Attach__No__1B_-_Sample_Level_2_EA.pdf

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

920TH RESCUE WING

BOAT RAMP CONSTRUCTION,

PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE,

45TH SPACE WING

PAFB, FL

1246942052C Text Box

1 Acronyms and Abbreviations

Environmental Assessment for the 920th Rescue Wing Boat Ramp at

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

2 45 CES/CEI 45 SW Civil Engineering Squadron, Installation Management 3 45 SW 45th Space Wing 4 AF Air Force 5 AFI Air Force Instruction 6 AFSPC Air Force Space Command 7 AFRC Air Force Reserve Command 8 BMPs Best Management Practices 9 CAA Clean Air Act

10 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 11 CES Civil Engineering Squadron 12 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 13 CO Carbon Monoxide 14 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 15 CFETP Career Field Education Training Program 16 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 17 CRO Combat Rescue Officer 18 CWA Clean Water Act 19 CZM Coastal Zone Management 20 CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 21 dB Decibel 22 dBA “A-weighted” logarithmic scale 23 DoD Department of Defense 24 EA Environmental Assessment 25 EFH Essential Fish Habitat 26 EIAP Environmental Impact Analysis Process 27 EIS Environmental Impact Statement 28 EO Executive Order 29 ERP Environmental Resource Permit 30 ESA Endangered Species Act 31 FAC Florida Administrative Code 32 FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 33 FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 34 FONPA Finding of No Practicable Alternative 35 FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 36 FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory 37 HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 38 HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning 39 INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 40 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 41 MLW mean low water 42 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 43 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 44 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 45 NRHP National Register of Historic Places 46 NOx Nitrogen Oxides 47 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 48 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 49 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

920th Rescue Wing Boat Ramp at

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

1 PAFB Patrick Air Force Base 2 PJ Pararescue men 3 PM Particulate Matter 4 ROI Region of Influence 5 SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 6 SCUBA Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus 7 SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 8 SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District 9 SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

10 SSC Species of Special Concern 11 SSL Sovereign Submerged Lands 12 T&E Threatened and Endangered 13 TMDLs Total Maximum Daily Loads 14 TTP Tactics, Techniques and Procedures 15 UFC Unified Facilities Criteria 16 USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 17 USAF United States Air Force 18 USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 19 USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 20 920RQW 920th Rescue Wing

1 Table of Contents

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

2 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .......................................................................... 1-1 3 1.1 Introduction and Background ......................................................................................... 1-1 4 1.2 Location .................................................................................................................... 1-1 5 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................... 1-3 6 1.4 Scope of the Environmental Assessment .................................................................. 1-3 7 1.5 Related Environmental Documentation ...................................................................... 1-3

8 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................. 2-1 9 2.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 2-1

10 2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration ................................................... 2-5 11 2.2.1 Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................... 2-5 12 2.2.2 Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................... 2-5 13 2.3 Description of No Action ............................................................................................ 2-5 14 2.4 Summary of Potential Environmental Issues .............................................................. 2-5 15 2.4.1 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ........................................................... 2-7

16 2.4.1.1 Noise .............................................................................................................. 2-7 17 2.4.1.2 Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 2-7 18 2.4.1.3 Hazardous Waste ........................................................................................... 2-9 19 2.4.1.4 Geology and Soils........................................................................................... 2-9 20 2.4.1.5 Infrastructure and Transportation .................................................................. 2-10

21 2.4.1.6 Land Use ...................................................................................................... 2-10 22 2.4.1.7 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 2-11 23 2.4.1.8 Socioeconomic ............................................................................................. 2-12 24 2.5 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................... 2-13 25 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................ 3-1 26 3.1 Biological Resources ................................................................................................. 3-1 27 3.1.1 Wetlands and Floodplains .................................................................................. 3-1 28 3.1.2 Essential Fish Habitats ....................................................................................... 3-4 29 3.1.3 Wildlife and Flora ............................................................................................... 3-4

30 3.1.3.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species ................................ 3-4 31 3.1.3.2 Flora ............................................................................................................... 3-6 32 3.1.3.3 Fauna ............................................................................................................. 3-6 33 3.2 Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 3-7 34 3.3 Safety and Health ...................................................................................................... 3-2

35 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................... 4-1 36 4.1 Biological Resources ................................................................................................. 4-2 37 4.1.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 4-2 38 4.1.2 Wetlands and Floodplains ...................................................................................... 4-3 39 4.1.3 Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................... 4-3 40 4.1.4 Wildlife and Flora ............................................................................................... 4-4

41 4.1.4.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species ................................ 4-4 42 4.1.4.2 Flora ............................................................................................................... 4-7

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

1 4.1.4.3 Fauna ............................................................................................................. 4-7 2 4.1.5 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-8 3 4.2 Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 4-8 4 4.2.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 4-8 5 4.2.2 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-8 6 4.3 Safety and Health ...................................................................................................... 4-8 7 4.3.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 4-9 8 4.3.2 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-9 9 4.4 Cumulative Impacts Summary ................................................................................... 4-9

10 4.5 Effects of No Action ................................................................................................. 4-10 11 4.6 Conflicts with Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls ................................................ 4-10 12 4.7 Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential ................................................. 4-10 13 4.8 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................ 4-10 14 4.9 Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided ............................................ 4-11 15 4.10 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice .................................................. 4-11 16 5.0 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 5-1 17 6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 6-1

19 Figures

20 Figure 1-1: Aerial Overview of PAFB ....................................................................................... 1-2 21 Figure 2-1: Location of Proposed Boat Ramp .......................................................................... 2-2 22 Figure 2-2: Boat Ramp Model .................................................................................................. 2-3 23 Figure 2-3: Mangroves Near the Proposed Ramp Location, 2011 .............................................. 2-4 24 Figure 2-4: Mangroves Near the Proposed Ramp Location, 2014 .............................................. 2-4 25 Figure 3-1: PAFB Wetland/Floodplain Zone Map ........................................................................ 3-3 26 Figure 3-2: Shellfish Harvesting Classification Map.................................................................. 4-6 27 Figure 4-1: Manatee Protection Zone Map .................................................................................. 4-6

29 Tables

30 Table 2-1: Environmental Impact Matrix .................................................................................. 2-6 31 Table 2-3: Summary of Land Use and Zoning Requirements ................................................. 2-11 32 Table 3-1: Summary of Safety and Health Requirements ........................................................ 3-2 33 Table 4-1: Summary of Requirements to Protect Biological Resources .................................... 4-2

35 Appendices 36 Appendix A Florida Clearinghouse Response (includes CZMA Federal Consistency) Appendix B USFWS Section 7 Response 38 Appendix C NMFS Section 7 Response 39 Appendix D SJRWMD and USACE Correspondence 40 Appendix E Seagrass Survey Transect Map, SJRWMD Seagrass Data and Site Photos 41 Appendix F Petition for Variance, Class III Waters (Shellfish) 42 Appendix G Derelict Vessel Locations and Photos

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

1 Appendix H State Historic Preservation and Tribal Consultation Response Appendix I Early Public Notice in the Florida Today

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

1 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

2 1.1 Introduction and Background

3 This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements 4 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 5 regulations, Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 989, and the Department of 6 Defense (DoD) Directive 6050.1. The EA evaluates the potential environmental consequences 7 associated with the proposed boat ramp construction at Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB), FL.

9 The 920th Rescue Wing, under Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC), conducts water borne

10 operations training year round. As a key requirement of the Career Field Education Training 11 Plan (CFETP) for Pararescuemen (PJs) and Combat Rescue Officers (CROs), in accordance 12 with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 10-3502, Volume 1, both PJs and CROs must be capable of 13 conducting all phases of water operations to include but not limited to: employing open circuit 14 SCUBA equipment during surface and subsurface rescue/recovery operations including water 15 jumps and aerial deployment equipment; understanding physiological effects of diving, diving 16 disorders; providing emergency treatment of diving illnesses; and mastering small boat 17 operations including ship-boarding/departure operations.

19 In conjunction with water borne training operations, sensitive equipment, tactics, techniques and 20 procedures (TTPs) are often used in training scenarios. To protect the integrity of TTPs and 21 equipment, training is restricted on a “need to know” basis. Concomitantly, the time required to 22 prepare, launch, and accomplish training and recovery from a training event is approximately 23 four to eight hours. This means government assets (i.e. trailers, vehicles, and support 24 equipment) are left unattended and unsecured at the point of embarkation. For these reasons, 25 the 920th Rescue Wing (920RQW) requests construction of a boat ramp in proximity to the 26 squadron where training is currently conducted by utilizing an All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) to 27 transport Zodiacs to the launch site as well as hand carrying equipment to the river for 28 deployment. Constructing a boat ramp adjacent to the boat storage area and training facilities 29 will allow mission sensitive training to be conducted away from the view of the general public, 30 keep government assets safeguarded during extended training operations, and facilitate more 31 efficient operations at every stage of the training event most specifically with reduction of time to 32 launch and retrieve Zodiac training vessels through use of a truck and trailer facilitated by the 33 concrete boat ramp.

34 1.2 Location

35 PAFB is located on a barrier island on the east-central coast of Florida, south of the City of 36 Cocoa Beach, and covers approximately 2,000 acres bounded by the Atlantic Ocean on the 37 east and the Banana River on the west. The boat ramp is proposed to be located on the 38 northwestern end of PAFB, on the Banana River behind the 920RQW Facility 698. Figure 1-1 39 provides an overview of the Proposed Action area.

1-1

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

1-2

1246942052C Text Box

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

1 Purpose and Need for Action

2 The purpose and need of the Proposed Action is to construct a boat ramp in the vicinity of the 3 920RQW facilities at PAFB, to protect the integrity of sensitive equipment, tactics, techniques 4 and procedures used in training scenarios as well as to reduce the cost of fueling vehicles, 5 reduce the number of personnel required to launch Zodiac watercraft, and enhance debarkation 6 as well as recovery and maintenance phases for equipment and watercraft.

7 1.3 Scope of the Environmental Assessment

8 This EA evaluates the potential site-specific environmental consequences associated with the 9 boat ramp construction at PAFB (Proposed Action), the No Action Alternative, and alternatives

10 to the proposed action. This EA was produced using available information. All applicable 11 environmental data necessary was collected to describe current environmental conditions. The 12 following aspects were identified for analysis: air quality, biological resources, water resources, 13 safety and health (including noise), hazardous materials and waste, geology and soils, 14 infrastructure and transportation, land use, cultural resources, and socioeconomics.

16 The list of identified EAs for PAFB in Section 1.5 below are representative of actions that occur 17 on PAFB, are likely to be identified and evaluated in the future, may be used for cumulative 18 effect analyses, and may be used as reference. Conclusions of this EA are based on the best 19 available knowledge and projected scope of action identified by the proponent. If significant 20 scope modifications occur during final design, additional environmental impact analysis may be 21 required.

22 1.4 Related Environmental Documentation

23 USAF, 2016. Environmental Assessment for 920th Rescue Wing Training Operations in 24 Florida. U.S. Air Force, 920th Rescue Wing and 45th Space Wing. 2016;

26 USAF, 2012. Environmental Assessment for the General Plan and Maintenance of Patrick AFB, 27 FL. U.S. Air Force, 45th Space Wing. July 2012;

29 USAF, 2011. Environmental Assessment for Airfield Safety and Drainage Improvements at 30 Patrick AFB, FL. U.S. Air Force, 45th Space Wing. December 2011;

32 USAF, 2005. Environmental Assessment for the Beddown of the 920th Rescue Wing at Patrick 33 AFB, FL. U.S. Air Force, 920th Rescue Wing. December 2005;

35 USAF, 2005. Environmental Assessment for the General Plan and Maintenance of Patrick AFB, 36 FL. U.S. Air Force, 45th Space Wing. May 2005;

38 USAF, 2005. Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Land Clearing Activities, 45th Space 39 Wing (properties), FL. U.S. Air Force, 45th Space Wing. May 2005;

41 USAF, 2003. Environmental Assessment for Search and Rescue Training 920th Rescue 42 Group, 301st and 39th Rescue Squadrons at Patrick AFB, FL. U.S. Air Force, 920th 43 Rescue Wing. December 2003.

45 These documents may be accessed by request through; Email:keitha.dattilobain@us.af.mil.

1-3 mailto:keitha.dattilobain@us.af.mil

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2 This section describes the Proposed Action, alternatives considered or eliminated from further 3 consideration, and the No Action Alternative.

4 2.1 Proposed Action

5 The Proposed Action is the construction of a new boat ramp behind Facilities 698 and 689, 6 Rescue Forces training and storage buildings, into the Banana River for the 920th Rescue Wing 7 (920RQW). The proposed activities will be compliant with Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 8 4-151-10, “General Criteria for Waterfront Construction.” Figure 2-1 identifies the location of the 9 proposed boat ramp.

11 Currently, Zodiacs (inflatable boats with air chambers, rigid floors, and rear solid motor support 12 frames; see Appendix E) are transported by ATV from Facility 689 or 699 over a grassy 13 stormwater swale and sandy beach area behind Facility 698 and launched into the Banana 14 River. The Proposed Action would be to grade and place a concrete ramp 30 ft long by 16 ft 15 wide from the water’s edge to 30 feet into the Banana River. Approximately forty-eight (48) 16 cubic yards of sandy river bottom and shoreline would be excavated from the edge of the boat 17 ramp to 10 feet beyond the edge of the ramp to allow for 3-4 ft depth of water for safe launch 18 and recovery of Zodiac vessels and equipment from the boat ramp. Additionally, a concrete or 19 asphalt driveway (8 ft wide by approximately 88 ft long) is planned to be constructed from the 20 pavement within the parking/storage yard west of Facility 698 out to the ramp for safe transport 21 by truck/vehicle of the trailered Zodiac out to the ramp. Figure 2-2 shows the proposed layout 22 and construction for the boat ramp. Avoidance of a small line of mangroves, present on both 23 sides of the proposed ramp (Figures 2-3 and 2-4), will occur to prevent impacts to this protected 24 species (Essential Fish Habitat Federally protected under the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries 25 Management Act, as well as State protected). Most of the surrounding shoreline has been 26 stabilized with rip-rap except for this Zodiac launch/training area. The impacted area is river 27 sand with very small amounts of grasses and herbaceous wetland plants. The ramp requires a 28 Dredge and Fill permit Nationwide 36 (under the Clean Water Act Section 404 and the Rivers 29 and Harbors Act Section 10) for excavation/dredging for and construction of boat ramps. A 30 General Permit will also be required from the State of Florida in addition to an endorsed petition 31 for variance for boat ramp construction in Class III waters approved for shellfish harvesting, as 32 well as mitigation for permanent loss of river bottom as state submerged lands.

2-1

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

2-2

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

2 Figure 2-2: Boat Ramp Model

2-3

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

2 Figure 2-3 Mangroves Near the Proposed Ramp Location (2011)

5 Figure 2-4: Mangroves Near the Proposed Ramp Location (2014)

2-4

1246942052C Text Box

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

1 2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration

2 Per NEPA requirements, the Air Force (AF) must analyze all reasonable alternatives and may 3 eliminate alternatives based on reasonable selection criteria. The selection criteria used to 4 determine viable alternatives were: safety, mission compatibility, environmental concerns and 5 cost to value.

6 2.2.1 Alternative 1

7 Alternative 1 was to use the closest existing base boat ramp, located near Hangar 313, 8 approximately 3,000 feet north of the proposed boat ramp location. Use of the existing ramp 9 would require the construction of fencing around a small area to lock vehicles and trailers in

10 during training and exercises to safeguard equipment and government vehicles. While fencing 11 will safeguard equipment, it won’t restrict viewing of exercises to “need to know” personnel, but 12 may be viewed by the general base population and any badged visitors. This existing ramp is 13 also from the 1940s, is in poor shape and has some integrity concerns that would require 14 significant repairs. This choice was eliminated due to not meeting the selection criteria of 15 mission compatibility, safety and cost to value.

16 2.2.2 Alternative 2

17 Alternative 2 was to use other boat ramps in the base marina or off-base at public boat ramps.

18 The base marina is over three miles from the 920RQW campus area. The closest public boat 19 ramp is over five miles from the 920RQW area at PAFB. This alternative does not provide for 20 securing or safeguarding equipment during training or exercises, increases unproductive travel 21 time between the ramp and staging areas, and provides unrestricted viewing of training and 22 exercises to the general public. This choice was eliminated due to not meeting the selection 23 criteria of mission compatibility and cost to value.

24 2.3 Description of No Action

25 As required by NEPA, the only retained alternative to the Proposed Action was the No Action 26 Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the 920RQW would continue to use the 27 undeveloped sand path to launch and recover vessels and equipment over the natural 28 shoreline. The No Action Alternative is resulting in rutting of the launch area due to the soft 29 nature of the sandy shoreline, causes longer delays with needing to be more careful and 30 cautious to prevent equipment from creating ruts and getting stuck, and poses a possibility of 31 damaging vessels or sensitive equipment during training and exercises. This alternative also 32 leads to more environmental concerns over time with rutting causing erosion of the shoreline.

33 Therefore, the No Action Alternative is not reasonable as the status quo will not meet the 34 purpose and need to safely and efficiently launch and recover Zodiac vessels and equipment, 35 and also doesn’t meet the selection criteria of safety and environmental concerns.

36 2.4 Summary of Potential Environmental Issues

37 Eleven broad environmental components were initially considered to provide a context for 38 understanding the potential effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives and as a basis for 39 assessing the significance of potential impacts. The areas of environmental consideration were 40 noise, air quality, hazardous materials and waste, geology and soils, infrastructure and

2-5

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

1 transportation, land use, cultural resources, socioeconomic, biological resources, water 2 resources, and safety and health.

4 No significant impacts from either the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative have been 5 identified for any of the resource areas examined in this document. Brief overviews of the 6 aspects that did not need to be analyzed in detail are found in Section 2.0. Minor impacts 7 associated with most of the environmental components are briefly summarized, and a more 8 detailed analysis of potential impacts to the remaining resource areas that have the potential to 9 be more affected by the proposed action (i.e. biological and water resources) are presented in

10 Chapters 3.0 and 4.0. Guidance from regulatory agencies through the pre-permitting process 11 and anticipated guidance during permitting for the project has been incorporated as Best 12 Management Practices and potential mitigation to further eliminate or reduce impacts.

14 A comparison matrix of the potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Action to all of the 15 resource areas considered is provided in Table 2-1 below. The three levels of impact utilized in 16 this document are defined as follows:

17 - No Impact - No impact is predicted.

18 - No Significant Impact – An impact is predicted, but the impact does not meet the 19 intensity/context significance criteria for the specific resource.

20 Significant Impact – An impact is predicted that meets the intensity/context significance 21 criteria for the specific resource.

22 Table 2-1: Environmental Impact Matrix

Environmental Components Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Biological Resources No Significant Impact No Significant Impact

Water Resources No Significant Impact No Significant Impact

Safety and Health No Significant Impact No Significant Impact

Noise No Significant Impact No Significant Impact

Air Quality No Significant Impact No Significant Impact

Hazardous Waste No Significant Impact No Significant Impact

Geology and Soils No Significant Impact No Significant Impact

Infrastructure and Transportation No Significant Impact No Significant Impact

Land Use No Significant Impact No Significant Impact

Cultural Resources No Impact No Impact

Socioeconomic No Impact No Impact

2-6

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

1 2.4.1 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

2 The AF determined that negligible/minor impacts or no impacts would be anticipated to noise, 3 air quality, hazardous materials and waste, geology and soils, infrastructure and transportation, 4 land use, cultural resources, and socioeconomics. The following is a summary of impacts 5 potentially associated with these categories that are minor, thereby allowing for elimination from 6 detailed analysis.

7 2.4.1.1 Noise

8 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) administers the Noise Control Act 9 of 1972, and has identified 65 decibels, A-scale (dBA) as an acceptable noise level for

10 compatible land uses. This level is not regarded as a noise standard, but as a basis to set 11 appropriate standards that should also factor in local considerations and issues.

13 Noise impacts from the operation of construction equipment are usually limited to a distance of 14 1,000 feet or less. Vehicles associated with the Proposed Action typically have a dBA between 15 65 and 100, at a distance of 50 feet (USEPA, 1971) and would only need to be used during 16 construction for a few days. The proposed project is located along the Banana River and there 17 are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals) in the vicinity. All work activities would be 18 confined to daylight hours to avoid nuisance noise in the evenings. Wildlife is infrequently found 19 in/near this area and would avoid the area during construction.

21 In accordance with 29 CFR 1910, protection against the effects of noise exposure would be 22 provided. When employees are subjected to elevated sound levels, feasible administrative or 23 engineering controls would be utilized. If such controls do not reduce sound levels to the levels 24 presented in Table 2-2, hearing protection would be provided and used to reduce exposure. No 25 significant noise impacts are anticipated due to the Proposed Action. Under the No Action 26 Alternative, continued use of the undeveloped land would occur, and no significant noise 27 impacts would occur.

29 Table 2-2: Permissible Noise Exposure

Duration Per Day (Hours) Slow Response Sound Level (dBA) 8 90 6 92 4 95 3 97 2 100

1.5 102 1 105

0.5 110

0.25 or less 115

30 2.4.1.2 Air Quality

31 In Florida, regional air quality is assessed at the county level. PAFB is located within Brevard 32 County which has been designated by both USEPA and FDEP to be in attainment for all criteria 33 pollutants. Ambient air monitoring records from monitoring stations maintained by the 34 appropriate state or local agency for the affected environment are examined to characterize the

2-7

1246942052C Text Box

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

1 existing air quality. PAFB is located in an area that is in attainment for all criteria pollutants, 2 therefore, a conformity determination is not required. However, several sources of air emissions 3 were considered that could result from implementation of the Proposed Action.

5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 40 CFR Part 50-51, Title V of the Clean Air 6 Act Part 70, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62 set standards for pollutants to attempt 7 to control levels that may affect public health and the environment. AFI 32-7040, Air Quality, 8 identifies AF requirements for an air quality compliance program. PAFB’s current Florida 9 Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Title V Air Permit No. 0090021-007-AV expired

10 on 30 April 2012 and is current until 2017.

12 Major sources of pollutants at PAFB include steam boilers, surface coating operations, and fuel 13 storage tanks. Other sources of pollutants at the base are deemed insignificant activities under 14 Title V rules as only stationary sources are considered. The Proposed Action will only include 15 mobile sources of air emissions. Vehicles would emit exhaust (carbon monoxide (CO)), nitrogen 16 oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) during project activities. Dust particles (i.e., particulate 17 matter (PM)) would also be suspended during construction activities. PAFB is currently 18 operating as a synthetic minor generator of Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) emissions under 19 federally enforceable operating limitations. Construction events are not required to be reported 20 through Title V permitting because these activities are not generating pollutants from stationary 21 sources. Mobile sources, aircraft operations, outdoor weapons training, construction activities, 22 etc., also generate pollutants at PAFB. Air emission inventories for PAFB have indicated that 23 PM has become a major criteria air pollutant when considering the increased construction/ 24 demolition activities that have been occurring in the past five years.

26 Greenhouse gas emission reduction through energy efficiency and sustainability, however, is 27 the goal of the Federal government recently mandated through EO 13423, Strengthening 28 Federal Environmental, Energy and Transportation Management. Currently the Greenhouse 29 Gas Reporting Rule required reporting of greenhouse gas data from large sources and suppliers 30 in the United States, but there are no published thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas 31 emissions. The Federal government has recognized the need to reduce energy consumption 32 and shift to renewable and alternative fuels to reduce emissions. Energy improvements such as 33 replacement of old Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment, installation of 34 energy management controls, and metering for energy use are being implemented at PAFB and 35 are expected to eliminate millions of tons of greenhouse gases annually once completed.

37 Equipment used to grade, dredge, and install concrete slabs for a ramp emit exhaust and dust 38 particulates. The two main pollutants of concern in diesel exhaust that affect human health are 39 NOx and PM. This construction is anticipated to take less than a week. The construction sector 40 is a significant contributor to these emissions, creating 32% of all mobile-sources of NOx 41 emissions and 37% of PM emissions (USEPA). A typical idling diesel engine in an on-road 42 tractor consumes 1.2 gallons of fuel per hour at high idle and 0.6 gallons per hour at low idle.

43 Emissions estimated using power requirements, duration of operations, and emission factors for 44 the various equipment types from the USEPA’s Compilation of Air Pollution Emissions Factors, 45 AP-42, Volume 1 (2002), will be minimal for this small construction project and well within 46 NAAQS with only a short duration of three to five days of construction with a localized minor 47 increase in concentrations. Emissions are miniscule (less than 0.03%) in comparison to existing 48 point, nonpoint and mobile source emissions in Brevard County (comparison of approximately 1 49 ton/year for short construction period to 34,251 tons/year in Brevard County for just NOx). Dust 50 suppression techniques, such as periodic site watering would be used to reduce particulate

2-8

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

1 matter pollutants if necessary, and engine idle will be reduced as much as practical to reduce 2 emissions. With the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur so there would be no 3 increase in emissions and only short-term emissions would continue with approximately a few 4 times a month with training which requires use of ATVs to transport vessels and equipment to 5 the shoreline for launching/disembarking. Only short-term impacts are projected to air quality for 6 both the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative.

7 2.4.1.3 Hazardous Waste

8 AFI 32-7042, Solid and Hazardous Waste Compliance, identifies compliance requirements for 9 all solid and hazardous waste, except radioactive waste.

11 Hazardous materials typically associated with equipment use, such as lubricants and fuels, 12 would be used during the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Any hazardous waste 13 would be identified, removed, and disposed of in accordance with current regulations. Although 14 not anticipated, any additional hazardous materials/waste generated due to the implementation 15 of the Proposed Action would be identified and removed in accordance with existing regulations.

16 The contractor will be responsible for sampling all wastes to determine whether they are 17 hazardous or non-hazardous and ensure proper disposal. All containers must be labeled to 18 accurately reflect the contents. Management of hazardous waste must be completed in 19 accordance with 40 CFR 260-279 and 45 SW Management Plan 19-14. All AF hazardous waste 20 is to remain on PAFB until it is properly containerized and then shipped off-site by the AF under 21 its USEPA identification number.

23 The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101(b)) established a National policy to 24 prevent or reduce pollution at the source. The environmental implications of the Proposed 25 Action activities must be considered during the design phase to minimize or eliminate 26 environmental liability, and a pollution prevention environmental analysis must be performed. All 27 construction contracts are required to comply with AFI 32-7086, Hazardous Materials 28 Management, and must ensure that all recyclable material (e.g., concrete) is recycled and 29 recycled quantities reported by weight to 45 Civil Engineering Squadron (CES) Environmental.

30 Any solid waste must be managed in accordance with the instructions set forth in the 31 specifications of the contract. It is anticipated that all non-hazardous, non-recyclable 32 construction debris would be disposed in the Brevard County landfill. No significant impacts to 33 hazardous materials and waste are anticipated for the Proposed Action or the No Action 34 Alternative.

35 2.4.1.4 Geology and Soils

36 The soils within the Proposed Action area have been identified by former Department of 37 Agriculture surveys as a mix of Urban Sands and Canaveral series which are characterized as 38 poorly to moderately drained. Additionally, dredge material from the Banana River was used as 39 fill for the base over 60 years ago. This material contains thick marine deposits, sand and shell 40 fragments which are moderately to well drained. The potential for erosion is highest during 41 construction activities. To reduce the impacts of erosion, standard construction Best 42 Management Practices (BMPs) would be used. These measures include the use of silt fences, 43 in-water floating turbidity curtains, and re-vegetation of disturbed areas if required to control 44 erosion. These measures will be implemented prior to and during construction in addition to 45 permit requirements that may include these as well as other potentially more stringent 46 measures. Additionally, there are no Installation Restoration Program (IRP) soil or groundwater

2-9

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

1 contamination sites located in the proposed area for boat ramp construction. A groundwater 2 contamination IRP site, Former Truck Wash Facility (P040), is located approximately 300 feet to 3 the northeast of the proposed ramp site, however, the ramp excavation will not impact this site.

5 The No Action Alternative would continue to utilize the undeveloped area and minor erosion 6 would continue to occur due to ingress/egress in order to launch and recover Zodiac vessels 7 and equipment. No significant impacts are anticipated to geology or soils for the Proposed 8 Action or the No Action Alternative.

9 2.4.1.5 Infrastructure and Transportation

10 Infrastructure and Transportation include utilities and transportation networks. Utility lines would 11 be identified prior to any excavation and an AF Form 103 would be obtained. Utilities will be 12 avoided during the Proposed Action.

14 Traffic may be temporarily delayed to allow construction vehicles to safely enter and exit the 15 work zones. Night work is not anticipated, but if construction lighting is necessary, it will be 16 coordinated with 45 CES Environmental to ensure the appropriate balance between safety, 17 energy conservation, sea turtle protection and reduced light pollution. All exterior lighting must 18 be in compliance with 45SWI 32-7001, Exterior Lighting Management.

20 Under the No Action Alternative, continued use of the undeveloped land would occur. No 21 significant impacts are anticipated to infrastructure and transportation for the Proposed Action or 22 the No Action Alternative.

23 2.4.1.6 Land Use

24 In recognition of the increasing pressures of over-development upon the nation's coastal 25 resources, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. The CZMA 26 encourages states to preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore or enhance 27 valuable natural coastal resources such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, 28 barrier islands, and coral reefs, as well as the fish and wildlife using those habitats. The 29 Secretary of Commerce delegated the administration of the CZMA to the National Oceanic and 30 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 31 administers individual state programs.

33 The CZMA contains environmental compliance implications for many federal projects and 34 programs "directly affecting" the states' coastal zones. Federal property is exempt from the 35 definition of the states' coastal zones, but activities occurring on federal property that directly 36 affect the states' coastal zones must comply with the CZMA. The section of the Act most 37 significant to the Proposed Action is Section 307, "Coordination and Cooperation." Section 38 307(c)(1)(A) mandates that each federal agency activity within or outside the coastal zone that 39 affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a 40 manner which is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of 41 approved state management programs.

43 Applicable federal actions must be consistent with NOAA's federal consistency regulations at 44 15 CFR Part 930. Federal consistency is required for federal actions that are defined as federal 45 activities, including any development projects (15 CFR Part 930, Subpart C). Subpart C 46 regulations require that all federal activities and development projects be consistent to the

2-10

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

1 maximum extent practicable with federally approved state Coastal Zone Management (CZM) 2 programs (Table 2-3). Activities must be reviewed to determine which directly affect the coastal 3 zone of states with approved plans and provide a written "consistency determination" to the 4 authorized state CZM agency for all activities directly affecting the state's coastal zone. The 5 Proposed Action will place permanent concrete in an area previously undeveloped. With 6 issuance and following of conditions of a Dredge and Fill Permit by the United States Army Corp 7 of Engineers (USACE), State General Permit by SJRWMD and approval of petition for variance 8 for construction in Class III waters through FDEP and SJRWMD, the Proposed Action will be 9 deemed consistent with Florida’s CZM program.

11 Under the No Action Alternative, continued use of the undeveloped land would occur; no 12 significant impacts would be anticipated to land use.

14 Table 2-3: Summary of Land Use and Zoning Requirements

Law or Rule Permit/Action(s) Requirement Agency or Organization

Coastal Zone Management Act

Development projects must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with Florida’s CZMP

Preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore or enhance valuable natural coastal resources such as floodplains, and dunes

FDEP, Air Force

Florida Statutes, Section 373.428 and Section 380.23

Federal Consistency

When an activity regulated under this part is subject to federal consistency review under Section 380.23, the final agency action on a permit application submitted under this part shall constitute the state's determination as to whether the activity is consistent with the federally approved Florida Coastal Management Program. Agencies with authority to review and comment on such activity pursuant to the Florida Coastal

Management Program shall review such activity for consistency with only those statutes and rules incorporated into the

Florida Coastal Management Program and implemented by that agency.

NOAA

Florida Administrative Code (FAC), Rule 62.330.302(1)(c), and Rule 62.330.010

(5)

New boat ramp construction is not authorized in Class II or Class III waters classified for shellfish harvesting without an approved petition of variance

The special value and importance of shellfish harvesting waters to Florida’s economy as existing or potential sites of commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting and as a nursery area for fish and shellfish is recognized by the Agencies. The Agency shall deny a permit for a regulated activity located in, adjacent to or in close proximity to Class II waters or Class III waters classified by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as approved, restricted, conditionally approved, or conditionally restricted for shellfish harvesting.

FDEP,

SJRWMD

2-11

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

Law or Rule Permit/Action(s) Requirement Agency or Organization

FAC 62B-33.004

(3) (b)

Exemptions from Permit

Requirements

(3) In addition to the exemptions provided in Section 161.053(12), F.S., the following are exempt from the provisions of Section 161.053, F.S., and this rule chapter:

(b) Construction, excavation, and damage or destruction of vegetation conducted by the United States Government on lands owned and maintained by the United States Government.

FDEP

1 2.4.1.7 Cultural Resources

2 Cultural resources include prehistoric-archaeological, historic, architectural, and Native 3 American resources. Areas of potential impact include properties, structures, landscapes, or 4 traditional cultural sites that qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Section 5 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) requires federal agencies to 6 consider the effects of their actions on historic properties. AFI 32-7065, Cultural Resources 7 Management, provides guidelines for the protection and management of cultural resources on 8 AF managed lands.

10 There has been no systematic archaeological survey of PAFB, however, there are no recorded 11 sites within the boundaries of the base as a reconnaissance study conducted by the National 12 Park Service in 1982 found that the two shorelines at PAFB were severely disturbed due to past 13 filling and paving activities, and the remaining property at PAFB was either subjected to 14 extensive earth moving or was developed. The study concluded that the likelihood that 15 significant sites were preserved was limited and no cultural resource survey was planned. The 16 airfield area was developed with dredge spoils from the Banana River from the 1940s to the 17 1950s. The Proposed Action location is in a previously disturbed area as shoreline stabilization 18 projects with use of rip-rap have occurred over the years around the site. Additionally, no 19 historic properties are located within the Proposed Action area.

21 Federal cultural resource preservation statutes (including the Native American Graves 22 Protection and Repatriation Act) mandate that should prehistoric or historic artifacts be 23 unexpectedly discovered during construction or excavation, such materials shall be identified 24 and evaluated by an archaeologist. Should human remains or cultural artifacts be encountered, 25 federal statutes specify that work shall cease immediately and the proper authorities be notified.

26 The 45 SW Cultural Resource manager (archaeologist) will work with the State Historic 27 Preservation Office (SHPO) and or local tribes should unexpected discoveries be identified, and 28 project re-commencement will only be authorized once the SHPO clears the site. No impacts to 29 cultural resources are anticipated from the Proposed Action or the No Action Alternative.

30 2.4.1.8 Socioeconomic

31 Socioeconomics comprise such interrelated resources as population, employment, income, 32 temporary living quarters (during construction activities), and public finance. It is not anticipated 33 that the Proposed Action will affect employment patterns on a permanent basis or induce 34 substantial growth or growth-related impacts. Under Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to 35 Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Federal 36 agencies must analyze environmental effects such as human health, economic and social 37 effects on low-income and minority populations, and mitigate significant effects to these 38 communities. In accordance with EO 12898, the public will have the opportunity to review this

2-12

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida

1 EA and comment on its actions accordingly. The Proposed Action area is not located adjacent 2 to minority populations or low-income population centers, and the boat ramp will not be an 3 adverse impact to local fishing or shellfish harvesting. The ramp will only be used for AF 4 training requirements. In fact, the boat ramp will be considered a public benefit as the 920RQW 5 has aided private boaters in distress in the Banana River when called by the Coast Guard. No 6 significant impacts to socioeconomics are anticipated from the Proposed Action or the No Action 7 Alternative.

8 2.5 Mitigation Measures

9 The Banana River is classified as jurisdictional waters of the USACE under Section 404 and 10 401 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. A Nationwide Permit 11 issued by the USACE is anticipated for construction of the boat ramp. The USACE will require 12 mitigation measures outlined by USFWS and NMFS as conditions in their permit. These 13 measures include following all upland protection processes for potential Eastern indigo snake, 14 the NMFS Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions, the USFWS Standard 15 Manatee In-Water Construction Conditions in addition to the USFWS requirement to follow the 16 path of deepest water whenever possible from the ramp location to reduce impacts to 17 submerged seagrass that may be found further offshore, and to maintain low speed, minimum 18 wake in this shallow water area considered manatee critical habitat. All Best Management 19 practices to avoid impacts to seagrass, mangroves, coral and oysters, and excessive turbidity in 20 shallow water areas will be followed.

22 The Banana River shoreline and elevations below the 1.1 ft line (NGVD 89) also have State 23 jurisdiction and are considered sovereign submerged lands (SSL). The Florida Department of 24 Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the St Johns River Water Management District 25 (SJRWMD) will require a SSL authorization of use through Letter of Consent within the 26 Environmental…