Final EA for ReOpening of Runway ECity_Dec2023 with signatures.pdf

Final

Environmental Assessment for Recapitalization of Airfield Pavement at U.S. Coast Guard Base Elizabeth City, North Carolina

December 2023

This page intentionally left blank.

COVER PAGE

This Coast Guard final environmental assessment (EA) was prepared in accordance with Environmental Planning Policy, COMDTINST 5090.1 and is in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 to 4370h) and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508).

This EA serves as a concise public document to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining the need to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or finding of no significant impact (FONSI). This EA concisely describes the Proposed Action, the need for the proposal, the alternatives, and the environmental impacts of the proposal and alternatives. This EA also contains a comparative analysis of the action and alternatives, a statement of the environmental significance of the preferred alternative, and a list of the agencies and persons consulted during EA preparation.

Document Preparer:

Michael A. West Environmental Protection Specialist U.S. Coast Guard Facilities Design & Construction Center

I reviewed the EA and submitted my written comments to the Proponent.

Environmental Reviewer and Senior Environmental Professional:

Richard D. Hylton, P.E.

Environmental Engineer U.S. Coast Guard Facilities Design & Construction Center

In reaching my decision/recommendation on the Coast Guard’s Proposed Action, I considered the information contained in this EA and considered and acknowledge the written comments submitted to me from the Environmental Reviewer(s).

Proponent:

CAPT Neal E. Armstrong, P.E.

Commanding Officer U.S. Coast Guard Facilities Design & Construction Center

WEST.MICHAEL.ANTHONY.

1023696505

Digitally signed by

WEST.MICHAEL.ANTHONY.1023696505

Date: 2024.01.09 08:51:20 -05'00'

HYLTON.RICHARD

.D.JR.1229466069

Digitally signed by

HYLTON.RICHARD.D.JR.1229466069

Date: 2024.01.09 09:28:17 -05'00'

Digitally signed by

ARMSTRONG.NEAL.E.1019861780

Date: 2024.01.09 12:50:01 -05'00'

EA for Recapitalization of Airfield Pavement Table of Contents Final December 2023 i For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR RECAPITALIZATION OF AIRFIELD PAVEMENT

AT

U.S. COAST GUARD BASE ELIZABETH CITY, NORTH CAROLINA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 USCG Base Elizabeth City .................................................................... 1-1

1.1.2 Runway Conditions and Impact to Operations ...................................... 1-3

1.2 Purpose of and Need ......................................................................................... 1-5

1.3 Agency and Public Involvement ...................................................................... 1-5

1.3.1 Scoping .................................................................................................. 1-5

1.3.2 Draft EA................................................................................................. 1-5

1.4 Relevant Environmental Laws and Regulations ............................................ 1-6

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.1 Repair Runway Pavement ...................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1.1 Improvement of Southern Access Road ................................... 2-3

2.1.1.2 Establishment of a Temporary Concrete Batch Plant ............... 2-3

2.1.2 Aircraft Operations ................................................................................ 2-3

2.1.2.1 Sorties and Annual Operations ................................................. 2-4

2.1.2.2 Runway Usage .......................................................................... 2-5

2.2 Alternatives Considered ................................................................................... 2-5

2.2.1 Alternative 1: Total Reconstruction to Current Dimensions (Eliminated) ........................................................................................... 2-6

2.2.2 Alternative 1A: Reconstruct to Current Dimensions with

Selective Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative) .................................... 2-6

2.2.3 Alternative 2: Reconstruct and Extend to 5,000 Feet

(Eliminated) ........................................................................................... 2-6

2.2.4 Alternative 3: Reconstruct, Extend, and Add Shoulders

(Eliminated) ........................................................................................... 2-6

2.3 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................... 2-7 ii For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................. 3-9

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 3-9

3.2 Noise ................................................................................................................. 3-10

3.2.1 Definition of Resource ......................................................................... 3-10

3.2.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 3-11

3.3 Health and Safety ............................................................................................ 3-14

3.3.1 Definition of Resource ......................................................................... 3-14

3.3.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 3-16

3.3.2.1 Ground Safety ......................................................................... 3-16

3.3.2.2 Flight Safety............................................................................ 3-17

3.4 Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 3-18

3.4.1 Definition of Resource ......................................................................... 3-18

3.4.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 3-18

3.4.2.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................. 3-18

3.4.2.2 Regional Climate and Climate Change ................................... 3-19

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Noise ................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2.1 No Action Impacts ................................................................................. 4-1

4.2.2 Proposed Action Impacts ....................................................................... 4-4

4.3 Health and Safety .............................................................................................. 4-7

4.3.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................. 4-7

4.3.2 No Action Impacts ................................................................................. 4-7

4.3.3 Proposed Action Impacts ....................................................................... 4-7

4.4 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 4-8

4.4.1 Approach to Analysis............................................................................. 4-8

4.4.2 No Action Impacts ................................................................................. 4-8

4.4.3 Proposed Action Impacts ....................................................................... 4-8

4.5 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................ 4-9

4.5.1 Projects Considered ............................................................................... 4-9

4.5.1.1 Tree Trimming/Thinning .......................................................... 4-9 iii For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

4.5.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis ................................................................. 4-9

4.5.2.1 Noise ......................................................................................... 4-9

4.5.2.2 Public Health and Safety ........................................................ 4-10

4.5.2.3 Air Quality .............................................................................. 4-10

4.6 Comparison of Environmental Consequences ............................................. 4-10

5.0 AGENCIES CONSULTED ........................................................................................................ 5-1

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................................. 6-1

7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 7-1

APPENDIX A NOISE STUDY IN SUPPORT OF REOPENING OF RUNWAY 01/19

AT COAST GUARD STATION ELIZABETH CITY, NC ................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS ............................................................................. B-1

List of Figures

Figure 1.1-1. General Location of USCG Base Elizabeth City ............................................................ 1-2

Figure 1.1-2. Airfield Complex ............................................................................................................... 1-4

Figure 2.1-1. Proposed Runway 01-19 Improvements .......................................................................... 2-2

Figure 3.2-1. DNL Contours in the Vicinity of CGBEC Under the Existing Conditions ................ 3-12

Figure 3.2-2. Map of POIs in the Vicinity of CGBEC ........................................................................ 3-13

Figure 3.3-1. Clear Zones at Coast Guard Base Elizabeth City ........................................................ 3-15

Figure 4.2-1. DNL Contours in the Vicinity of CGBEC Under the No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................................................ 4-3

Figure 4.2-2. DNL Contours in the Vicinity of CGBEC Under the Proposed Action Alternative ................................................................................................................................................ 4-5

List of Tables

Table 2.1-1. Historic Operations at Elizabeth City ............................................................................... 2-4

Table 2.1-2. Total Operations for Proposed Action at Elizabeth City ................................................ 2-5

Table 2.2-1. Summary of Alternatives Evaluated ................................................................................. 2-6

Table 3.2-1. Average Annual Operations Under the Existing Conditions ........................................ 3-11

Table 3.2-2. DNL at POIs in the Vicinity of CGBEC Under Existing Conditions ........................... 3-14

Table 3.3-1. Aircraft Mishap Classifications ....................................................................................... 3-16

Table 3.4-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................................................................... 3-19 iv For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

Table 4.2-1. Average Annual Operations Under the No Action Alternative ...................................... 4-2

Table 4.2-2. DNL at POIs in the Vicinity of CGBEC Under the No Action Alternative .................. 4-4

Table 4.2-3. DNL at POIs in the Vicinity of CGBEC Under the Proposed Action Alternative ................................................................................................................................................ 4-6

Table 4.4-1. Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Construction Activities Under the Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................... 4-8

Table 4.6-1. Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................... 4-10

EA for Recapitalization of Airfield Pavement Acronyms and Abbreviations v For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym Definition ℉ Degrees Fahrenheit

AEB Aviator Evaluation Board

AICUZ Air Installations Compatible Use Zones

ALC Aviation Logistics Center

APO Asset Project Office

ARFF Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting

BASH Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard

BMP Best Management Practice

CAA Clean Air Act

C&D Construction and Demolition

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CGBEC Coast Guard Base Elizabeth City

CO Carbon Monoxide

COMDTINST Commandant Instruction

CZ Clear Zone

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act dB Decibel

DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level

DoD Department of Defense

EA Environmental Assessment

ECSU Elizabeth City State University

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

Acronym Definition FAA Federal Aviation

Administration

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

GHG Greenhouse Gas

MACA Mid-Air Collision Avoidance

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

O3 Ozone

OPNAVINST Chief of Naval Operations Instruction

Pb Lead

PM10 Particulate Matter 10 Micrometers or Smaller

PM2.5 Particulate Matter 2.5 Micrometers or Smaller

POI Point of Interest

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

ROI Region of Influence

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

UFC Unified Facilities Criteria

U.S.C. United States Code

EA for Recapitalization of Airfield Pavement Acronyms and Abbreviations vi For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

Acronym Definition USCG United States Coast Guard

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

EA for Recapitalization of Airfield Pavement 1.0 Purpose and Need for Action

1-1 For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is proposing to reconstruct an existing runway at Coast Guard Base Elizabeth City (CGBEC) that was closed to all flight operations in 2015 due to poor pavement conditions.

The Proposed Action would make Runway 01-19 accessible to aircraft to mitigate negative crosswind constraints on the primary Runway 10-28.

1.1.1 USCG Base Elizabeth City

CGBEC is located along the Pasquotank River in eastern North Carolina (Figure 1.1-1) and provides mission support activities within the Fifth USCG District. The base is a regional command that provides logistics, engineering, administrative, financial, purchasing, and health care services to USCG units throughout North Carolina. The base staff maintains more than 880 acres of real estate, including runways, taxiways, airport traffic control tower, roadways, and more than 100 buildings.

CGBEC supports aviation operations for the tenant commands Air Station Elizabeth City, Aviation Logistics Center (ALC), and the HC-27J Asset Project Office (APO). The airfield is a joint use facility that serves both civilian and military aircraft operations. The Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County Airport Authority operates under a joint use agreement and real property license with the USCG.

Both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft are assigned to CGBEC. The fixed-wing aircraft assigned to CGBEC are HC-130J used in Search and Rescue missions in the region. Rotary-wing aircraft assigned to CGBEC are MH-60T. Depot maintenance for fixed-wing (HC-27J, HC-144, HC-130J, and HC-130H) and rotary-rotary-wing aircraft (MH-60T and MH-65E) is performed by the ALC, which conducts flight operations required by respective maintenance cycles as well as developmental testing and evaluation for various system prototypes.

1-2 For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

Figure 1.1-1. General Location of Coast Guard Base Elizabeth City

1-3 For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

1.1.2 Runway Conditions and Impact to Operations

Two runways, six taxiways, two aprons, and two turning circles make up the airfield complex (Figure 1.1-2). The two runways are designated 10-28 and 01-19. Runway 10-28 is the east/west runway, with Runway 10 heading toward the east, and Runway 28 heading west. Similarly, Runway 01-19 is the north/south runway, with Runway 01 heading north and Runway 19 heading south. Runway 10-28 is the primary runway while Runway 01-19 is the alternate runway and the designated crosswind runway.

Runway 01-19 was initially closed to USCG aircraft in 2008 due to its poor load-carrying condition but remained open to light civil aircraft. A crosswind study performed in 2014 as part of a pavement assessment study resulted in limited takeoff and landings on Runway 01-19 for certain aircraft based on the pavement conditions, and the runway was subsequently closed to all air traffic in 2015.

Flight operations are currently conducted solely using Runway 10-28 and subject to limitation due to crosswinds. Flight operations using Runway 10-28 are regularly limited by crosswinds, causing flights to be delayed, aborted, or cancelled. If unfavorable wind and/or weather conditions are anticipated, the Air Station HC-130 aircraft must redeploy to another location if possible. Relocation typically increases the Search and Rescue response time and incurs additional costs. When excessive crosswinds arise unexpectedly, flight operations even for Search and Rescue missions may be forced to be suspended.

Aircraft at the ALC for maintenance are not typically able to redeploy, but maintenance testing may be impacted if out-of-limit crosswind conditions are experienced for a prolonged period. Aircraft delayed in arriving or departing due to crosswinds negatively impact ALC operations and disrupt tight maintenance schedules. The ALC must complete approximately 44 aircraft depot cycles per year to sustain the USCG operational fleet. Disruptions to that schedule caused by crosswind delays present challenges to maintaining that throughput. The smaller USCG aircraft, such as the HC-27J, are particularly susceptible to crosswinds due to a lower crosswind threshold.

The ALC also stores approximately $800 million in critical aircraft parts that are quickly accessed by fixed-wing aircraft and delivered to locations supporting national emergencies. This capability was instrumental in response to Hurricane Harvey in 2017. Limitations on the existing runway impact the ability to expedite emergent aviation logistics.

Reconstructing Runway 01-19 would mitigate the negative crosswind constraints on Runway 10-28 and would greatly improve flexibility for HC-130J aircraft operations.

1-4

Figure 1.1-2. Airfield Complex

1-5 For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to make Runway 01-19 and associated taxiways accessible to all aircraft that typically use the CGBEC airfield. The need for the Proposed Action is to mitigate current negative crosswind constraints on Runway 10-28 and improve flexibility of operations.

1.3 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

1.3.1 Scoping

The goal of the agency and public involvement process is to create an open and accessible decision-making process resulting in decisions that are technically sound, health and safety conscious, address public values and concerns, and provide the public the opportunity to be involved in the decision-making process. Scoping letters allow relevant stakeholders to review project information and provide an opportunity for them to submit comments regarding key issues they feel should be addressed during the environmental review process. On February 8, 2023, scoping letters were distributed via email by the USCG to solicit input on the project from interested agencies and stakeholders. The notices informed recipients of a 30-day period during which comments could be submitted. The USCG considered all comments received during preparation of the Draft EA.

The stakeholders and other interested parties who received the scoping letter included:

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Federal Aviation Administration

• Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

• North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, North Carolina Department of

Transportation, and State Historic Preservation Office

• Elizabeth City Regional Airport

• Pasquotank County Manager and Planning & Inspections Department

• City of Elizabeth City, City Manager’s Office

A hardcopy scoping letter was sent to the THPO/Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians on February 8, 2023, in addition to the emailed version, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Additionally, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was consulted on this EA due to the involved changes to General Aviation activities at CGBEC and the potential for an element requiring an FAA decision subject to NEPA. After initial review of the Proposed Action, the FAA determined there was no need for an agency decision formal cooperating agency agreement and were consulted for subject matter expertise for matters relating to General Aviation forecasting.

In addition, the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Elizabeth City – Pasquotank County Airport Authority may serve as consulting agencies on this EA.

The USCG did not receive any comments during the 30-day scoping period.

1.3.2 Draft EA

The USCG published a Notice of Availability (NOA) on November 14, 2023 in a local newspaper, The Daily Advance, initiating a 30-day public review period for the Draft EA. The NOA and letters emailed to

1-6 For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA stakeholders summarized the Proposed Action and provided details regarding how to access the document and how to submit comments. A hardcopy of the Draft EA was also available for public review at the Pasquotank County Library (100 East Colonial Ave, Elizabeth City, NC 27909). The USCG considered all comments received during preparation of the Final EA.

1.4 RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

The USCG has prepared this EA based upon Federal and state laws, statutes, regulations, and policies pertinent to the implementation of the Proposed Action, including the following:

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] Sections 4321– 4370h)

• Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508, published September 2020)

• USCG Regulations for Implementing NEPA (Commandant Instruction [COMDTINST] M16475.1D)

• Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq.)

• Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.)

• Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. Section 407)

• Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. Section 1451 et seq.)

• NHPA (54 U.S.C. Section 306108 et seq.)

• Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq.)

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. Sections 703–712)

• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. Section 668–668d)

• Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq.)

• Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-income Populations

• EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

• EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

EA for Recapitalization of Airfield Pavement 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2-1 For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION

The Proposed Action is to repair the degraded pavement on Runway 01-19 and associated taxiways to make it accessible to aircraft. Some areas would be fully demolished and replaced while other areas would only be resurfaced, depending on the condition of the pavement. Once the repairs to the runway and taxiways are complete, the runway would be reopened to USCG, Department of Defense (DoD), and commercial air traffic as was previously authorized before 2008. The repairs and reopening of the runway would not require new approach or departure routes, introduction of new types of aircraft, or authorization of new types of flight operations (i.e., military touch-and-go landings).

2.1.1 Repair Runway Pavement

The pavement on existing Runway 01-19 would be restored to its current dimensions of 4,518 feet long by 150 feet wide to generally conform to Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-260-01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design as a Class B runway. Class B runways are primarily intended for high-performance and large, heavy aircraft (Figure 2.1-1). This runway is primarily constructed of an asphalt overlay on concrete pavement with the exception of the intersection with Runway 10-28, which is constructed of Portland cement concrete pavement. The intersection of Runway 10-28 and Runway 01-19 is currently in good condition and is not included in the proposed repairs. The majority of Runway 01-19 consists of “failed” pavement and would be fully demolished and replaced. Figure 2.1-1 shows the portions of the runway that will be repaired.

Access to the south end of Runway 01-19 is via Taxiways G and K. All of Taxiway K and the portions of Taxiway G that serve only Runway 01-19 are identified as failed. The failed areas would be fully demolished and replaced. Other areas of pavement that were determined “serviceable” would be restored and reopened through a combination of asphalt resurfacing and selective repairs.

Reopening Runway 01-19 would also require associated minor repairs or upgrades to include runway lighting (which would be compatible and fully integrated with existing lighting, utilities, navigation, and communication systems), airfield signage, and runway markings in accordance with UFC and FAA requirements.

The proposed repairs would be implemented in several separate phases to limit impacts to normal operations at Runway 10-28. Best management practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater runoff during construction would be implemented. All necessary land disturbance permitting, and pollution prevention measures would be adhered to, including any applicable State and/or local permitting requirements. After construction is complete, seeding and mulching would be done to restore the area to normal vegetation conditions. Demolition materials would be reused or recycled to the greatest extent practicable during the construction process. Any waste construction and demolition (C&D) debris would be properly segregated and characterized onsite prior to transport for offsite disposal. Where practicable, recyclable materials, such as concrete, steel, and asphalt, would be recycled; nonrecyclable materials would be disposed of at an appropriate, permitted landfill. Duration of construction and repairs would be approximately 18 months.

2-2

Figure 2.1-1. Proposed Runway 01-19 Improvements

2-3 For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

During construction, there are two potential methods to facilitate efficient production and delivery of the necessary concrete to Runway 01-19. These include: (1) improvement of a southern access road for truck deliveries and/or (2) establishment of a temporary concrete batch plant on site at CGBEC. These two actions may not occur, but the potential for them to occur is high enough to warrant a description as part of the Proposed Action.

2.1.1.1 Improvement of Southern Access Road

The existing gravel access road which leads from the southern gate along Weeksville Road would be widened. The stretch of this road from the fenceline to the intersection with Runway 01-19 would be widened to approximately 30 to 40 feet in width, to accommodate two-way traffic management of construction vehicles. This widening effort would be limited to shallow blading to level the surface, emplacement of a working surface of crushed stone, and compaction of the gravel layers. No concrete, asphalt, tar, or other binding materials would be used. Only water would be used to aid in gravel compaction. After construction is complete, this road would likely be retained at the new width, but no other improvements or maintenance are planned. This improvement would allow for safer and more efficient transit of construction vehicles and would avoid traffic concerns associated with those vehicles using other existing gates and roadways.

2.1.1.2 Establishment of a Temporary Concrete Batch Plant

The construction contractor may establish a temporary concrete mixing batch plant on the northern side of the flight line. This batch plant would be a mobile set-up, would use CGBEC water and power connections while in service, and would stockpile moderate amounts of concrete ingredients (e.g., sand, gravel, Portland cement) adjacent to the mixing plant. This onsite production capability would ensure that concrete quality specifications could be easily verified and would also avoid the logistical impacts of continually trucking premixed concrete from an offsite plant. At this time, it is assumed that the batch plant would be located near the northern end of Runway 01-19. It is also assumed the batch plant would be installed on existing paved or concrete surfaces, with little to no ground disturbance required.

2.1.2 Aircraft Operations

CGBEC shares its runways with Elizabeth City Regional Airport. USCG aircraft, civilian aircraft, and DoD transient aircraft all operate at CGBEC. The civilian general aviation aircraft that regularly operate at the airfield range in size from small single-engine pistons such as a Cessna 172 to medium-sized corporate jets such as a Dassault Falcon 900. Most USCG operations are performed by HC-130J and MH- 60T units that are based at CGBEC. CGBEC is also home to the ALC, which provides logistics and maintenance support of HC-130J, HC-27J, HC-144, MH-60, and MH-65 aircraft. More details on aircraft operations can be found in Appendix A.

A “sortie” is defined as a single military aircraft activity that begins with the aircraft takeoff through the landing and may include one or more flight or training operations in between. The takeoff (departure) and landing (arrival) each are counted as one operation by the air traffic control tower.

Elizabeth City State University (ECSU) runs a civilian pilot training program through the Elizabeth City Regional Airport, and it is estimated the program will fly 1,090 flights in 2023. Since 2018, the number of students for the ECSU pilot training program has increased almost three-fold. Growth predictions for the program provided by ECSU show the program will continue to grow due to commercial pilot demand.

2-4 For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

Recent growth has been approximately 40 percent per year, resulting in an estimated 2,136 flights in 2025. The program predictions show an overall average annual growth rate of approximately 16 percent growth in student throughput from 2018 to 2032, with approximately 500 students by 2032.

2.1.2.1 Sorties and Annual Operations

Table 2.1-1 displays the historical operations at CGBEC as reported by air traffic control. The most recent three years of operations data (2020-2022) were averaged to best approximate average annual operations. This data, coupled with the estimated growth of the ECSU program, was used to model the Proposed Action conditions starting in 2025. This table is based on Air Traffic Control counts from CGBEC, which does not differentiate between General Aviation or ECSU aircraft, combining them into a single “civil” category.

Table 2.1-1. Historic Operations at Elizabeth City

Year Civil Operations

USCG

Operations DoD Transit Operations Total

2012 11,293 20,584 9,124 41,001 2013 11,645 22,231 10,506 44,382 2014 15,253 21,109 8,477 44,839 2015 14,221 26,883 7,216 48,320 2016 15,450 29,392 8,185 53,027 2017 17,426 26,715 10,462 54,603 2018 19,997 24,771 7,796 52,564 2019 25,614 23,019 7,487 56,120 2020 22,985 24,070 5,619 52,674 2021 31,962 30,153 3,650 65,765 2022 32,419 20,293 3,641 56,353 3-Year Average (2020- 2022) 29,122 24,840 4,304 58,266

Source: CGBEC 2023

Table 2.1-2 shows the individual breakdown of aircraft and total estimated operations considered under the Proposed Action. While the purpose of the Proposed Action is not to support an increase in aircraft operations, based on general trends shown in Table 2.1-1 and with interviews with Elizabeth City Regional Airport, civilian operations are likely to increase over the next few years as the ECSU flight training program continues to grow. Table 2.1-2 reflects this growth when showing total operations for analysis of the Proposed Action. As shown, the average total civilian operations from Table 2.1-1, shows an average total of 29,122 operations (ECSU and all other civil). The growth from ECSU can be seen when these totals are compared to that in Table 2.1-2 where ECSU operations now make up 28,542 operations, and all other civilian operations are shown to make up 14,560 operations annually.

2-5 For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

Table 2.1-2. Total Operations for Proposed Action at Elizabeth City Category Aircraft Day1 Night2 Total

Based Military HC-130J 10,233 142 10,375

MH-60T 8,910 213 9,123

Aviation Logistics Center HC-130J 2,740 0 2,740

HC-27 1,710 0 1,710

HC-144 324 0 324

MH-60 200 0 200

MH-65 368 0 368

Transient Military C-12 170 0 170 C-2/E-2 3,444 0 3,444

H-60 130 0 130

MH-47 130 0 130

CH-53 430 0 430

ECSU Cessna 172 25,946 0 25,946 Beechcraft BE-76 2,596 0 2,596

Other Civilian Other 14,560 0 14,560 Total 71,891 355 72,246

Source: CGBEC 2023, Elizabeth City Regional Airport 2023.

Notes: 1Day is defined as 0700 to 2200 local time.

2Night is defined as 2200 to 0700 local time.

2.1.2.2 Runway Usage

Currently, the only active runway at CGBEC is Runway 10-28. This is the east/west runway at the airfield and currently accepts 100 percent of the air traffic. Air traffic control estimated that the split of usage for east/west directions was approximately 55/45 percent of the time in each direction, respectively.

Under the Proposed Action, Runway 01-19 would be reopened. This would allow aircraft to arrive and depart along different flight tracks that have not been used in recent years. Interviews with air traffic control revealed that most USCG and DoD traffic would continue to use Runway 10-28, with around 1 percent of traffic being diverted to Runway 01-19 under special circumstances if weather or crosswinds dictated such activities. General aviation, given their smaller aircraft, shorter runway length requirements, and location of their parking aprons to the south of the airfield, would likely use the newly reopened Runway 01-19 approximately 90 percent of the time, weather permitting.

2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

NEPA, CEQ regulations, and COMDTINST M16475.1D require all reasonable alternatives to be explored and objectively evaluated. Alternatives that are eliminated from detailed study must be identified along with a brief summary of the reasons for their dismissal. For the purposes of this analysis, an alternative is considered “reasonable” if it would meet the Proposed Action’s purpose and need and satisfy the following evaluation criteria:

1. Complies with UFC 3-260-01.

2. Maintains project budget of $25 million.

3. Allows airfield to regain full functionality.

4. Prevents costs incurred from redeployments and increased travel times.

5. Avoids potential impacts with sensitive environmental resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, and threatened and endangered species to the extent practicable.

2-6 For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

A summary of the alternatives and their evaluation is provided in Table 2.2-1. A description of each alternative and the reason for detailed evaluation or dismissal are described in the following sections.

Table 2.2-1. Summary of Alternatives Evaluated

Evaluation Criteria

Alternative 1: Total Reconstruction

Alternative 1A:

Selective

Reconstruction

Alternative 2:

Reconstruct and

Extend

Alternative 3:

Reconstruct, Extend, Add Shoulders

1 Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 No Yes No No 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 Yes Yes No No

Carry Forward? No Yes No No

2.2.1 Alternative 1: Total Reconstruction to Current Dimensions (Eliminated)

This alternative recapitalizes Runway 01-19 to its current dimensions (4,518 feet long by 150 feet wide) via a total demolition and reconstruction of all runway and associated taxiway pavements. This alternative has an estimated cost of $27.5 million. While this alternative meets the purpose and need and four of the five evaluation criteria, the cost exceeds the project budget. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from detailed study.

2.2.2 Alternative 1A: Reconstruct to Current Dimensions with Selective Rehabilitation (Preferred Alternative)

This alternative recapitalizes Runway 01-19 to its current dimensions via a total demolition and reconstruction of all failed runway pavements and the restoration of certain, limited pavements to serviceable condition by investigating and making substrate repairs and asphalt resurfacing. This modification of Alternative 1 would reduce the total construction cost to $23.9 million. This alternative meets the purpose and need and all evaluation criteria. Therefore, this alternative is the Preferred Alternative and the only alternative carried forward for detailed evaluation in this EA as the Proposed Action.

2.2.3 Alternative 2: Reconstruct and Extend to 5,000 Feet (Eliminated)

This alternative would recapitalize and extend Runway 01-19 approximately 482 feet to the north and maintain the current width. Extending the runway to this length would allow its use for training flights in addition to simply being the crosswind runway. This alternative has an estimated cost of $35.4 million.

This alternative meets the purpose and need; however, it only meets three of the five evaluation criteria.

The cost exceeds the project budget, and the proposed extension has the potential for more impacts to infrastructure, stormwater, natural resources, and coastal zone. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from detailed study.

2.2.4 Alternative 3: Reconstruct, Extend, and Add Shoulders (Eliminated)

This alternative would recapitalize and extend Runway 01-19 approximately 482 feet to the north and add 10-foot paved shoulders on both sides. The new dimensions for Runway 01-19 would be 5,000 feet long by 150 feet wide with 10-foot-wide shoulders. This alternative has an estimated cost of $36.6 million.

2-7 For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

Similar to Alternative 2, this alternative meets the purpose and need; however, the cost and anticipated environmental impacts were considered unreasonable. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from detailed study.

2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No Action Alternative, the pavement of Runway 01-19 and associated taxiways would not be repaired or restored, and the runway would remain closed to all aircraft. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Action but is carried forward for detailed analysis in accordance with CEQ regulations (Section 1502.14). The negative impacts to current operations described in Section 1.1.2 would remain.

2-8

EA for Recapitalization of Airfield Pavement 3.0 Affected Environment

3-9 For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents a description of the environmental resources and baseline conditions that could be affected from implementing the Proposed Action or the No Action Alternative.

All potentially relevant environmental resource areas were initially considered for analysis in this EA. In compliance with NEPA, CEQ, and USCG regulations, orders, and guidelines, the discussion of the affected environment (i.e., existing conditions) focuses only on those resource areas potentially subject to impacts. Additionally, the level of detail used in describing a resource is commensurate with the anticipated level of potential environmental impact.

The environmental resources evaluated in this EA include those identified in the USCG NEPA Regulations. Due to the nature of the Proposed Action, the USCG informally consulted with the FAA to determine if any level of FAA decision-making or other formal cooperation was needed. In discussions with the FAA, it was determined that the Proposed Action would be solely a USCG action, and formal cooperation from FAA was not necessary. The FAA was consulted for subject matter expertise on issues such as General Aviation and Civil Aviation operation forecasting.

The potential impacts to the following resource areas are negligible or nonexistent, so they were not analyzed in detail in this EA:

Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f). The Proposed Action does not involve any publicly owned parks or recreational areas and would occur entirely within developed areas on CGBEC with little to no potential to affect existing wildlife and waterfowl.

Biological Resources, Protected Species, and Migratory Birds. Construction of the Proposed Action would occur entirely within developed areas on CGBEC. The reopening of Runway 01-19 would not result in impacts to terrestrial or aquatic habitats, nor increase airport operations. Potential impacts to biological resources, including migratory birds, are not expected.

Land Use. Construction of the Proposed Action would occur entirely within developed areas and no permanent changes to land use would occur. Land use compatibility would not change from existing conditions.

Visual Effects. The Proposed Action would not produce any new light emissions nor result in any changes related to visual resources and/or the visual character of the existing environment.

Geology, Topography, and Soils, including Prime or Unique Farmlands. Construction of the Proposed Action would occur entirely within developed areas on CGBEC. No new excavation or significant earthmoving would occur, and prime or unique farmlands would not be affected.

Socioeconomics, Protection of Children, and Environmental Justice. The Proposed Action would not increase airport operations, and no changes or effects to population, employment, housing, and public services would occur. New areas that would be exposed to noise levels of 65 decibel (dB) Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) or greater related to Runway 01-19 include portions of the airfield, the Pasquotank River (north), and agricultural fields (south). No Environmental Justice or other sensitive populations are present in these areas and thus no impacts would occur.

3-10 For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA

Cultural Resources. Construction of the Proposed Action would occur entirely within developed areas that have been heavily disturbed, and there is no expectation that archaeological resources could be present in the construction areas. The Proposed Action is restoring an inactive runway, and no permanent changes to the built environment that could affect historic resources would occur. In a letter dated February 27, 2023, the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources concurred that no historic properties would be affected from the Proposed Action.

Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention. Construction of the Proposed Action would involve activities typical of roadway and runway construction and would generate solid waste streams and construction debris typical of these activities. Management of these materials and any hazardous waste (if generated) would be handled in accordance with CGBEC and regulatory requirements.

Water Resources, Wetlands, and Floodplains. Construction of the Proposed Action would occur entirely within developed areas on CGBEC. Construction activities would comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan requirements, including the implementation of BMPs and monitoring. Potential BMPs include low-impact site preparation and construction techniques and the use of protective buffer areas around essential resources. Secondary containment would protect the Pasquotank River from potential contamination by petroleum, oils, and lubricants. Where secondary containment is not practicable, spill ponds and oil-water separators may be constructed downstream of petroleum, oil, and lubricant storage and handling activities. There are no wetlands or Clean Water Act-regulated features in the project area. Likewise, there are no 100-year or 500-year floodplains in the project area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. No surface waters or groundwater resources would be affected during construction and operation of the Proposed Action.

Infrastructure. The Proposed Action would reopen an existing runway and would not result in an increase airport operations or new demands on site or local infrastructure and utilities.

Coastal Resources. The Proposed Action would involve construction within the coastal zone; however, no coastal resources would be affected. The USCG submitted a negative declaration for the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) consistency determination to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management for review and concurrence. A response was received on October 17, 2023, indicating that the NCDEQ concurred with the determination that the Proposed Action would not impact any coastal resources.

3.2 NOISE

3.2.1 Definition of Resource

Noise is considered unwanted sound that interferes with normal activities or otherwise diminishes the quality of the environment; noise may be intermittent or continuous, steady, or impulsive. It may also be stationary or transient. Stationary sources are normally related to specific land uses (e.g., an amusement park or industrial plants). Transient noise sources move through the environment, either along relatively established paths (e.g., highways, railroads, and aircraft flight tracks around airports) or randomly. There is wide diversity in responses to noise that not only vary according to the type of noise and the characteristics of the source (e.g., an aircraft), but also according to the sensitivity and expectations of the

3-11 For Official Use Only: May Not Be Releasable Under FOIA receptor (e.g., a person or animal), the time of day, and the distance between the noise source and the receptor.

Noise analysis for military airfields uses DNL, which is a cumulative metric that represents the equivalent continuous sound pressure level over a 24-hour period accounting for all noise events with a night-time noise adjustment. To account for our increased sensitivity to noise at night, DNL applies a 10-dB penalty to events during the night-time period, defined as 10:00 p.m. (2200) to 7:00 a.m. (0700).

3.2.2 Existing Conditions

Because airfield operations vary year to year, the most recent 3 years of operations data (2020-2022) were averaged to best approximate an average annual year at CGBEC. C-130 and HH-60 aircraft perform the majority of military aircraft operations at CGBEC, as summarized in Table 3.2-1. Night-time Search and Rescue operations occur approximately 355 times per year between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

From 2020 through 2022, civil aircraft operations totaled 29,122 and accounted for approximately 50 percent of all airfield operations. The ECSU pilot training program accounts for approximately half of all current civilian aircraft operations.

Table 3.2-1. Average Annual Operations Under the Existing Conditions

Category Airframes Departure Arrival Pattern

Total Day Night Day Night Day Night

Based Military

C-130 1,008 79 1,025 63 8,200 0 10,375

HH-60 766 161 874 52 7,270 0 9,123

ALC C-130, C-144, C-

27, H-65, HH-60 2,134 0 2,134 0 1,074 0 5,342

Transient Military

C-12, C-2, E-2, HH-60, MH-47,

MH-53

538 0 538 0 3,228 0 4,304

ECSU Cessna 172, Beechcraft BE-76 1,090 0 1,090 0 12,382 0 14,562

Other Civilian

Cessna 172, Beechcraft BE-76 1,090 0 1,090 0 12,380 0 14,560

Total 6,626 240 6,751 115 44,534 0 58,266 Source: CGBEC 2023, Elizabeth City Regional Airport 2023

Runway 10 is currently used approximately 55 percent of the time by all aircraft. Runway 28 is currently used approximately 45 percent of the time by all aircraft. More details regarding the current operating conditions for all CGBEC aircraft can be found in Appendix A.

Figure 3.2-1 shows the DNL noise contours from 65 to 85 dB in 5-dB increments for the existing conditions at CGBEC. Noise generated from aircraft operations at CGBEC occurs within the airfield, over the Pasquotank River, and extends to cover areas to the west and east of the airfield.

Specific noise-sensitive locations (schools, hospitals, places of worship, and residential neighborhoods) have been identified in the surrounding communities and are referred to as representative Points of Interest (POIs) (Figure 3.2-2).