Attachment 15 AF Form 813 Demolish and Construct Pest Management Facility.pdf

23 September 2021

MEMORANDUM FOR 325 CES/CEIEC

FROM: 325 FW/JA

SUBJECT: Legal Review – AF IMT 813 – Demolish Pest Management Facility, B1701and

Construct Replacement Facility, Tyndall AFB

1. You requested a legal review and sufficiency determination of the proposed categorical exclusion (CATEX) from further environmental analysis for this proposed action. I have reviewed the Request for Impact Analysis (AF IMT 813) titled “Demolish Pest Management Facility, B1701and Construct Replacement Facility” and find it legally sufficient.

2. Background. The purpose of this proposed action is to demolish the existing pest management facility, B1701 and construct a new facility to replace it. The existing Pest Management building is deteriorating at an accelerated rate due to the damage caused by Hurricane Michael. The building has significant structural, aesthetic, and equipment damage such as: cracks in the walls, failing facade, leaking roof, decomposing roof trusses, rusted doors, degrading window frames, molded ceiling tiles, eroding mechanical systems, failing electrical systems, tarnished plumbing systems and corroding wash down equipment. There also is asbestos present within this building. A new facility will be built rather than repairing the existing facility.

a. The action will require the following work.

(1). Demolish building 1701 and associated concrete pad and asphalt pavement.

Demolition will result in removal of 9500 SF of impervious surface.

(2). Construct a new paved road with an estimated area of 1,700 sf. The road will have a minimum depth of 6 inches and will require 32 CY of asphalt. Since the current site is below the 19 feet design flood elevation, the new facility will require fill material to meet the elevation requirement. Clean soil will be brought in with an area about of 11,500 sf and an estimated volume of 852 CY.

(3). Construct a new 1700-sf Pest Management facility to replace the facility that will be demolished. This will include replacing about 700 feet of fencing with a new one. The newly replaced fence shall be 6-ft tall or higher and the footing shall be a minimum of 3-ft and have a total volume of concrete around 34 CY.

(4). Convert the existing utilities overhead utilities to trenched underground utilities, then connect the new building to the utilities. The dimensions of the trench are estimated to be 15-ft long, 4-ft deep by 3-ft deep from the nearest transformer.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

325TH FIGHTER WING (ACC)

TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE FLORIDA

b. The no action alternative would result in maintaining the status quo. If the Status Quo is maintained with no action, the existing facility will continue to fall into disrepair.

c. The proposed action is described as meeting CATEX A2.3.11, “Action similar to other actions which have been determined to have an insignificant impact in a similar setting as established in an EA resulting in a FONSI.” The Environmental Assessment for Hurricane Recovery and Installation Development at Tyndall Air Force Base, April 2020, (hereafter “Recovery EA”) is the approved environmental document cited for use of this CATEX. This construction project is in the same general area, similar in nature and minor in scope as compared to projects evaluated in the EA. 325 CES/CEIE has conducted an evaluation of the EA to ensure the document is still valid in accordance with 32 CFR 989.20 (c), including an on-site survey, finding the methodology and analytical approach previously used is appropriate for the proposed action; the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action are not significantly different from those identified in the existing document; the proposed action would not change the previous analysis of cumulative impacts; public involvement in the referenced analysis provides appropriate coverage for the proposed action; and there has been no significant change in circumstances or significant new information relevant to the proposed action.

3. Discussion. An AF IMT 813 Review Checklist is attached summarizing my review findings.

a. The Recovery EA resulting in a FONSI evaluated the proposed demolition, construction and renovation of numerous facilities throughout the installation that were severely damaged by Hurricane Michael in 2018. That proposed action included evaluation of 28 individual projects spanning six planning areas throughout the installation, as well as three additional projects that covered more than one planning area (Multi-Area projects). The action included demolition, redesign and construction of hundreds of thousands of square feet of new roadways, buildings and utilities necessary to their use in various base locations. The purpose of implementing the installation development projects at Tyndall AFB was to recover mission capabilities at Tyndall AFB impacted by Hurricane Michael, and rebuild Tyndall AFB to a fully operational base, thereby providing new facilities and infrastructure, as well as executing repair, demolition and functionality improvements necessary to support the mission of the 325 FW and tenant units.

That EA resulted in a finding of no significant impact. I find that the proposed action is sufficiently similar in nature and location to support application of A2.3.11 to this proposed action, taking into consideration the EPF’s updated environmental survey, tribal and historic consultation and analysis of the site finding no new information providing contrary indications or negative impacts, and assuming safeguards for environmental protection described in the proposed action are followed.

b. 32 C.F.R. 989 requires both air quality NEPA and General Conformity Rule assessments within the EIAP process. While 32 C.F.R. 989 Appendix B provides a list of CATEX actions that exclude further environmental analysis in an EA or an EIS, 32 C.F.R. 989.13(e) states that “application of a CATEX to an action does not eliminate the need to meet air conformity requirements”. Therefore, even if a proposed action has been excluded from further EIAP analysis based on a CATEX, further air quality analysis is required if a proposed action is located where General Conformity applies. Here, air conformity modeling resulted in a determination that a Conformity Determination is not required for this action. See Air Quality

EIAP Guide Volume I, Table 5-2, List of General Conformity Exemptions; EIAP Guide p. 49;

40 CFR 93.153; Recovery EA, p. 4-2.

4. Recommendation. Proceed with the proposed action. The Request for Environmental Impact Analysis application of the cited categorical exclusion is legally sufficient. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at 283-3238.

GERALD D. LAVER

Attorney-Advisor

Attachment:

AF IMT 813 Review Checklist, 23 Sep 2021

AF IMT 813 Review Checklist Demolish Pest Management Facility, B1701 & Construct Replacement

Facility Mr. Gerald Laver, 23 Sep 2021

This checklist provides an overview for conducting a legal review of an AF IMT 813, Request For Environmental Impact Analysis (Form 813). The Air Force uses Form 813 to document the need for environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321-4370f, or for certain Categorical Exclusions (CATEX) determinations for proposed actions. Generally, the AF IMT 813 is the starting point that initiates the AF Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP). An attorney reviews the AF IMT 813 to ensure the proposed project meets the requirements of NEPA and the EIAP. If after completing the checklist, any one of blocks 1-19 are not checked or marked N/A, the AF Form 813 will be legally insufficient.

The AF EIAP regulation can be found at 32 CFR Part 989. AFI 32-7061, The Environmental Impact Analysis Process which adopts 32 CFR Part 989, is the controlling instruction for AF EIAP. CATEX determinations and descriptions identified by number are found in 32 CFR Pt 989 Appendix B.

If you have questions not addressed by the checklist, or you are uncertain about the sufficiency of the analysis in any portion of the AF Form 813, please contact your MAJCOM-ELO (Maj Milott). If you are coordinating with the Environmental Law Field Support Center Planning and Sustainment Branch, they may be contacted at 210-395-8998, DSN 969-8998 or by email at afloa.jaceps@us.af.mil.

Check if Met

Comments

SECTION I - PROPONENT INFORMATION

1. Blocks 1-3, Blocks 6-6b have been completed

Blocks comprised of self-explanatory administrative data.

X

2. Block 4 - Proponent has included a purpose and need statement in block or in an attachment.

3. Purpose statement clearly describes what the proponent intends to accomplish with the action.

4. Need statement clearly identifies why the proposed action is necessary.

Examples could include mission requirements or legal/regulatory changes, etc.

5. Block 5- Description of Proposed Action and

Alternatives Proposed Action (DOPAA)

Block includes description of what action the proponent wants to take.

6. Description of proposed action is sufficiently detailed to ensure it meets the purpose and need as articulated in Block 4.

Block 5 may contain reasonable alternatives to the proposed action along with the no action alternative. Those items will be addressed at a later point in the checklist.

SECTION II – PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY

7. One of the columns under each Block 7-16

Checked.

8. Blocks 7-16 Assessment makes sense based upon the type of action

Use common sense, for instance, if the proposed action requires filling some portion of a wetland and block 12 no effect is checked there are likely questions that you need to ask the environmental planner.

9. Action assessed to have unknown environmental impacts If NO then mark as N/A.

If the action has any unknown effects, the decision maker cannot determine that unknown effects are not significant. A CATEX cannot be applied at this time and an Environmental Assessment (EA) or

N/A

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be considered.

10. Action assessed to have potential adverse effects in blocks 7-16.

If NO, then mark as N/A.

If an action has any potential adverse effect it will probably result in an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and will not qualify for a categorical exclusion

(CATEX)

If uncertain contact ELO or Planning and Sustainment Branch of ELFSC.

SECTION III – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS DETERMINATION

11. Block 17 indicates a CATEX is applicable.

If NO Mark Checklist Items 11-15 N/A and skip to

12. CATEX applied has been identified by number

CATEX descriptions identified by number are found in 32 CFR Pt 989 Appendix B

CATEX A2.3.11, “Action similar to other actions which have been determined to have an insignificant impact in a similar setting as established in an EA resulting in a FONSI.” The Environmental Assessment for Hurricane Recovery and Installation Development at Tyndall Air Force Base, April 2020, is the approved environmental document cited for CATEX.

13. CATEX applied is consistent with the description of the proposed action.

If NO, determine if another CATEX in Appendix B might apply. If one does discuss with environmental planner and have form accomplished again.

Proposed action is in the same general area and similar to proposed actions evaluated in the EA resulting in a FONSI.

If uncertain about the proper application of a particular CATEX contact ELO or Planning and Sustainment Branch of ELFSC.

14. Review 32 CFR 989, Appendix B, A2.2. Categories of Actions with “unique circumstances” described in subparagraphs have not been implicated.

If categories have been implicated, application of a CATEX may be legally insufficient and additional analysis may be required.

If uncertain whether A2.2 has been implicated or whether it precludes the application of a CATEX, contact ELO or Planning and Sustainment Branch of

ELFSC

Certain CATEX’s will require review of additional documents, you must be certain to review all necessary documentation that supports analysis. Two common instances are listed below. Review CATEX to determine if other documentation also needs review.

A2.3.7 requires proposal to have been originally evaluated in accordance with applicable regulations.

A2.3.11 requires proposal to be sufficiently similar to other project with EA/FONSI or EIS (an EBS is insufficient).

15. Use of CATEX is consistent with Preliminary

Environmental Survey

Checklist Item #9 MUST be marked N/A

Checklist Item #10 MUST be marked N/A OR you have consulted your environmental planner and/or ELO and are satisfied that the application of a CATEX is consistent with 32 CFR 989.13(b)

32 CFR 989.13 provides guidance regarding the applicability of a CATEX. Per 989.13(b) categories of actions that ordinarily do not require an EA or EIS include: “Minimal adverse environmental impacts.”

If adverse impacts are indicated further environmental study is then ordinarily done, however, if the action fits within CATEX and the adverse impacts are consistent with 32 CFR 989.13(b)(1) document may be considered legally sufficient.

16. Block 17 - indicates further environmental analysis required.

If NO mark as N/A then move to Checklist Item #17.

17. Block 17 – not completed

If Either box on Block 17 has been checked mark as N/A.

There may be instances where the AF Form 813 is being used to record the fact that environmental issues were considered but that neither a CATEX nor further study was required. In this instance you should see some further information in Block 18 of the form. If you encounter this situation, contact your ELO or the ELFSC Planning and Sustainment Branch to discuss prior to determining legal sufficiency.

18 Block 18 offers valid explanation how AF Form 813 is being used to create a record of environmental consideration when an action is not subject to a CATEX and does not require further environmental analysis.

An example of a situation where this would apply is where an action that does not fit into a CATEX and there will clearly be NO environmental impacts arising from the action but a record is required

Circumstances where this would occur are likely to be rare, please contact ELO or Planning and Sustainment Branch of ELFSC to discuss.

19. Block 18 includes a statement indicating that conformity requirements pursuant to Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act have been addressed. See 32

CFR 989.30

Possible examples of an appropriate statement could be:

“The proposed action will occur in an area that is in attainment for all criteria pollutants and no conformity determination under the Clean Air Act is required”; or

“The proposed action will occur in an area that is in nonattainment for [insert criteria pollutant]; however emissions from the action will be de minimus so no conformity determination under the Clean Air Act is required.”

Note: If Block 17 indicates that further environmental analysis must be completed, conformity requirements will be addressed in the EA/EIS and this checklist Item may be checked.

If you have questions contact your ELO or the Planning and Sustainment Branch of ELFSC to discuss.

Action will occur within an attainment area, making the action exempt from General Conformity (GC). See Air Quality EIAP Guide Volume I, Table 5- 2, List of GC Exemptions; EIAP Guide p. 49; 40 CFR 93.153.

ACAM Modeling was performed, based on the results the air quality in the area would not be significantly impacted by the proposed project; therefore a conformity determination is not required.

In addition, if GC is otherwise required, conformity exemption based on CATEX A2.3.11 is available if the prior FONSI action evaluated air quality and identified air quality impact as not significant using the 2014 (or newer) version of ACAM, and the new proposed action’s scope, activity, and size are equal to or less than the prior FONSI action. Air conformity modeling was conducted for this project as part of the referenced EA, based upon which a Conformity Determination is not required for this action.

The Final Environmental Assessment for Hurricane Recovery and Installation Development at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida meets these criteria, see vol. 1, pp. 4-1 to 4-5. Scope, activity and size of this action is less than that studied by referenced action which found for the actions studied that “Proposed Actions, all attainment criteria pollutants are below the significance indicators presented in Tables 4.1-1a through 4.1-1g.

Therefore, the potential air quality impact from all criteria pollutants is insignificant.”

20. Block 18: information in block does not impact the previously reviewed information.

If Block 18 does impact previous analysis, reconcile questions before determining legal sufficiency.

If you are uncertain about whether comments included in Block 18 call into question the other Checklist Items previously reviewed, contact ELO or Planning and Sustainment Branch at ELFSC for assistance.

21. Return to Block 5 on Form 813

Block 5 Includes reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action (ONLY REQUIRED IF

FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYIS

REQUIRED)

AF must analyze reasonable alternatives for all EA’s and EIS’s. See 32 CFR 989.8(a). The Block 5 DOPAA will serve as the basis for the DOPAA in an EA/EIS if needed and should identify reasonable alternatives.

Sometimes proponent will include reasonable alternatives for projects subject to valid CATEX.

This is acceptable but not required.

22. Block 5 identifies that No action alternative is included in DOPAA.

Unless otherwise excused by law the no action alternative must be analyzed. See 32 CFR 989.8(a).

(ONLY REQUIRED IF FURTHER

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS REQUIRED)

Sometimes proponent will include no action alternative for projects subject to valid CATEX.

This is acceptable but not required.

If the Status Quo is maintained with no action, the existing facility will continue to fall into disrepair.

AF FORM 813, 19990901 (EF-V1) Page 1 of 2THIS FORM CONSOLIDATES AF FORMS 813 AND 814.

PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF BOTH FORMS ARE OBSOLETE.

REQUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

SECTION I - PROPONENT INFORMATION

INSTRUCTIONS: Section I to be completed by Proponent; Sections II and III to be completed by Environmental Planning Function.

Continue on separate sheets as necessary and reference appropriate item number(s).

1. TO (Environmental Planning Function)

325 CES/CEIEC

2. FROM (Proponent organization and functional address symbol)

325 CES/CENPD

2a. TELEPHONE NO.

(850) 283-2768

3. TITLE OF PROPOSED ACTION

Demolish Pest Management Facility, B1701and Construct Replacement Facility

4. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION (Identify decision to be made and need date)

The Purpose and Need For Action is attached. See Page 2.

5. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES (DOPAA) (Provide sufficient details for evaluation of the total action)

The Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives is attached. See Page 2

6. PROPONENT APPROVAL (Name and Grade) Frisner Jean-Pierre, Jr.; GS-12

6a. SIGNATURE 6b. DATE 6/13/21

SECTION II - PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY (Check appropriate box and describe potential environmental effects including cumulative effects) (+=positive effect; 0=no effect; - = adverse effect; U=unknown effect) + 0 - U

7. AIR INSTALLATION COMPATIBLE USE ZONE/LAND USE (Noise, accident potential, encroachment, etc.)

8. AIR QUALITY (Emissions, attainment status, state implementation plan, etc.)

9. WATER RESOURCES (Quality, quantity, source, etc.)

10. SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH (Asbestos/radiation/chemical exposure, explosives safety quantity distance, bird/wildlife aircraft hazard, etc.)

11. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTE (Use/storage/generation, solid waste, etc.)

12. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Wetlands/floodplains, threatened or endangered species, etc.)

13. CULTURAL RESOURCES (Native American burial sites, archaeological, historical, etc.)

14. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (Topography, minerals, geothermal, Installation Restoration Program, seismicity, etc.)

15. SOCIOECONOMIC (Employment/population projections, school and local fiscal impacts, etc.)

16. OTHER (Potential impacts not addressed above.)

SECTION III - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS DETERMINATION

17. PROPOSED ACTION QUALIFIES FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION (CATEX) # ; ORA2.3.11

PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR A CATEX; FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED.

18. REMARKS

ACAM Modeling completed and Conformity Determination is not required.

19. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING FUNCTION CERTIFICATION

(Name and Grade) Edwin Wallace, GS-12

19a. SIGNATURE 19b. DATE

JEAN-

PIERRE.FRISNER.JR.1591794015

Digitally signed by JEAN-

PIERRE.FRISNER.JR.1591794015

Date: 2021.04.26 07:24:38 -05'00'

WALLACE.EDWIN.

BLAIR.1047698347

Digitally signed by

WALLACE.EDWIN.BLAIR.1047698

Date: 2021.09.16 09:42:03 -05'00'

Demolish Pest Management Facility, B1701and Construct Replacement Facility. AF Form 813 continuation sheet

4.0 Purpose and Need for Action:

The purpose of this proposed action is to demolish the existing pest management facility, B1701 and construct a new facility to replace it.

The existing Pest Management building is deteriorating at an accelerated rate due to the damages received by Hurricane Michael. The building has significant structural, aesthetic, and equipment damages such as: cracks in the walls, failing facade, leaking roof, decomposing roof trusses, rusted doors, degrading window frames, molded ceiling tiles, eroding mechanical systems, failing electrical systems, tarnished plumbing systems and corroding wash down equipment.

There also is asbestos present within this building. A new facility will be built instead of repairing the existing facility.

5.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA):

The proposed action calls for the following actions:

Demolition: Demolish building 1701 and associated concrete pad and asphalt pavement.

Demolition will result in removal of 9500 SF of impervious surface.

Construction: Construction of a a new paved road with an estimated area of 1,700-sf. The road will have a minimum depth of 6 inches and will require 32 CY of asphalt.in. The current site falls below the 19 foot design flood elevation and will require fill material to meet this requirement. Clean soil shall be brought in with an area about of 11,500-sf and with an estimated volume of 852 CY. Construct a new 1700-sf Pest Management facility to replace the facility that will be demolished. This will include replacing about 700-ft of fencing with a new one. The newly replaced fence shall be 6-ft tall or higher and the footing shall be a minimum of 3-ft and have a total volume of concrete around 34 CY.

Utilities: Convert the existing utilities from overhead utilities to trenched underground utilities and then connect the new building to the utilities. The dimensions of the trench are estimated to be 15-ft long, 4-ft deep by 3-ft deep from the nearest transformer.

No Action Alternative: Status Quo. If the Status Quo is maintained, the existing facility will continue to fall into disrepair.

5.1 Anticipated Environmental Issues:

None

5.2 Environmental Impacts:

ACUIZ/ Noise:

The proposed actions would result in a localized and temporary increase in noise levels due to construction and demolition. This noise is not expected to be significant. The proposed action would not significantly contribute to the noise levels of the area.

Air Quality:

Tyndall AFB is in an attainment area for National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The FESOP permit for Tyndall AFB will not be violated by the implementation of the proposed project.

Temporary minor exhaust emissions would occur in the immediate vicinity of the construction.

Fugitive dust would be controlled at the sites using best management practices (BMPs), such as periodic watering of cleared areas and stockpiled materials and mulching or vegetative cover for the cleared areas.

The contractor will be required to perform surveys prior to demolishing any facilities without a detailed facility survey on file. Copies of surveys must be provided to the 325 CES Asbestos Program Manager. The contractor is responsible for developing an Asbestos Abatement Plan which will be reviewed by the 325 CES Environmental Element. Abatement of asbestos containing material (ACM) will be performed by a State of Florida licensed asbestos abatement contractor. All asbestos work shall comply with federal and state requirements for management of Asbestos Containing Material (ACM). Notice of Demolition or Asbestos Renovation, DEP Form 62-257.900(1) must be submitted to Florida Department of Environmental Protection, postmarked or received at least 10 working days prior to the start of all demolitions (i.e. load-bearing structures) and for the removal of asbestos-containing material from all applicable sources meeting or exceeding the thresholds identified in the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations. A copy of this notification must be provided to the Contracting Officer and 325 CES/CEIE prior to performing any work.

If concrete is to be cut, recycled, or reused, it shall be tested for the presence of asbestos containing material.

Permits are required for operations subject to applicable regulations or that emit air pollutants in sufficient quantities to warrant regulation. Projects utilizing regulated equipment are required to obtain permits prior to beginning construction on new emissions units, modifying an existing emissions unit or installing air pollution control equipment. These permits will specify applicable emissions standards and work practices to control the emissions of pollutants such as particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and hazardous air pollutants.

Conduct a thorough site/plan survey to identify all activities that generate and/or control air emissions. Air permitting requirements are specified in Chapters 62-4, 62-204, 62-210, and 62- 212 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Unless exempt from permitting pursuant to paragraph 62-210.300(3)(a) or (b), F.A.C., or Rule 62-4.040, F.A.C., an air construction permit shall be obtained prior to construction of any proposed new, reconstructed, or modified facility or emissions unit, or any new pollution control equipment.

Installation of boilers greater than 1 MBTU will require an Air Construction Permit to comply with the Stationary Sources General Requirements (62-210.300 FAC).

Contractor performing the work is responsible for obtaining the permit. Permit application must be submitted to 325 CES/CEIE for review. Application must be signed by the 325 CES/CC.

ACAM Modeling was performed and based off the results the air quality in the area would not be significantly impacted by the proposed project; therefore a conformity determination is not required.

Water Resources:

Best management practices for erosion and stormwater control shall be implemented prior to construction activities and maintained at all times during construction to prevent siltation and turbid discharges. Install erosion control measures as necessary along the perimeter of all work areas to prevent the displacement of fill material outside the work area into waters of the United States. Immediately after completion of the final grading of the land surface, all slopes, land surfaces, and filled areas shall be stabilized using appropriate vegetation, degradable mats, barriers, or a combination of similar stabilizing materials to prevent erosion. Methods could also include, but are not limited to the use of staked hay bales, staked filter cloth, sodding, seeding, and mulching; staged construction; and the installation of turbidity screens around the immediate project site. Identify and cover Stormwater structures using protection devices before performing any work. Devices must remain in place until all work is complete and the area has been cleaned and free of construction potential discharges. The erosion control measures shall remain in place and be maintained until all work is completed and the work areas are stabilized.

No surface waters which includes wetlands are authorized to be impacted without prior authorization from the 325 CES, FDEP, and USACE. There shall be no work, storage, or stockpiling of tools, materials (i.e. lumber, pilings, debris) within wetlands, ditches, swales, or elsewhere within waters of the state. Staging areas need to be identified and kept outside of adjacent permitted stormwater ponds and any regulated waters of the state or U.S. All staging areas need to be kept to surrounding uplands only with necessary BMP’s protecting them.

All stormwater conveyance structures shall remain in operable condition and shall not be allowed to deteriorate or otherwise contribute to a water quality violation. Construction activities shall be conducted in a manner that does not cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards. All stormwater structures should be identified and protected as necessary. No construction debris or material is authorized to be discharged into any stormwater structure. All structures shall remain clean in serviceable condition.

An FDEP and/or USACE permit may be required for the installation, maintenance, repair, and removal of underground utility lines, cable, conduit, or pipeline transmitting electricity, communication signals, potable water, raw water, reclaimed water, domestic wastewater, propane gas or natural gas. 62-330.453 within the Florida Administrative Code dictates that a General Permit is needed for Installation, Maintenance, Repair, and Removal of Utility Lines that cross a regulated surface of the state. In this case the ditches/swales/wetlands are considered a regulated surface water.

A Construction Generic Permit (CGP)/Notice of Intent (NOI) will not be required from the FDEP. Any act or process of developing or improving land, including demolition and renovation activity, which involves the disturbance of soils not limited to, clearing, grading, and excavation that reaches an acre of total disturbed area would require the CGP. This permit is different than an ERP. This permit does include dewatering. If dewatering is needed, please coordinate with the 325 CES/CEIEC, additional permits maybe required.

UFC 3-201-01 – Civil Engineering provides planning, design, construction, sustainment, restoration, and modernization criteria, and applies to the Military Departments, the Defense Agencies, and the DoD Field Activities in accordance with USD (AT&L) Memorandum dated 29 May 2002. This UFC will be used for all DoD projects and work for other customers where appropriate.

Section 3-3.2 – Erosion and Sediment Control states “Design erosion and sediment controls that minimize the discharge of pollutants from earth disturbing activities in conformance with the applicable requirements of the regulatory agency with jurisdiction over the Installation regarding erosion and sediment control. Where requirements do not exist, provide an erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with the requirements of Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Construction General Permit.”

This project at a minimum is required to complete a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)/EPA standards. Please provide a SWPPP for review. The FDEP has generated a template to be used (https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/ConstructionSWPPP.pdf). Work specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s) shall be implemented prior to construction activities and maintained at all times during construction to prevent siltation and turbid discharges. Identify and cover Stormwater structures using protection devices before performing any work. The BMP’s are to be installed along the perimeter of all work areas to prevent the displacement of fill material outside the work area into surface waters, stormwater inlets, etc. Immediately after completion of the final grading of the land surface, all slopes, land surfaces, and filled areas shall be stabilized using approved sod, seeding, degradable mats, staked hay bales, staked filter cloth, barriers, turbidity screens, or a combination of similar stabilizing materials to prevent erosion.

The erosion control measures shall remain in place and be maintained until all authorized work is completed and the work areas are stabilized and verified by USAF personnel.

Soil Impact:

Project area has been previously disturbed by previous actions. Project is not within an area of known contamination.

For the other areas any excess excavated soil must be spread-out on land adjacent to the excavation site. Any fill used for the project must be certified clean

Biological Resources:

https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/ConstructionSWPPP.pdf

The proposed action would not adversely affect any federally-protected species as long as contract work within the approved areas. Proposed action is not sited in the 100-years floodplain.

Cultural Resources Impact:

The area of potential effect has been previously coordinated with the State Historical Preservation Office and a finding of no adverse effect was received. All work should cease and the Cultural Resources Manager should be contacted if archaeological deposits or human remains are encountered. Contractor must be trained on inadvertent discoveries, training pamphlet will be provided.

Hazardous Materials:

A letter of review from 325 CES/CEIEC Must be accomplished prior to commencement of work.

The contractor shall submit TAFB Form 81 (Contractor Questionnaire) and TAFB Form 82 (Chemical Inventory) if applicable (within 10 duty days after the Notice to Proceed is issued), for review.

The Contractor should note that Tyndall AFB is required to report chemicals used such as (but not limited to) compressed gases, adhesives, aerosol cans, sealants, paints, lubricants, oils, cleaners, degreasers, pesticides, Fuels. Copies of manufacturer-specific Safety Data Sheets (SDS) must be attached to TAFB Form 82. These SDSs shall also be readily accessible at the location of each hazardous material. After submission, 325 CES/CEIE will notify the Project Manager and/or CONS of the reportable chemicals and of any special instructions. As directed by the CO, the Contractor is required to submit TAFB Form 83 (Reporting Entry Form) showing material usage monthly until completion of the task order. The CO must be notified of any changes from the original submittal (i.e. new chemical is added, size of container or unit of issue changes or if the manufacturer changes), changes must be submitted using TAFB form 82. An updated letter of review indicating changes will be sent from CEIEC to the Contracting Office before the material can be brought onto the installation. Prime contractors shall be responsible to ensure all sub-contractors comply with this section.

Hazardous Waste:

The Contractor shall identify, characterize, store and dispose of any hazardous waste generated during work in strict accordance with Federal and State guidelines found in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The proposed action may generate small quantities of hazardous materials/wastes. Disposal of hazardous waste must be completed in accordance with Tyndall AFB Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Additionally, management of hazardous waste must be completed in accordance with 40 CFR 260-279. Hazardous waste transportation and disposal shall be coordinated through 325 CES/CEIE. The transportation and disposal facilities shall be approved by 325 CES/CEIE prior to their use. Manifests shall be signed only by 325 CES/CEIE. Drums shall be disposed of within 90 days of placing the first drop in the container.

A Hazardous Waste Determination must be conducted/recorded for any material discarded for this project. The personnel conducting Hazardous Waste Determinations and who may generate or manage Hazardous Waste must have annual Hazardous Waste Training that complies with 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7).

Solid Waste:

Construction activities associated with the Proposed Action would result in a short-term increase in solid waste generated at Tyndall AFB. The contractor would be responsible for disposing of solid waste in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws.

Digging/Excavation:

Prior to any digging, an excavation permit will be required. An Air Force Form103, BCE Work Clearance Request, will be required.

5.3 List of required permits:

Permits will be required for the proposed action. Contractor is responsible to ensure all permits are submitted to the 325 Civil Engineer Squadron for review.

5.4 CATEX Statement:

The proposed project will not adversely impact Tyndall AFB environmental attributes; therefore, qualifies for Categorical Exclusions (CATEX) A2.3.11. Actions similar to other actions which have been determined to have an insignificant impact in a similar setting as established in an EIS or an EA resulting in a FONSI. The EPF must document application of this CATEX on AF Form 813, specifically identifying the previous Air Force approved environmental document which provides the basis for this determination.

The Environmental Assessment Hurricane Recovery and Installation Development, dated April 2020, is the Air Force approve document which form the basis for using this CATEX.

The construction project is in the same general area and is smaller in scope than the projects area evaluated in the EA. 325 CES/CEIE has conducted an evaluation of subject EA to ensure the document is still valid in accordance with 32 CFR 989.20 (c). As part of the re-evaluation, CEIE personnel conducted an on-site survey and found that the affected environment and environmental consequences:

1. The methodology/analytical approach previously used is appropriate for the proposed action.

2. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action are not significantly different than those identified in the existing document.

3. The proposed action would not change the previous analysis of cumulative impacts.

4. Public involvement in the referenced analysis provides appropriate coverage for the proposed action.

5. There has been no significant change in circumstances or significant new information relevant to the proposed action.

PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SHEET

Project Title: Demolish and Construct Pest Management

Project Description:

Project Number:

1. Natural Resources

Reviewed By: _____ewallace________________ Does project affect flora? YES _ ___ NO __X__ Does project affect fauna? YES ____ NO ___X_ Does project affect BASH? YES ____ NO __X__ Does project affect wildlife management area? YES ____ NO _X___ Does project affect forestry management area? YES ____ NO _X___ Does project affect erosion? YES ____ NO _X___

2. Threatened and Endangered Species Reviewed By: _____ewallace________________ _X_ Project has no potential for affecting threatened or endangered species or critical habitats.

__ Based on advice from USFWS or host nation liaison _____, threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the project will not be affected.

__ Consultation with USFWS underway in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.

__ Formal Consultation with the Regional Director, USFWS completed on ______.

__ Biological Assessment is required. Estimated completion date completion date is ______.

__ Biological opinion issued by USFWS on ______.

3. Cultural Resources Reviewed By: _______ewallace______________ __ Properties affected by project are addresses in a programmatic Agreement that was fully executed with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the ACHP on ______.

__ Project area has not been surveyed for historic properties. Survey requirements are identified in the A-

106 system and the estimated completion date is ______.

_ _ Project area has been surveyed and no historic properties were identified; the State Historic

Preservation Officer was notified by letter dated _ __ Survey identified historic properties but the project will have no effect on them; written concurrence by the State Historic Preservation Officer is dated ______.

_X_ After consultation, State Historical Preservation Officer concurred that the project will have no adverse effect on historic properties.

_ _ Project impacted archeological material. After consultation project can proceed with specific guidelines __ Estimated sate to execute the MOA is _______ or no MOA was developed and the formal comments of the Council are being sought.

__Archeological Monitor must be present during any ground disturbance.

__ Appropriate Native American Tribe or Group contacted on _______.

1. Wetlands Reviewed By: ___ewallace__________________ _X_ Project is not sited in a wetland __ Requirements of EO11990 in progress. Estimated completion date is ______ __ Requirements of EO 11990 completed on ____.

__ Other

2. Flood Plain Reviewed By: ____ewallace_________________ _X_ Project is not sited in a 100-year flood plain.

__ Requirements of EO 11990 in progress. Estimated completion date is ______ _ _ Project is sited in a 100-year flood plain. Requirements of EO 11990 completed on ______ Finding of "No Practicable Alternative signed 18 April 2001______

3. Potentially Regulated Substances Reviewed By: __ewallace___________________

a. Water:

__ Construction permit required for extension of water system per 62.555, FAC.

_X_ No permit required because less than 2 in. diameter pipe and less than 100 if extension.

__ Backflow preventer(s) required. Must be field tested by licensed inspector upon installation.

__ Sprinkler system must have rain sensor device per FS 373.62.

__Well drilling/mod/abandonment must be conducted by a licensed contractor. Permit required per 4OC-3, FAC.

__ Other: No water required for this project.

b. Wastewater:

__ Construction permit required to connect to collection system per 62-600, FAC.

_X_ No permit required per 62-604.1 10 (single facility, gravity service connection, no pretreatment, compatible discharge) __ Other: No Wastewater required for this project.

c. Stormwater:

_X_ Environmental Resource Permit required from: _______________

a. Creates more than 4,000 s.f. impervious surface subject to vehicular traffic;

b. Creates more than 5,000 s.f impervious surface; or

c. Project affects 5 acres or more (includes recreation areas, golf course, ball fields, etc.)

__ Site included in station stormwater master plan; permit required but may access existing stormwater treatment system. (Basin no. __________ pond no._________ ; approx ________________ s.f.)

__ NPDES 1-acre site; construction contractor must obtain permit and implement Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

__ No permitting required.

__ Upon completion site will be included in Base Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

_ _ Other:

d. Asbestos:

__ Not present: _________ survey underway.

_X_ Present, must be abated prior to demolition

e. Lead Based Paint:

_X Not present: _________ survey underway.

__ Present

f. Ozone Depicting Substances:

_X_ Not present: _________ survey underway.

__ Present (describe mitigation, or state why mitigation is not necessary).

g. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs):

X__ Not present: _________ survey underway.

__ Present (describe mitigation, or state why mitigation is not necessary).

h. Other known hazardous or toxic substances and pollutants (e.g. contaminated soils):

_X Not present: _________ survey underway.

__ Present (guidelines attached).

4. Hazardous Materials _X__ Will chemicals (such as, but not limited to, compressed gases, adhesives, aerosol cans, sealants, paints, lubricants, solvents, oils, cleaners, degreasers and pesticides) be used ____ Submit TAFB Form 81 (Contractor Questionnaire) and TAFB Form 82 (Chemical Inventory) 7-10 days upon issuance of the notice to proceed and prior commencement of work on site.

____ Submit copies of manufacturer-specific Material Safety Data Sheets ____ Submit TAFB Form 83 (Reporting Entry Form) at the end of the project or as indicated by CEV.

____ Notify CEV if anything changes from the original submittal (i.e. new chemical is added, size of container or unit of issue changes or if the manufacturer changes).

_ _ Will not use chemicals

5. Air Pollutants

Reviewed By: _____________________ __ Will not be generated by the operation or construction of this facility.

__ Will be generated by the operation or construction of this facility. Describe type and amount of substance expected to be generated, existing control systems, and the need for additional controls.

X__ Conformity determination not required.

__ Conformity determination required.

6. Solid and Hazardous Wastes

Reviewed By: _______________________ X _Facility will not be used for generating/managing solid and/or hazardous wastes.

__ Facility will be for generating/managing solid and/or hazardous waste.

_Yes Will the work being performed on the project generate any wastes?

7. Storage Tanks (Check all that apply)

Reviewed By: _____________________ _X_ No storage tanks are involved.

__ New storage tanks will be installed.

__ Material to be stored, quantity ____________.

__ Existing tanks on the project will be removed. Ensure regulatory agency has been notified.

__ Contamination exists.

__ Contamination unknown.

__ Existing tanks on projects it will be retained.

1. Environmental Impact Analysis Process

_X_ Categorical exclusion number _A2.3.11 __________ applies.

__ Environmental Assessment under preparation. Expected completion date is __________.

__ Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact signed on __________.

__ Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under preparation. Expected completion date is ________. __ Draft EIS filed on ___________.

__ Final EIS filed on ___________.

__ Record of Decision signed on __________.

__ Foreign nation or protected global resource exemption number ___________ applies.

__ Environmental study (or review underway) under preparation. Expected completion date is __ Environmental study (or review) completed on ___________.

2. Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning

Reviewed By: _______ewallace______________ X__ Coordination of proposed project with the state Single Point of Contact or other agencies is not required.

__ Coordination with the state Single Point of Contact is in progress. Expected date of completion is __ Proposed project was coordinated with the state Single Point of Contact or other agencies on _

3. Environmental Permits

Reviewed By: ____ewallace_________________ _ No permits are required unless dewatering is needed.

__ No permits required but regulatory agency notification required prior to construction (e.g.

underground storage tank removals).

X__ Permits are required for this project.

1. Environmental Restoration Program (ERP)/Petroleum Contamination (PCA)

_X_ Facility is not sited on or near an ERP/PCA site.

__ Facility is sited near an ERP/PCA site.

__ Facility is within the boundary of an IRP/PCA site.

__ The following activities must be coordinated with the IRP Manager:

excavation, sampling, and 40 hour H&S training.

__ The site is projected to be remediated and/or closed out on _________, prior to commencement of construction activities.

__ The nature of the site contamination does not preclude the type of construction activity proposed.

__ There is a Compliance Agreement associated with this site.

__ A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study was completed on _______ to accurately delineate the aerial extent of the contamination.

14. Comments

RON DESANTIS

Governor

LAUREL M. LEE

Secretary of State

Division of Historical Resources

R.A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee, Florida 32399

850.245.6300 • 850.245.6436 (Fax) • FLHeritage.com

Mr. José J. Cintron September 9, 2021 Chief, Environmental Element 325th Civil Engineer Squadron 540 Mississippi Avenue (Building 36270) Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida 32403

Re: DHR Project No.: 2021-540-B

Architectural Narrative and Evaluation of Building 1701 (TY-21-0087) Tyndall Air Force Base, Bay County

Dear Mr. Cintron:

This office reviewed the referenced project for possible impact to historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. The review was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties.

Based on the submitted evaluation report, this office concurs that Building 1701 does not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register. Therefore, proposed undertaking (demolition/rebuilding) will have no effect on historic properties.

If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Scott Edwards, Historic Preservationist, by electronic mail scott.edwards@dos.myflorida.com, or at 850.245.6333 or 800.847.7278.

Sincerely, Timothy A. Parsons, Ph.D.

Director, Division of Historical Resources and State Historic Preservation Officer

From: MOSS, JENNIFER E CTR USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEA To: WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC Subject: FW: Demolition and Construction of New Pest Management Facility, Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), Bay County, Florida (TY-21-0083) Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 1:54:50 PM

FYSA.

From: Danielle Simon <daniellesimon@semtribe.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 1:05 PM To: MOSS, JENNIFER E CTR USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEA <jennifer.moss.1.ctr@us.af.mil> Cc: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-13 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <jose.cintron.1@us.af.mil>; HARRACH, ILARIA GS-13 USAF AFCEC AFCEC/CZOE <ilaria.harrach@us.af.mil>; THPO Compliance <THPOCompliance@semtribe.com> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Demolition and Construction of New Pest Management Facility, Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), Bay County, Florida (TY-21-0083)

August 4, 2021

Ms. Ilaria Harrach AF Cultural Resources Program Manager

AFCEC CZOE

Mr. José J. Cintron Chief, Environmental Element 325th Civil Engineer Squadron 540 Mississippi Road (Building 36270) Tyndall AFB FL 32403-5014

Subject: Demolition and Construction of New Pest Management Facility (TY-21-0083), Tyndall Air Force Base, Bay County, Florida THPO Compliance Tracking Number:

0033369 mailto:jennifer.moss.1.ctr@us.af.mil mailto:edwin.wallace.1@us.af.mil

In order to expedite the THPO review process:

1. Please correspond via email and provide documents as attachments,

2. Please send all…