume
P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
A.M. LOS P.M. LOS
East Perimeter Road and Pearl Harbor Drive
590 507 B B
North Perimeter Road and Patrick Avenue
953 791 B A
Fetchet Avenue and East Perimeter Road
864 691 C D
Parking
JBA includes approximately 80,000 square feet of facility parking space on base (USCG 2019). One
measure used to determine adequacy of parking capacity is that lots should not be more than 90% full.
Parking utilization on JBA is typically 60% during daytime hours and 53% during evening hours. Parking
areas are present outside of and adjacent to Hangar 14. An automated security fence surrounds the
perimeter of the parking lot adjacent to Hangar 14, involving a “double gate” system where vehicles
entering and exiting the parking lot must wait for the first gate to close behind them before proceeding
through the second gate, a process that can take anywhere between 30 seconds to 1 minute per vehicle.
3.6.2.2 Off-Base Transportation
Roadways and Intersections
The Capital Beltway (I-95/I-495) is located along the northwest side of the base and serves as the principal
highway providing access to and from the base at three interchanges in proximity to the base: Branch
The following roadways are located along or in proximity to the perimeter of JBA: Suitland Parkway
(MD 337) and Forestville Road to the north; Marlboro Pike and Dower House Road to the east; Allentown
Road to the west; and Old Alexandria Ferry Road and Woodyard Road (MD 223) to the south. These roads
connect the base to regional arterial highways, as well as adjacent properties and neighborhoods.
To access Pearl Harbor Gate, vehicles exit from Pennsylvania Avenue (MD 4) to Dower House Road and
travel south before turning onto Pearl Harbor Drive. To access North Gate, vehicles exit from Suitland
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 3-30
Parkway (MD 337). Table 3-10 lists off-base roadways and intersections near the proposed site and in the
area, their morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes, and their estimated existing LOS.
Table 3-9. Off-Base Roadway Conditions and LOS
Intersection
A.M. Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
Mid-Day Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
P.M. Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
A.M. LOS P.M. LOS
Suitland Parkway and Pennsylvania Avenue 6,576 -- 6,520 F F
Pennsylvania Avenue and Dower House Road 5,072 -- 1,927
Pennsylvania Avenue NB: F
Pennsylvania Avenue NB: C
Pennsylvania Avenue SB: A
Pennsylvania Avenue SB: A
Dower House Road and Pearl Harbor Drive 585 -- 851 B D
Note: LOS ratings derived from 2009 TMP and represent conditions prior to improvements suggested under TMP were made. Roadway conditions and LOS may have been improved since surveyed.
United States 309,300,000 328,239,523 359,400,000 9.49 percent Note: Prince George’s County Total Civilian Labor force is approximately 504,423 persons. The total population includes non-civilian personnel.
Source: US Census Bureau 2019; Maryland Department of Commerce 2019.
JBA is bordered by a highly urbanized area to the west and a semirural area to the east that is transitioning
to suburban residential and commercial zones as the population continues to expand. Communities in the
vicinity of JBA include Forestville and Morningside to the north and northwest, Camp Springs to the west,
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 3-34
Clinton to the south, and Rosaryville to the southeast and east (The Maryland-National Capital Park and
Planning Commission 2020). The population of communities around JBA in recent years has grown and
projections indicate this trend will continue. Immediately adjacent to the northeast boundary of JBA is a
major new development, Westphalia, which has projected the construction of 15,000 new residential
units as well as a town center including park space, offices, retail, and entertainment spaces to be built-
out over a 30-year period.
The urbanized setting of the ROI included 333,862 housing units in 2018 and a median gross rent from
2014-2018 of $1,434 (US Census Bureau 2019). Housing occupancy was at 306,694 units from 2013 to
2017, so the ROI has approximately 8 percent of housing units available for occupancy. A healthy vacancy
rate for a county is approximately 7 to 8 percent (The City Lab 2018).
3.8.2.2 Employment, Industry, and Income
The ROI is in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area, which generally experiences a robust economy and
sustained growth. JBA is the second-largest employer in the ROI (behind only the University System of
Maryland), employing approximately 26,709 USAF and Navy personnel (Maryland Department of
Commerce 2016; 2019). In 2016, JBA contributed an estimated economic impact of $4.5 billion to the local
economy and employment compensation of $1.4 billion.
In 2019, the annual average unemployment rate in the ROI was 3.2 percent, lower than Maryland (4.9
percent) and the nation (3.4 percent) (US Department of Labor 2020). The ROI from 2018 to 2019
experienced Maryland’s largest decline of unemployment (0.5 percent). Between 2010 and 2019, the
unemployment rate in the ROI remained steady.
Per capita personal income in the ROI from 2014 to 2018 was $35,869, in comparison to the statewide
average of $40,517, and national average of $33,706 (Table 3-12) (US Census Bureau 2019; The Balance
2019).
Table 3-11. Estimated Per Capita Income (2014-2018) for ROI, State, Nation
Geographic Area Prince George’s County Maryland United States Per Capita Income $35,869 $40,517 $33,760 Source: US Census Bureau 2019; The Balance 2019.
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 3-35
3.8.2.3 Recreation
JBA has a number of indoor and outdoor recreation and service facilities as part of the base’s MWR
program. Indoor facilities include the Community Activities Center, Youth Center, Child Development
Center, fitness centers, Commissary, and Base Exchange. Outdoor facilities include golf courses,
playgrounds, a lake, swimming pool, tennis courts, basketball courts, and sports fields. The majority of the
recreational facilities are centrally located in the western portion of JBA; however, the golf courses and
lake recreation are in the south/southwestern portion of the base.
3.8.2.4 Police, Fire, and Medical Services
JBA is a limited access facility with its own force protection, law enforcement, fire protection, and health
care services. The primary mission of the JBA 316th Security Forces Squadron is to provide police services
and force protection to the base and to the President of the U.S., U.S. senior leaders, and visiting
dignitaries. The Andrews Fire and Emergency Service employs over 75 civilian and military personnel and
provides services including but not limited to structural firefighting, emergency medical services, natural
disaster response, and fire prevention public education (JBA 2020b).
3.8.2.5 Protection of Children
As children may suffer disproportionately from environmental health risks and safety risks, EO 13045,
Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks, was introduced in 1997 to prioritize
the identification and assessment of environmental health risks and safety risks that may affect children
and to ensure that Federal agencies’ policies, programs, activities, and standards address environmental
health risk and safety risks to children. Data used for the environmental justice and protection of children
analyses were collected from 2014-2018, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Schools and day care centers are locations where the potential for a child to be exposed to environmental
health risks is increased because higher concentrations of children are located in one place during the
day. The ROI includes 190 public schools (121 elementary, 36 middle school/combined, 24 high school,
and 9 charter) (Maryland Department of Commerce 2019). JBA includes a base Child Development Center
and Education & Training Center.
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 4-1
SECTION 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Potential environmental impacts that could result from implementing the Proposed Action or
No-Action Alternative are identified and evaluated in this section. The resource areas analyzed in
detail are listed in Section 1.6, Scope of the Environmental Assessment. In contrast, resources that
would incur no impacts or negligible impacts with implementing the Proposed Action or No-
Action Alternative are not examined in further detail. Resources evaluated are presented
below in the same order described in Section 3, Affected Environment.
As described in Section 2, Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives, the Proposed
Action includes the beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW and relocation of its MSF from
CGAS Atlantic City to Hangar 14 at JBA. No physical alterations to Hangar 14 or any part of the
project site are included in the Proposed Action beyond those analyzed under a CATEX previously
issued for those actions. Alternatives to the Proposed Action were considered; however, none of
these alternatives would satisfy the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action and, therefore,
were not carried forward for further analysis. Nevertheless, because CEQ regulations stipulate
that the No-Action Alternative must be analyzed to assess any environmental consequences
that may occur if the Proposed Action is not implemented, the No-Action Alternative has
been carried forward for analysis and provides a baseline against which the Proposed Action can
be compared. (Because any impacts realized at CGAS Atlantic City would be beneficial – except
for negligibly adverse socioeconomics impacts – no detailed impact evaluation was conducted for
this location.)
CEQ regulations (40 CFR §1508.27) specify that significance should be determined in relationship
to both context and intensity (i.e., severity). The assessment of potential impacts and the
determination of their significance is based on the requirements of 40 CFR §1508.27. Three
levels of impact have been identified:
• No impact – No short- or long-term impacts would occur,
• Less than significant impact – A short- or long-term impact would occur, but the impact
would not meet the context and intensity significance criteria for the resources, and
• Significant impact – A short- or long-term impact would occur that meets or exceeds the context and intensity significance criteria for the resource.
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 4-2
4.1 AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT
4.1.1 Approach to Analysis
The significance of potential impacts to airspace management depends on the degree to which
the proposed aircraft and their operations would affect the structure, use, or management of the
regional military, commercial, and general aviation airspace environment. Significant impacts
could result if the action would: 1) impose major restrictions on air commerce opportunities; 2)
significantly limit airspace access to a large number of users; or 3) require modifications to ATC
systems.
4.1.2 Impacts
4.1.2.1 Proposed Action
JBA Operational Impacts
Under the implementation of the Proposed Action, the USCG HAIW would relocate its MSF and
training from CGAS Atlantic City to JBA, resulting in an increase in the number of operations at JBA
and a corresponding reduction in the number of operations at CGAS Atlantic City. As described in
Section 2.1.2, Flight Operations, the USCG would fly an average of 8 to 10 sorties per day, which
is comparable to the operational tempo of the 1st Helicopter Squadron and would result in 87
additional airport operations daily at JBA (Table 4-1) (JBA 2020a).
Table 4-1. Proposed Daily Aircraft Operations at JBA
Aircraft Daily Operations
Arrivals Departures Closed Pattern1 Total Operations
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (CEQ 1997).
Per CEQ guidelines for considering cumulative effects under NEPA (CEQ 1997), this cumulative
impact analysis includes three primary considerations to:
1. Determine the scope of the cumulative analysis, including relevant resources, and
geographic extent;
2. Conduct the cumulative effects analysis; and
3. Determine the cumulative impacts to relevant resources.
The Proposed Action is limited to the beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW at JBA and
relocation of the RWAI MSF from CGAS Atlantic City to Hangar 14 at JBA. No physical changes to
Hangar 14 are included in the Proposed Action as these issues were analyzed under a previous
CATEX. As such, potential impacts associated with the Proposed Action would occur over the long-
term given the proposed permanent assignment of the USCG HAIW to JBA.
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 5-2
5.1.2 Cumulative Projects at JBA
As an active military installation, JBA and its tenant organizations undergo changes in mission and
training requirements in response to changing defense policies, current threats, and tactical and
technological advances and, as a result, require new construction, facility improvements,
infrastructure upgrades, and ongoing maintenance and repairs. Previous known or proposed
construction and upgrade projects identified in the JBA IDP (2016) are listed in Table 5-1 and are
included in this analysis. However, future requirements could change and alter the reality of
cumulative effects. NEPA analysis will be conducted for future Proposed Actions as necessary.
For the purpose of this EA, a review of recently completed, in-progress, and planned construction
and demolition projects was conducted. The projects described below have been completed or
are currently planned for development at JBA in the next 10 years.
5.1.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Implementation of the Proposed Action would not involve any outer physical alterations of
Hangar 14 at JBA, the NCRADF, or CGAS Atlantic City. Still, it would involve the beddown and
operation of the USCG HAIW at JBA. Under the Proposed Action, relocation of the MSF to Hangar
14 would occur following the Hangar 14 renovations, with the final design phase beginning in
Fiscal Year 2021.
The following resource analyses address potential impacts associated with cumulative project
activities in addition to the Proposed Action at JBA. No significant cumulative impacts would result
from implementing the Proposed Action when evaluated in conjunction with the project
identified above in Section 5.1.2, Cumulative Projects at JBA.
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 5-3
Table 5-1. Cumulative Projects at and in the Vicinity of JBA
Horizon Project # Description Planning District
Completed AJXF 111517 Replace Taxiway Sierra Airfield
AJXF 106000 Construct Taxiway North of ACA Facility B – 2489
East Operations
Short Range
(1-5 years)
AJFX 111516 Replace/Upgrade Taxiway Whiskey, Demolish Pad 14
Airfield
AJXF 092300 Construct New Hydrant Fuel System East Operations
AJXF 15153801
Mill/Overlay North Perimeter Road
Base-wide
TBD
Construction Associated with Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization EIS including relocation of Hazardous Cargo Pad
Airfield
N/A
Improve Dower House and Woodyard Road Intersection – Maryland Department of Transportation
Off-base
N/A I-495 and I-275 Improvements – Maryland Department of Transportation
Off-base
TBD Relocate East Runway 800 feet to west and 400 feet to south
Airfield
TBD Build New East Taxiway for Relocated East Runway
Airfield
TBD
Relocate FAA Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range and Tactical Air Navigation System (VORTAC)
Airfield
Medium Range
(6-10 years)
TBD
Relocate FAA Airport Surveillance Radar
Airfield
N/A Maryland Route 4 and Suitland Interchange and NuStar Pipe Relocation
Off-base
Note: On-base projects located within the Airfield and East Operations District are considered here due to likely proximity of effects
5.1.3.1 Airspace Management
Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the beddown and operation of the USCG
HAIW at JBA including training and maintenance operations of 8 MH-65D helicopters. Recent
changes affecting airspace management included changes related to the transition of the
1st Helicopter Squadron from UH-1N to MH-139 aircraft, initially via an increase in aircraft
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 5-4
inventory (from 22 to 29 UH-1N) and eventually to replacement with MH-139 in approximately
2027. It is anticipated that by 2030, the Squadron will have an aircraft inventory of 30 MH-139 at
JBA. (The plus-up in the aircraft inventory and related expansion of pavements or facilities would
likely require preparation of standalone NEPA-compliant documentation before full
implementation.) Future airfield improvements including the westward relocation of the East
Runway and associated taxiways, relocation of the existing VORTAC, and improvements related
to the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization project would update and improve airfield and
airspace management at JBA. Therefore, the Proposed Action along with the other identified
cumulative projects, and compliance with USAF and FAA regulations, would not contribute
substantially to any potential cumulative impacts to airspace management at JBA.
5.1.3.2 Noise
Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the introduction of additional noise-
generating aircraft to the JBA noise environment, which would result in minor expansion of the
noise contours in the vicinity of the JBA airfield (refer to Section 4.2, Aircraft Noise). While other
cumulative projects have the potential to result in alterations to the local noise environment,
including aircraft changes proposed by the 1st Helicopter Squadron and the future westward
relocation of the East Runway and associated taxiways that would likely result in a greater
proportion of the JBA noise contours within the installation boundaries, existing JBA “good
neighbor” policies and other guidance included in the AICUZ Program would reduce the potential
for disproportionate or adverse off-base noise impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Action along with
the other identified cumulative projects would not contribute substantially to any potential
cumulative impacts to aircraft noise impacts at JBA.
5.1.3.3 Air Quality
Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a long-term increase in air emissions
related to beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW aircraft at JBA but this increase would be
relatively minor compared to the total air emissions at JBA and would not generate even 10% of
the 100 tpy de minimis threshold for any single criteria pollutant (refer to Section 4.3, Air Quality).
While the Proposed Action would not include any short-term construction-related emissions,
other cumulative projects such as the relocation of the East Runway and associated taxiways,
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 5-5
planned Maryland Department of Transportation improvements to off-base roadways, and other
construction project involving ground disturbance would create short-term air quality impacts
related to construction emissions and fugitive dust generation. Future changes to aircraft
inventory at JBA would result in long-term shifts in the air emissions of the base aircraft inventory;
however, replacement of aging airframes may result in beneficial impacts base-wide operations
emissions as more efficient aircraft with lower emissions output are put into service (i.e.,
modernized powerplants for the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization project). Therefore, the
Proposed Action would not contribute substantially to any potential cumulative impacts to
regional air quality.
5.1.3.4 Land Use
The proposal to locate the HAIW at JBA was the outcome of a robust and informed planning
process, and implementation of the Proposed Action would not introduce any incompatible land
uses or require the re-designation of any existing land uses at JBA given the Proposed Action’s
restriction to the East Operations and Airfield Districts and consistency with existing and future
land use designations set forth in the JBA IDP. Other cumulative projects in the East Operations
and Airfield Districts, including the relocation of the East Runway and associated taxiways, would
also remain consistent with existing and future land use designations depicted in the IDP.
Therefore, the Proposed Action and other identified cumulative projects would not contribute
substantially to any potential impacts or land use conflicts at JBA.
5.1.3.5 Hazardous Materials and Wastes
Implementation of the Proposed Action would require the use of hazardous materials and
generation of hazardous wastes, including POLs that are already typical throughout the Airfield
and East and West Operations Districts of the installation that supports aircraft operations and
maintenance. Further, the use of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous wastes at
Hangar 14 by the USCG HAIW would follow the existing process streams at JBA. Other cumulative
projects at JBA, including the reconstruction of the hangar and relocation of the Hazardous
Cargo Pad as part of the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization project, would result in
rerouting handling of hazardous materials on the west side of the airfield; however, all
alterations to waste streams (volume and routing) would be made in compliance with applicable
USEPA and USAF policies and existing JBA plans and procedures. Therefore, the Proposed Action
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 5-6
along with other identified cumulative projects would not contribute any potential impacts
related to the handling of hazardous materials or the generation of hazardous wastes.
5.1.3.6 Transportation
Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any physical alterations to the existing
on- and off-base traffic patterns and roadways within the vicinity of Hangar 14 and JBA as a whole.
The Proposed Action would result in additional personnel utilizing the on- and off-base roadways
and on-base gate access infrastructure. However, this increase in traffic demand would not
reduce the LOS of any surrounding roadway (refer to Section 4.6, Transportation and Circulation).
Other cumulative projects, including the Maryland Department of Transportation, plans to
improve primary and secondary roadways in the vicinity of JBA as well as planned improvements to
various JBA access gate facilities would increase the area’s, and JBA’s, capacity to accommodate
additional personnel and projected growth in the region. Therefore, the Proposed Action, along
with other cumulative projects, would not create a significant incremental disruption or impact
to on- or off-base traffic patterns.
5.1.3.7 Safety
Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any physical alterations to the existing
physical development at JBA, including security infrastructure and planning. Other cumulative
projects at JBA, including the reconstruction of the hangar and relocation of the Hazardous
Cargo Pad as part of the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization project, would result in changes in
airfield safety capabilities, including explosives safety. Additionally, planned improvements to
North and Pearl Harbor Gates will improve AT/FP capabilities at JBA. Minor increases in total
airfield traffic related to 8-10 daily USCG HAIW training sorties may result in a negligible increase
in BASH strike hazards’ potential. However, the existing JBA BASH Program would continue to
limit the potential for BASH incidents for both fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft. Therefore, the
Proposed Action and other cumulative projects would not create a significant cumulative impact
on safety at JBA.
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 5-7
5.1.3.8 Socioeconomics
Under the Proposed Action, approximately 250 USCG personnel, and families, would move from
CGAS Atlantic City to JBA, which would result in a limited long-term increase in demand for
housing and services both on- and off-base. This small increase in base personnel relative to the
greater than 20,000 existing personnel would not result in a significant impact on the local
socioeconomics. A majority of the identified cumulative projects include improvements to
existing facilities (e.g., relocation of the East Runway) that may not result in an increased
demand for additional personnel. Therefore, the Proposed Action, along with other cumulative
projects, would not create a significant cumulative impact on socioeconomics, including housing,
income, protection of children within Prince George’s County, Maryland.
5.1.4 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
CEQ regulations (40 CFR §1502.16) specify that environmental analyses must address the
relationship between short-term impacts on the environment and the effects that these impacts
may have on the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the affected
environment. Special attention should be given to impacts that narrow the range of beneficial
uses of the environment in the long-term or pose a long-term risk to human health or safety. A
short-term use of the environment is generally defined a direct consequence of any action in its
immediate vicinity. Changes to long-term productivity generally refer to negative impacts to the
long-term quality of the land, air, or water.
The Proposed Action would involve the beddown and operation of USCG HAIW aircraft at an
existing hangar (Hangar 14) within the East Operations area of JBA which is itself a largely
developed portion of installation as a whole and represents one of the largest military installations
on the United States East Coast. The base is characterized by an airfield surrounded by various
aircraft support and maintenance structures, administrative areas, recreational areas, and
residential and commercial areas but no existing agricultural lands.
No croplands, pasturelands, or wetlands would be modified or affected as a result of
implementing the Proposed Action, and, consequently, the productivity of the area would
not be degraded.
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 6
SECTION 6
LIST OF PREPARERS
This EA was prepared for the USCG and USAF, under the direction of USCG CEU Cleveland and USAF 316th Wing CES/CEIE, by Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood). Members of Wood’s professional staff are listed below:
Project Management Diana Sosa, Task Order Manager
B.S. Civil Engineer M.S Civil Engineer
Doug McFarling, EA Project Manager
B.A. Environmental Studies
Matt Sauter, Deputy Project Manager M.S. Paleontology
Nick Meisinger, Quality Assurance / Quality Control
B.S. Environmental Science
Aaron Goldschmidt, Senior Regulatory Specialist
M.A. Geography
Technical Analysts
Brian Cook, Airspace Management and Noise Specialist
B.A. Biology
Sydnie Margallo, Air Quality Specialist B.S. Environmental Management and Protection
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Washington Airports District Office 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210 Dulles, VA 20166
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field Office 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD 21401
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460
Maryland State Clearinghouse Maryland Office of Planning, Room 1104 301 West Preston Street Baltimore, MD 21201-2365 Environmental Review Unit Maryland Department of Natural Resources Tawes State Office Building B-3 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401 Maryland Department of the Environment Office of the Secretary 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21230 Maryland Historical Trust 100 Community Place, 3rd Floor Crownsville, MD 21032-2023 Prince George’s County Department of Planning 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Room 4150 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 National Capital Parks-East 1900 Anacostia Drive SE Washington, DC 20020 National Capital Planning Commission North Lobby, Suite 500 401 9th Street NW Washington, DC 20004 County Executive Prince George’s County County Administration Building, Room 5032 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 8
SECTION 8
REFERENCES
American Community Survey (ACS). 2019. 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved 13 April 2020.
Air Force Civil Engineering Command (AFCEC). 2018. Air Emissions Guide for Air Force Mobile Sources.
Bies and Hansen. 1988. Engineering Noise Control.
Branch, M.C. and R.D. Beland. 1970. Outdoor Noise in the Metropolitan Environment.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy
Act. Accessed 23 March 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/site/production/files/2 015-02/documents/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf
Department of Defense (DoD). 2012. DoD Manual 6055.09-M, DoD Ammunition, and Explosives
Safety Standards: General Explosives Safety Information and Requirements.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2018. FAA Order 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures.
FAA. 2020. FAA Wildlife Strike Database for Joint Base Andrews (KADW). Retrieved 8 April 2020.
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August.
Finegold, L.S., C.S. Harris, H.E. VonGierke. 1994. Community Annoyance and Sleep Disturbance:
Update Criteria for Assessing the Impacts of General Transportation Noise on People. Noise Control Engineering Journal. Jan-Feb.
Gannett Fleming 2009. Joint Base Andrews Transportation Management Plan. September.
Gannett Fleming 2013. Joint Base Andrews Traffic Engineering Study Final. January.
Joint Base Andrews (JBA). 2014. Joint Base Andrews Instruction 91-212, Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard Program.
JBA. 2017. Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Study.
November.
JBA. 2020a. Noise modeling utilizing NOISEMAP based on the 2017 Joint Base Andrews Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Study and interviews with Commander Zachary Mathews, U.S. Coast Guard Alert Detachment Supervisor. March.
DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 8-
JBA. 2020b. Andrews Fire and Emergency Services. Retrieved from: https://www.jba.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/336878/andrews-fire-emergency- services-meeting-the-needs-of-joint-base-andrews-since-1/ on 12 April 2020.
Maryland Demographics. 2020. Maryland Counties by Population. Retrieved from: https://www.maryland-demographics.com/counties_by_population
Maryland Department of Commerce. 2016. FY 2016 Economic Impact Analysis of Maryland’s Military Installations. Accessed 12 April 2020.
Maryland Department of Commerce. 2019. Brief Economic Facts – Prince George’s County, Maryland. Accessed 12 April 2020.
Maryland Department of Transportation. 2018. Traffic Volume Map, 2018, Annual Average Daily
Traffic, Prince George’s County. Transmitted to Wood via the Internet (https://www.roads.maryland.gov/Traffic_Volume_Maps/Traffic _Volume Maps.pdf). 7 April 2020.
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. 2020. Westphalia Sector Plan
Overview. Retrieved from: https://www.mncppc.org/648/Westphalia-Sector-Plan-Overview on 12 April 2020.
The Balance. 2019. Income Per Capita, with Calculations, Statistics, and Trends. Retrieved from:
https://www.thebalance.com/income-per-capita-calculation-and-u-s-statistics-3305852 on 12 April 2020
The City Lab. 2018. Vacancy: America’s Other Housing Crisis. Retrieved from:
https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Aviation/Aircraft%20Statistics/H-60.pdf on 20 April 2020.
USAF 2020c. Personal communication with Austin Naranjo (Air Quality Subject Matter Expert
[SME] regarding the approach to analyzing potential air quality impact using ACAM when profiles do not exist for aircraft involved in the Proposed Action.
US Census Bureau. 2019. Quick Facts. Retrieved from:
US Coast Guard (USCG). Annual Safety Report, Fiscal Year 2015. Health Safety & Work-Life Service Center, Safety, and Environmental Health Division. Aviation Safety Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Portals/10/CG- 1/cg113/docs/pdf/Annual_Safety_Report_FY15.pdf?ver=2017-02-23-152407-600
USCG. 2019. Site Survey Report for the Beddown of United State Coast Guard Helicopter Aerial
Intercept Wing at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. 20 June.
US Department of Statistics. 2020. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Accessed 12 April 2020.
Appendix A Intergovernmental Review and Public Noticing
Introduction
Appendix A contains agency coordination and consultation correspondence pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. Additionally, this appendix includes correspondence with the Maryland State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as well as correspondence with the Maryland Department of the Environment regarding Federal Consistency with the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP).
Table of Contents Notice of Availability .............................................................................................................. A-1
Intergovernmental Review Letter .......................................................................................... A-2
SHPO Consultation Letter ..................................................................................................... A-5
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE
PROPOSED BEDDOWN AND OPERATION OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD HELICOPTER AIR INTERCEPT WING AT HANGAR 14, JOINT BASE ANDREWS, MARYLAND
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has completed a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for a proposal to beddown and operate the USCG Helicopter Air Intercept Wing (HAIW) at Hangar 14, Joint Base Andrews (JBA), Maryland in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S. Code §§4221 et seq.) and the regulations of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508). Further, because the USCG would be a tenant of the U.S. Air Force (USAF) at JBA, the EA has been prepared in accordance with USAF Environmental Impact Assessment Process Regulations codified at 32 CFR Part 989, and Air Force Instruction 32-7061 as promulgated in 32 CFR Part 989, Environmental Impact Analysis Process. The USCG proposes to relocate and beddown the existing HAIW from USCG Air Station Atlantic City to Hangar 14 at JBA including 8 MH-65D Dolphin aircraft along with associated personnel and Mission Support Facility while retaining the existing Alert Hangar located at Ronal Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). Beddown and operation of the HAIW at JBA would include conducting operations in support of the USCG’s rotary-wing air intercept mission within the National Capital Region originating from the existing Alert Hangar at DCA and ongoing pilot proficiency training and aircraft maintenance and mission administration originating from Hangar 14 at JBA. The proposed beddown and operation of the HAIW at JBA would reduce transit times for aircrews moving between the existing Mission Support Facility at USCG Air Station Atlantic City and Alert Hangar at DCA, a distance of 184 miles compared to the 10 mile separation of JBA and DCA. Further, beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW at JBA would allow the unit to achieve Full Operational Capacity thereby allowing the unit to complete its mission without drawing personnel and aircraft from other USCG air stations from more distant locations such as Savannah, Detroit, and New Orleans. This Draft EA serves as a concise public document that provides evidence and analysis for determining whether a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate or whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary. The EA presents the purpose and need for the action, a description of the proposed action and alternatives, a description of the affected environment, and an analysis of environmental consequences. The EA also documents cumulative impacts from projects in the vicinity that are proposed, under construction, recently completed, or anticipated to be implemented in the near future. No significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Draft EA. This notice announces the availability of the Draft EA for public review online at www.andrews.af.mil. Individuals may request a copy of the Draft EA from, or may provide comments to Mr. Ryan Soens, 316 CES/CEIE, at 3466 North Carolina Avenue, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762 or via electronic mail at [email protected]. Comments must be received no later than Wednesday, January 20, 2021.
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
CZMA Consistency Determination for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 1
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Consistency Determination
This document provides Maryland with a Consistency Determination under CZMA Section 307(c)(1) and
(2) and 15 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 930, Subpart C, for the proposed beddown and
operation of the US Coast Guard (USCG) Helicopter Aerial Intercept Wing (HAIW) at Joint Base Andrews-
Naval Air Facility Washington (JBA). The information in this Consistency Determination is provided
pursuant to 15 CFR §930.39.
This Consistency Determination represents an analysis of the Proposed Action considering established
Maryland Coastal Resources Management (CRM) Program Enforceable Policies and Programs. Submittal
of this Consistency Determination reflects JBA’s commitment to comply, to the maximum extent
practicable, with those Enforceable Policies and Programs. JBA has determined that the effects of the
Proposed Action would be less than significant on land and water uses and natural resources of Maryland’s
Coastal Zone and is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the
CRM.
PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION
Project Location
JBA is located approximately 4.5 miles
southeast of Washington, DC, in southern
Prince George’s County, Maryland, and
occupies 6.9 square miles of land. The site for
the Proposed Action is Hangar 14, located on
the eastern side of the base’s airfield.
Project Description
The Proposed Action comprises the beddown
and operation of the USCG HAIW and aircraft
operation and pilot proficiency training in the
established regional airspace system along
Hangar 14 is located on the eastern airfield of JBA. The hangar would provide office space and support and
maintenance facilities for MH-65D Dolphin Helicopters in support of the NCRADF RWAI mission.
A-7
CZMA Consistency Determination for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 2
with relocation of the HAIW Mission Support Facility (MSF) to JBA. Implementation of the Proposed Action
would ensure on-demand Rotary Wing Air Intercept (RWAI) capability for presidential protection missions
and national security events within the National Capital Region (NCR).
Public Participation
A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) has been published, announcing
the availability of the Draft EA for public and agency review, and an electronic copy of the EA has been
made available on JBA’s website.
Other Consultations
Per the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800), findings
of effect and request for concurrence were transmitted to the Maryland Historic Trust (MHT). JBA also
initiated consultation with other regulatory agencies via distribution of an Intergovernmental Review
Letter.
SITE LOCATION Site Location Map
The location of the Proposed Action is shown in Figure 1-2 of the EA.
BASIS OF DETERMINATION
The Proposed Action in the EA would be fully consistent with Maryland’s Enforceable Coastal Policies,
which are implemented by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). The Proposed Action
would be implemented in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies governing erosion
and sediment control and stormwater management, which would ensure that the actions would be
undertaken in a manner consistent with the applicable Maryland Coastal Program enforceable policies.
No adverse or beneficial effects on Maryland’s coastal resources would be expected from implementing
the Proposed Action in the EA.
Maryland’s Enforceable Coastal Policies are divided into three general sections: general policies, coastal
resources, and coastal uses. The general policies are further divided into core, water quality, and flood
hazards policies. Consistency of the Proposed Action in the EA with each of the applicable enforceable
policies is summarized below.
A-8
CZMA Consistency Determination for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 3
GENERAL POLICIES
Core Policies
Policy: It is State policy to maintain that degree of purity of air resources which will protect the health,
general welfare, and property of the people of the State. MDE (C9) Md. Code Ann., Envir. §§ 2-102 to -103.
As noted in Section 4.3 of the EA, as the host at JBA the U.S. Air Force (USAF) would continue to comply
with all applicable air pollution control regulations when implementing the Proposed Action. Section 4.3
of the EA contains a discussion of the projected air emissions associated with the Proposed Action. There
would be no new construction or expansion of the hangar’s existing footprint, and the HAIW MSF would
result in operational emissions that would be below the de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants – and
of particular importance for ozone (O3) precursors given the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) attainment status in the region. Therefore, air quality impacts associated with the Proposed
Action would be less than significant over the short- and long-term.
The Proposed Action is expected to comply with all air emission requirements and will follow the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). If regulated material is found within the work
area such as lead and asbestos, best management practices (BMPs) outlined JBA’s Environmental
Protection Standards for contractors, which includes managing, storing, transporting, and disposing of
hazardous materials and wastes will be followed.
Policy: The environment shall be free from noise which may jeopardize health, general welfare, or property,
or which degrades the quality of life. MDE (C9) COMAR 26.02.03.02.
Section 4.2 of the EA provides a discussion of the noise environment and a discussion of the expected
noise-related impacts associated with the implementation of the Proposed Action in the EA. Noise
associated with the Proposed Action would be virtually non-existent because no new construction would
be required and USCG HAIW operations would be consistent with existing conditions at JBA.
Policy: Soil erosion shall be prevented to preserve natural resources and wildlife; control floods; prevent
impairment of dams and reservoirs; maintain the navigability of rivers and harbors; protect the tax base,
the public lands, and the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the State, and to enhance
their living environment. MDA (C4) Md. Code Ann., Agric. § 8 - 102(d).
Because there is no new construction and would be no ground disturbance associated with the Proposed
Action, this Policy is N/A.
A-9
CZMA Consistency Determination for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 4
Policy: Controlled hazardous substances may not be stored, treated, dumped, discharged, abandoned, or
otherwise disposed anywhere other than a permitted controlled hazardous substance facility or a facility
that provides an equivalent level of environmental protection. MDE (D4) Md. Code Ann., Envir. § 7 -265(a).
All personnel involved with the implementation the Proposed Action (e.g., maintenance personnel) would
be required to comply with JBA’s Environmental Protection Standards, which includes managing, storing,
transporting, and disposing of hazardous materials and wastes, and taking all necessary precautions to
prevent spills of hazardous materials (including oils and hazardous wastes) in accordance with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Water Quality
Policy: No one may add, introduce, leak, spill, or emit any liquid, gaseous, solid, or other substance that
will pollute any waters of the State without State authorization. MDE (A5) Md. Code Ann., Envir. §§ 4- 402,
9-101, 9-322.
The EA discusses compliance with laws, regulations, and policies related to the use, storage, and disposal
of hazardous wastes and materials in Section 4.5. All personnel involved with the implementation of the
Proposed Action (e.g., maintenance personnel) would be required use, manage, store, transport, and
dispose of hazardous materials and wastes; and take all necessary precautions to prevent spills of
hazardous materials (including oils and hazardous wastes) in accordance with JBA’s Environmental
Protection Standards and federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Policy: All waters of the State shall be protected for water contact recreation, fish, and other aquatic life
and wildlife. Shellfish harvesting and recreational trout waters and waters worthy of protection because
of their unspoiled character shall receive additional protection. MDE (A1) COMAR 26.08.02.02.
As described in Section 1.6 of the EA, the Proposed Action would not have the potential to impact water
resources of any kind; therefore, this policy is N/A.
Policy: Before constructing, installing, modifying, extending, or altering an outlet or establishment that
could cause or increase the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the State, the proponent must hold
a discharge permit issued by the Department of the Environment or provide an equivalent level of water
As described in Section 1.6 of the EA, the Proposed Action would not have the potential to impact water
resources of any kind; therefore, Tidal and Nontidal Wetlands Policies – and other policies related to water
quality and quantity – are not relevant to the Proposed Action.
Any proposed development may only be located where the water supply system, sewerage system, or solid
waste acceptance facility is adequate to serve the proposed construction, taking into account all existing
and approved developments in the service area and any water supply system, sewerage system, or solid
waste acceptance facility described in the application and will not overload any present facility for
conveying, pumping, storing, or treating water, sewage, or solid waste. MDE (C9) Md. Code Ann., Envir. §
9-512.
There are no new facilities associated with the Proposed Action, and any new utilities (or extensions of
existing utility systems) would be water and energy efficient and would not overload any present facility
used for conveying, pumping, storing, or treating water, sewage, or solid waste.
Local citizens shall be active partners in planning and implementation of development. MDP (D6) Md. Code
Ann., St. Fin. & Proc. §§ 5-7A-01 to -02.
Public participation opportunities with respect to the EA and decision making on the Proposed Action are
guided by 32 CFR Part 989. The EA and FONSI will be made available to the public for review and comment
for 30 days.
Sewage Treatment
The Proposed Action does not require special water treatment; therefore, the Sewage Treatment Policies
are not relevant to the Proposed Action.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based upon the following information, data, and analysis, JBA finds that the proposed operation and
construction of the USCG HAIW MSF at Hangar 14 is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with
the enforceable policies of the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program. The table below
summarizes how the Proposed Action would affect each of the enforceable policies outlined within the
CZMA Consistency Determination.
A-14
CZMA Consistency Determination for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW
USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200
Page 9
Enforceable Policy Consistent to the Maximum
Extent Practicable? Core Policies Yes
Water Quality N/A Flood Hazards N/A Critical Areas N/A
Tidal Wetlands N/A Nontidal Wetlands N/A
Forests N/A Historic and Archaeological Sites Policies N/A
Living Aquatic Resources N/A Mineral Extraction N/A
Electrical Generation and Transmission N/A Tidal Shore Erosion Control N/A
Oil and Natural Gas Facilities N/A Dredging and Disposal of Dredged Materia l N/A
Navigation N/A Transportation N/A
Agriculture N/A Development N/A
Sewage Treatment N/A
Pursuant to 15 CFR §930.41, the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program has 60 days from the
receipt of this letter in which to concur with or object to this Consistency Determination, or to request an
extension under 15 CFR §930.41(b). Maryland’s concurrence will be presumed if its response is not
received by JBA on the 60th day from receipt of this determination. The State’s response should be sent
to:
Mr. Ryan A. Soens
Environmental Engineer
316 CES/CEIE
3466 North Carolina Avenue
Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762
A-15
Appendix B Native American Consultation
Introduction
Appendix B contains the includes correspondence with federally recognized Native American tribes regarding the proposed beddown of a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Helicopter Aerial Intercept Wing (HAIW) at Joint Base Andrew’s (JBA’s) Hangar 14.
Table of Contents Native American Consultation Letters ................................................................................... B-1
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 316TH WING (AFDW)
JOINT BASE ANDREWS, MARYLAND 20762
Lt Col Stewart Rountree, USAF
Installation Tribal Liaison Officer
1500 West Perimeter Road
Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762-4803
,
Delaware Nation
P.O. Box 825
Anadarko Oklahoma 73005
Dear M ,
I hope my correspondence finds you and your tribal members well. The Delaware Nation
was identified as a federally recognized Native American tribe that might have a connection to
the area of Joint Base Andrews (JBA) and has potential interest in the undertakings that are
proposed on base. It is our understanding that you will review the Area of Potential Effect and
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 evaluation to help determine if the area
might have cultural significance or possible remains.
With this in mind, I have enclosed information on the proposed undertaking: the
beddown of a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Helicopter Aerial Intercept Wing (HAIW) at JBA’s
Hangar 14, including 8 MH-65D Dolphin aircraft. Importantly, the physical changes at the base
necessary to support the proposed bed down are limited to interior renovations of an existing
hangar (i.e., there would be no expansion of facilities or changes to the hangar’s footprint). This
hangar is currently in use by Marine Transport Squadron Andrews (VMR Andrews) and the
113th Fighter Wing (113 FW). This area has been repeatedly disturbed during initial
development of Hangar 14 and subsequent site improvements. As such, the focus of this
consultation is the introduction of new maintenance and operational activities associated with the
USCG HAIW, including closed Visual Flight Rule (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
patterns at JBA and aircraft intercept training at JBA and surrounding airspace in the Washington
D.C. region. Operations associated with the Proposed Action would be similar to existing UH-
N1 and MH-139 operations at JBA and would have a negligible impact on the ambient noise
environment. Regardless of the comparatively benign nature of the Proposed Action, we want to
ensure the Delaware Nation has an opportunity to engage in consultation with the U.S. Air Force
(USAF) on this proposed undertaking.
We request a response as to whether the Delaware Nation would like to engage in
consultation regarding the USCG’s HAIW so that we may have documentation for our records,
and to help facilitate a way forward. Please be assured that regardless of the Delaware Nation’s
decision regarding consultation on the HAIW, the USAF will fully comply with all applicable
laws and regulations in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological or funerary
objects and/or human remains.
America’s Airmen B-1
2
The USAF is dedicated to fulfilling its legal and regulatory obligations to engage in
government-to-government consultation with the Delaware Nation. We will continue to provide
project-specific information and requests for future assistance identifying any historic properties
of religious and cultural significance related to construction projects or addressing remains which
may be encountered during construction. Please provide a response within 30 days from the date
of this letter to Mr. Ryan Soens, 316 CES/CEIE, 3466 North Carolina Avenue, Joint Base
Andrews, Maryland 20762 or via e-mail to [email protected]. If no response is received
from the Delaware Nation within 30 days of this letter, it will be taken as agreement with this
action. If you need further information, please contact Mr. Soens at (202) 409-8231.
I look forward to having future correspondence with you to enhance the relationship
between the base and the Delaware Nation. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
STEWART L. ROUNTREE, Lt Col, USAF
Deputy Commander, 316th Mission Support Group
Enclosures:
ROUNTREE.STEWART.L.1246726724
Digitally signed by ROUNTREE.STEWART.L.1246726724 Date: 2020.11.10 10:13:30 -05'00'
B-2
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 316TH WING (AFDW)
JOINT BASE ANDREWS, MARYLAND 20762
Lt Col Stewart Rountree, USAF
Installation Tribal Liaison Officer
1500 West Perimeter Road
Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762-4803
Mr. Chester L. Brooks, Chief
Delaware Tribe of Indians
5100 Tuxedo Boulevard
Bartlesville Oklahoma 74006-2838
Dear Mr. Brooks,
I hope my correspondence finds you and your tribal members well. The Delaware Tribe
of Indians was identified as a federally recognized Native American tribe that might have a
connection to the area of Joint Base Andrews (JBA) and has potential interest in the undertakings
that are proposed on base. It is our understanding that you will review the Area of Potential
Effect and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 evaluation to help determine
if the area might have cultural significance or possible remains.
With this in mind, I have enclosed information on the proposed undertaking: the
beddown of a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Helicopter Aerial Intercept Wing (HAIW) at JBA’s
Hangar 14, including 8 MH-65D Dolphin aircraft. Importantly, the physical changes at the base
necessary to support the proposed bed down are limited to interior renovations of an existing
hangar (i.e., there would be no expansion of facilities or changes to the hangar’s footprint). This
hangar is currently in use by Marine Transport Squadron Andrews (VMR Andrews) and the
113th Fighter Wing (113 FW). This area has been repeatedly disturbed during initial
development of Hangar 14 and subsequent site improvements. As such, the focus of this
consultation is the introduction of new maintenance and operational activities associated with the
USCG HAIW, including closed Visual Flight Rule (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
patterns at JBA and aircraft intercept training at JBA and surrounding airspace in the Washington
D.C. region. Operations associated with the Proposed Action would be similar to existing UH-
N1 and MH-139 operations at JBA and would have a negligible impact on the ambient noise
environment. Regardless of the comparatively benign nature of the Proposed Action, we want to
ensure the Delaware Tribe of Indians ha an opportunity to engage in consultation with the U.S.
Air Force (USAF) on this proposed undertaking.
We request a response as to whether the Delaware Tribe of Indians would like to engage
in consultation regarding the USCG’s HAIW so that we may have documentation for our
records, and to help facilitate a way forward. Please be assured that regardless of the Delaware
Tribe of Indians’ decision regarding consultation on the HAIW, the USAF will fully comply
with all applicable laws and regulations in the event of an inadvertent discovery of
archaeological or funerary objects and/or human remains.
America’s Airmen B-3
2
The USAF is dedicated to fulfilling its legal and regulatory obligations to engage in
government-to-government consultation with the Delaware Tribe of Indians. We will continue to
provide project-specific information and requests for future assistance identifying any historic
properties of religious and cultural significance related to construction projects or addressing
remains which may be encountered during construction. Please provide a response within 30
days from the date of this letter to Mr. Ryan Soens, 316 CES/CEIE, 3466 North Carolina
Avenue, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762 or via e-mail to [email protected]. If no
response is received from the Delaware Tribe of Indians within 30 days of this letter, it will be
taken as agreement with this action. If you need further information, please contact Mr. Soens at
(202) 409-8231.
I look forward to having future correspondence with you to enhance the relationship
between the base and the Delaware Tribe of Indians. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
STEWART L. ROUNTREE, Lt Col, USAF
Deputy Commander, 316th Mission Support Group
Enclosures:
ROUNTREE.STEWART.L.1246726724
Digitally signed by ROUNTREE.STEWART.L.1246726724 Date: 2020.11.10 10:14:46 -05'00'
B-4
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 316TH WING (AFDW)
JOINT BASE ANDREWS, MARYLAND 20762
Lt Col Stewart Rountree, USAF
Installation Tribal Liaison Officer
1500 West Perimeter Road
Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762-4803
Mr. Ray Halbritter
Oneida Indian Nation
New York 13421
Dear Mr. Halbritter,
I hope my correspondence finds you and your tribal members well. The Oneida Indian
Nation was identified as a federally recognized Native American tribe that might have a
connection to the area of Joint Base Andrews (JBA) and has potential interest in the undertakings
that are proposed on base. It is our understanding that you will review the Area of Potential
Effect and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 evaluation to help determine
if the area might have cultural significance or possible remains.
With this in mind, I have enclosed information on the proposed undertaking: the
beddown of a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Helicopter Aerial Intercept Wing (HAIW) at JBA’s
Hangar 14, including 8 MH-65D Dolphin aircraft. Importantly, the physical changes at the base
necessary to support the proposed beddown are limited to interior renovations of an existing
hangar (i.e., there would be no expansion of facilities or changes to the hangar’s footprint). This
hangar is currently in use by Marine Transport Squadron Andrews (VMR Andrews) and the
113th Fighter Wing (113 FW). This area has been repeatedly disturbed during initial
development of Hangar 14 and subsequent site improvements. As such, the focus of this
consultation is the introduction of new maintenance and operational activities associated with the
USCG HAIW, including closed Visual Flight Rule (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
patterns at JBA and aircraft intercept training at JBA and surrounding airspace in the Washington
D.C. region. Operations associated with the Proposed Action would be similar to existing UH-
N1 and MH-139 operations at JBA and would have a negligible impact on the ambient noise
environment. Regardless of the comparatively benign nature of the Proposed Action, we want to
ensure the Oneida Indian Nation has an opportunity to engage in consultation with the U.S. Air
Force (USAF) on this proposed undertaking.
We request a response as to whether the Oneida Indian Nation would like to engage in
consultation regarding the USCG’s HAIW so that we may have documentation for our records,
and to help facilitate a way forward. Please be assured that regardless of the Oneida Indian
Nation’s decision regarding consultation on the HAIW, the USAF will fully comply with all
applicable laws and regulations in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological or
funerary objects and/or human remains.
America’s Airmen B-5
2
The USAF is dedicated to fulfilling its legal and regulatory obligations to engage in
government-to-government consultation with the Oneida Indian Nation. We will continue to
provide project-specific information and requests for future assistance identifying any historic
properties of religious and cultural significance related to construction projects or addressing
remains which may be encountered during construction. Please provide a response within 30
days from the date of this letter to Mr. Ryan Soens, 316 CES/CEIE, 3466 North Carolina
Avenue, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762 or via e-mail to [email protected]. If no
response is received from Oneida Indian Nation within 30 days of this letter, it will be taken as
agreement with this action. If you need further information, please contact Mr. Soens at (202)
409-8231.
I look forward to having future correspondence with you to enhance the relationship
between the base and the Oneida Indian Nation. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
STEWART L. ROUNTREE, Lt Col, USAF
Deputy Commander, 316th Mission Support Group
Enclosures:
ROUNTREE.STEWART.L.1246726724
Digitally signed by ROUNTREE.STEWART.L.1246726724 Date: 2020.11.10 10:15:52 -05'00'
B-6
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 316TH WING (AFDW)
JOINT BASE ANDREWS, MARYLAND 20762
Lt Col Stewart Rountree, USAF
Installation Tribal Liaison Officer
1500 West Perimeter Road
Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762-4803
M , Chair
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
P.O. Box 365
Oneida Wisconsin 54115-0365
Dear M ,
I hope my correspondence finds you and your tribal members well. The Oneida Tribe of
Indians of Wisconsin was identified as a federally recognized Native American tribe that might
have a connection to the area of Joint Base Andrews (JBA) and has potential interest in the
undertakings that are proposed on base. It is our understanding that you will review the Area of
Potential Effect and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 evaluation to help
determine if the area might have cultural significance or possible remains.
With this in mind, I have enclosed information on the proposed undertaking: the
beddown of a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Helicopter Aerial Intercept Wing (HAIW) at JBA’s
Hangar 14, including 8 MH-65D Dolphin aircraft. Importantly, the physical changes at the base
necessary to support the proposed beddown are limited to interior renovations of an existing
hangar (i.e., there would be no expansion of facilities or changes to the hangar’s footprint). This
hangar is currently in use by Marine Transport Squadron Andrews (VMR Andrews) and the
113th Fighter Wing (113 FW). This area has been repeatedly disturbed during initial
development of Hangar 14 and subsequent site improvements. As such, the focus of this
consultation is the introduction of new maintenance and operational activities associated with the
USCG HAIW, including closed Visual Flight Rule (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
patterns at JBA and aircraft intercept training at JBA and surrounding airspace in the Washington
D.C. region. Operations associated with the Proposed Action would be similar to existing UH-
N1 and MH-139 operations at JBA and would have a negligible impact on the ambient noise
environment. Regardless of the comparatively benign nature of the Proposed Action, we want to
ensure the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin has an opportunity to engage in consultation
with the U.S. Air Force (USAF) on this proposed undertaking.
We request a response as to whether the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin would like
to engage in consultation regarding the USCG’s HAIW so that we may have documentation for
our records, and to help facilitate a way forward. Please be assured that regardless of the Oneida
Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin’s decision regarding consultation on the HAIW, the USAF will
fully comply with all applicable laws and regulations in the event of an inadvertent discovery of
archaeological or funerary objects and/or human remains.
America’s Airmen B-7
2
The USAF is dedicated to fulfilling its legal and regulatory obligations to engage in
government-to-government consultation with the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin. We will
continue to provide project-specific information and requests for future assistance identifying
any historic properties of religious and cultural significance related to construction projects or
addressing remains which may be encountered during construction. Please provide a response
within 30 days from the date of this letter to Mr. Ryan Soens, 316 CES/CEIE, 3466 North
Carolina Avenue, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762 or via e-mail to [email protected].
If no response is received from the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin within 30 days of this
letter, it will be taken as agreement with this action. If you need further information, please
contact Mr. Soens at (202) 409-8231.
I look forward to having future correspondence with you to enhance the relationship
between the base and the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
STEWART L. ROUNTREE, Lt Col, USAF
Deputy Commander, 316th Mission Support Group
Enclosures:
ROUNTREE.STEWART.L.1246726724
Digitally signed by ROUNTREE.STEWART.L.1246726724 Date: 2020.11.10 10:16:40 -05'00'
B-8
America’s Airmen
Enclosure 1: Location of Joint Base Andrews
B-9
America’s Airmen
Enclosure 2: Proposed Project Location on JBA
B-10
Appendix C Air Quality Modeling
Introduction
Appendix C contains the air quality modeling for the proposed beddown of a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Helicopter Aerial Intercept Wing (HAIW) at Joint Base Andrew’s (JBA’s) Hangar 14.
Air emissions associated with U.S. Air Force (USAF) aircraft operations are generally estimated using the USAF Air Conformity Applicability Model (ACAM) in accordance with the Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7040, Clean Air Act Section 176(c), Air Quality Compliance and Resource Management; the Environmental Impact Analysis Process (32 CFR Part 989); and the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93 Subpart B). Helicopters are not included in ACAM because helicopters do not have “typical” flight profiles. Therefore, operational air emissions for the proposed MH-65D operations were calculated using the 2018 Air Emissions Guide for Air Force Mobile Sources (Air Force Civil Engineer Center [AFCEC] 2018). Applying guidance received from AFCEC subject matter experts, Equations 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 within the ACAM were used to calculate the projected air emissions resulting from the Proposed Action (AFCEC 2020c). The emissions modeling conservatively assumes that training flights would occur 365 days per year. Standard Time in Mode (TIM) durations were used based on the 2003 ACAM Technical Documentation Appendix C (USAF 2003b).
Table of Contents Air Quality Modeling Calculations ......................................................................................... C-1
E(Pol)Mode lb/yrNO x SO x CO VOC PM 10 PM 2.5 CO2e TIM min/flight2.3 1.07 54 41.31 0.12 0.11 3214.59 NFlights flight/yr
N FFR NFlights TIM 60 min/hr2 127 3650 8 FFR lb/hr
1000 lb/103 lb
EF(Pol) lb/103 lbN 1/1
2000 2000lbs/ton
NO x 0.077893SO x 0.036237CO 1.8288VOC 1.399032PM 10 0.004064PM 2.5 0.003725CO2e 108.8674
Notes: Assumed standard TIMs for helicopters based on the 2003 ACAM Technical Document
Engine ‐ Turbomeca Arriel 2C2‐CG
Helicopter: MH‐65D
Variable Abbreviations
E(Pol) Mode
Number of flights within airspace
Total Annual Emissions (pollutant)
Minutes to hours conversionFuel flow rate per engine
Pounds to 103 pounds conversion
Pollutant emission factor
Time in mode (flight idle)
lbs to tons conversion
lb/cycle
For 1 Helicopter
Number of engines aircraftE(Pol)Mode = (TIM/60) X (FFR/1000) X EF(Pol) X (FERF[Pol]/100) X N Equation 2‐1, AF Mobile Emissions Guide Sept 2017
Emission Factors ‐Flight Idle (lb/1000lb fuel)
C-1
E(Pol)Mode lb/yrNO x SO x CO VOC PM 10 PM 2.5 CO2e TIM min/flight6 1.07 8.3 6.65 0.18 0.17 3214.59 NFlights flight/yr
N FFR NFlights TIM 60 min/hr2 267 3650 6.8 FFR lb/hr
1000 lb/103 lb
EF(Pol) lb/103 lbN 1/1
2000 2000lbs/ton
NO x 0.36312SO x 0.064756CO 0.502316VOC 0.402458PM 10 0.010894PM 2.5 0.010288CO2e 194.547
Notes: Assumed standard TIMs for helicopters based on the 2003 ACAM Technical Document
E(Pol)Mode = (TIM/60) X (FFR/1000) X EF(Pol) X (FERF[Pol]/100) X N Number of engines aircraft
For 1 Helicopterlbs to tons conversion
E(Pol) Mode
lb/cycle
Number of flights within airspaceMinutes to hours conversionFuel flow rate per engine
Pounds to 103 pounds conversion
Equation 2‐1, AF Mobile Emissions Guide Sept 2017 Pollutant emission factor
Time in mode (flight idle)
Helicopter: MH‐65D
Engine ‐ Turbomeca Arriel 2C2‐CG
Variable Abbreviations
Emission Factors ‐Flight Idle (lb/1000lb fuel) Total Annual Emissions (pollutant)
C-2
E(Pol)Mode lb/yrNO x SO x CO VOC PM 10 PM 2.5 CO2e TIM min/flight9 1.07 3.7 3.06 0.25 0.23 3214.59 NFlights flight/yr
N FFR NFlights TIM 60 min/hr2 430 3650 6.8 FFR lb/hr
1000 lb/103 lb
EF(Pol) lb/103 lbN 1/1
2000 2000lbs/ton
NO x 0.8772SO x 0.104289CO 0.360627VOC 0.298248PM 10 0.024367PM 2.5 0.022417CO2e 313.3154
Notes: Assumed standard TIMs for helicopters based on the 2003 ACAM Technical Document
E(Pol)Mode = (TIM/60) X (FFR/1000) X EF(Pol) X (FERF[Pol]/100) X N Number of engines aircraft
For 1 Helicopterlbs to tons conversion
E(Pol) Mode
lb/cycle
Number of flights within airspaceMinutes to hours conversionFuel flow rate per engine
Pounds to 103 pounds conversion
Equation 2‐1, AF Mobile Emissions Guide Sept 2017 Pollutant emission factor
Time in mode (flight idle)
Helicopter: MH‐65D
Engine ‐ Turbomeca Arriel 2C2‐CG
Variable Abbreviations
Emission Factors ‐Flight Idle (lb/1000lb fuel) Total Annual Emissions (pollutant)