Hill AFB Final Supplemental EUL EA.pdf

Hill Air Force Base, Utah

Final

Supplemental Environmental Assessment for Falcon Hill National Aerospace Research Park Enhanced Use Lease Hill Air Force Base, Utah

March 2016

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

F ina l

Supplemental Environmental Assessment for

Falcon Hill National Aerospace Research Park Enhanced Use Lease

Hill Air Force Base, Utah

Prepared for:

United States Air Force Air Force Materiel Command, Hill Air Force Base and Air Force Civil Engineer Center

March 2016

Executive Summary

Introduction In 2008 Hill Air Force Base (Hill AFB) completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate impacts associated with implementing an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) agreement. The impacts from implementing the EUL were determined to be less than significant and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed.

The 2008 WSD EUL EA is located in Appendix A of this document for reference.

Initially it was referred to as the West Side Development (WSD) EUL. The official title is now Falcon Hill National Aerospace Research Park EUL. For convience it is referred to simply as Falcon Hill.

EUL programs allow military bases to lease underutilized property to private entities to maximize the utility and value. Falcon Hill is the development of 550 acres of land along the western boundary of the Base. It is for mixed-use space. It will be used by Hill AFB, the private sector and the public in a manner consistent with the Hill AFB mission.

Development of Falcon Hill began in 2008. Since 2008 some development has occurred, including traffic flow improvements, but the rate of development has been slower than anticipated due to the economy.

Hill AFB is preparing this Supplemental EA because of changes to the regulatory environment concerning air quality and potential changes to existing conditions for cultural resources and transportation. This Supplemental EA provides a revised analysis of potential air quality impacts. It also provides an update of existing conditions and potential impacts for cultural resources and transportation that could result from continued implementation of the Falcon Hill EUL.

Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action The purpose and need of the Proposed Action remain unchanged from that stated in Section 1.3 of the 2008 West Side Development Enhanced Use Lease Environmental Assessment (WSD EUL EA) (Hill AFB, 2008a). As stated in the 2008 WSD EUL EA, the primary purpose of the Proposed Action is to lease underutilized Base property for development; in exchange, the Air Force will be “paid” with new buildings. The process will leverage private financing to expedite the timeframe for replacing substandard facilities.

Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action The Proposed Action is to continue implementation of the Falcon Hill EUL, as described in the 2008 WSD EUL EA, which is to lease approximately 550 acres of Air Force-owned property to a private developer.

In accordance with the Air Force Civil Engineer Center EUL program, Hill AFB land would be leased to and redeveloped by a private company. The Air Force would retain land ownership, but the developer would act as the property manager of the private sector leased assets. The Air Force would use funding from the EUL to construct new Air Force facilities to replace substandard facilities. The Proposed Action is the preferred alternative.

Alternative A Hill AFB would implement the Falcon Hill EUL, but would maintain and renovate existing facilities with EUL funding. No new structures would be built for the Air Force. Alternative A was evaluated in the 2008 WSD EUL EA and not selected. It is not further evaluated in this Supplemental EA.

No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would be the same as described in the 2008 WSD EUL EA. As stated in the 2008 WSD EUL EA, under the No Action Alternative, no land would be leased to a private developer and no

EN1005151058ATL ES-1

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

development would occur. In this Supplemental EA the No Action Alternative would mean that further development would discontinue.

Summary of Impacts Table ES-1 summarizes anticipated impacts from continued implementation of the Falcon Hill EUL. Impacts associated with the Proposed Action were determined to be less than significant.

TABLE ES-1

Summary of Impacts Supplemental EA for the Falcon Hill National Aerospace Research Park

Air Quality Impacts

Proposed Action No Action Alternative Impact Type

Temporary impacts from fugitive dust and increase in emissions from vehicles and equipment exhaust during construction.

No effect Direct

Long-term increase in vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions during operation of Falcon Hill.

No effect Indirect

Potential for long-term cumulative impacts associated with an increase in vehicle emissions associated with Falcon Hill and potential growth in the surrounding area.

However, vehicle emissions associated with long-term operation of Falcon Hill would likely occur regardless of Falcon Hill, as development in the region would continue based on market demand.

Planned traffic flow improvements by UDOT and Hill AFB would likely decrease vehicle emission levels due to reduced traffic congestion, which would be a long-term beneficial cumulative impact.

No effect Cumulative

Cultural Resource Impacts

Proposed Action No Action Alternative Impact Type

Direct impact on the Hill AFB Railroad due to removal of historic railroad. Impacts would be less than significant because Hill AFB has recorded the railroad as required by stipulations from a 2014 MOA with the Utah SHPO.

No effect Direct

No effect No effect No effect

The direct impact to the Hill AFB Railroad would be a minor contribution to the cumulative impact on cultural resources at Hill AFB. The 2014 MOA measure to record the property would mitigate the impact, and would therefore not be a significant contribution to cumulative impacts to cultural resources at Hill AFB.

No effect Cumulative

ES-2 EN1005151058ATL

TABLE ES-1

Summary of Impacts Supplemental EA for the Falcon Hill National Aerospace Research Park

Transportation Impacts

Proposed Action No Action Alternative Impact Type

Short-term adverse impacts from increased traffic congestion during construction.

Long-term beneficial impacts to traffic flow upon completion of traffic flow improvements.

No effect Direct

Short-term impact from increased traffic construction activities that could affect off-Base traffic.

Long-term beneficial impact to traffic conditions upon completion of planned traffic flow improvements.

Long-term adverse impact to traffic conditions on-Base and off-Base, because traffic flow improvements associated with the EUL would not occur.

Indirect

Traffic congestion could be compounded due to other construction occurring in the nearby area. Impacts would be expected to be short-term and traffic flow would improve for the long-term upon completion of planned traffic flow improvements by Hill AFB and UDOT.

Planned traffic improvements by UDOT and Hill AFB would be expected to decrease traffic congestion in and near Falcon Hill for the long-term.

Current traffic conditions would persist and no traffic flow improvements planned by Hill AFB would occur. Traffic congestion on Hill AFB would likely adversely affect off-Base traffic for the long-term.

Cumulative

EN1005151058ATL ES-3

This page intentionally left blank.

ES-4 EN1005151058ATL

Contents Section Page

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. ES-1

Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... iii

1 Purpose of and Need for Action ................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.4 Relevant Plans, Laws, and Regulations ................................................................................... 1-2

1.5 Related Environmental Documents ........................................................................................ 1-2

1.6 Decisions that Must Be Made ................................................................................................. 1-2

1.7 Scope of this Environmental Assessment ............................................................................... 1-4

1.7.1 Resource Categories/Issues Considered for Assessment ......................................... 1-4

1.7.2 Resource Categories/Issues Eliminated from Further Study .................................... 1-4

1.8 Applicable Permits, Licenses, and Other Requirements .......................................................... 1-5

2 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 EUL Development Progress ...................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................ 2-2

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Discussion ..................................................... 2-2

3 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.1 Definition of the Resource ........................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.2 Description of the Affected Environment ................................................................. 3-3

3.2 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 3-3

3.2.1 Definition of the Resource ........................................................................................ 3-3

3.2.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3 Transportation ....................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.1 Definition of the Resource ........................................................................................ 3-4

3.3.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 3-5

4 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 4-1

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

4.1.1 Air Quality Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.2 Cultural Resources Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................... 4-2

4.1.3 Transportation Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................... 4-2

4.2 General Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action by Resource Area .............. 4-2

4.2.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 4-2

4.2.2 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 4-6

4.2.3 Transportation .......................................................................................................... 4-7

4.3 Summary of Impacts .............................................................................................................. 4-9

4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ............................................................................................... 4-10

4.5 Relationship between the Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term

Productivity ......................................................................................................................... 4-10

4.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................................. 4-11

EN1005151058ATL i

5 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................ 5-1

6 References ................................................................................................................................ 6-1

Tables

ES-1 Summary of Impacts 2-1 Development Within the EUL 3-1 NAAQS for Criteria Pollutants 3-2 Hill AFB Existing Conditions Emissions Summary 4-1 Estimated Uncontrolled Emissions During Worst Plausible Construction Year 4-2 Estimated Worst-Case Annual Vehicular Emissions 4-3 Summary of Worst-Case Annual Proposed Action Emissions 4-4 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4-5 Summary of Impacts

Figures

1 Vicinity Map 2 South Falcon Hill EUL Development Status

Appendices

A 2008 West Side Development Enhanced Use Lease Environmental Assessment B Record of Non-Applicability (RONA) C Detail Air Conformity Applicability Model Report (Model Settings and Parameters) D Detailed Operations Calculation Methodology E Utah State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Letter ii EN1005151058ATL

Acronyms and Abbreviations µg/m3 microgram(s) per cubic meter

ACAM Air Conformity Applicability Model

AFB Air Force Base

AFI Air Force Instruction

AT/FP anti-terrorism/force protection

BMP best management practice

CAA Clean Air Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 methane

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e CO2 equivalent

DoD Department of Defense

EA Environmental Assessment

EIAP Environmental Impact Analysis Process

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EUL Enhanced Use Lease

FONPA Finding of No Practicable Alternative

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact ft2 square feet

GHG greenhouse gas

GSF gross square footage

HAP hazardous air pollutant

I-15 U.S. Interstate 15

ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile

ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan

IICEP Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

N/A not applicable

N2O nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

EN1005151058ATL iii

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NH3 ammonia

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOx nitrogen oxide

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

O3 ozone

OO-ALC Ogden Air Logistics Complex

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter ppb part(s) per billion ppm part(s) per million

RONA Record of Non-Applicability

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 sulfur dioxides

TCP traditional cultural property

UFC Unified Facilities Criteria

U.S.C. United States Code

USCB U.S. Census Bureau

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

VOC volatile organic compound

WSD EUL EA West Side Development Enhanced Use Lease Environmental Assessment iv EN1005151058ATL

SECTION 1

Purpose of and Need for Action

1.1 Introduction

This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared to update the 2008 West Side Development (WSD) Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) EA (Hill Air Force Base [AFB], 2008a). The 2008 WSD EUL EA analyzed potential impacts for development of specific properties at Hill AFB. The 2008 WSD EUL EA is located in Appendix A. This Supplemental EA tiers off of the WSD EUL EA and its Finding of No Significant Impact, which are incorporated by reference. It analyzes potential impacts from any changes in regulations or site conditions since the original 2008 WSD EUL EA (40 CFR 1502.20, 1502.21, and 1502.28). This Supplemental EA has been prepared in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) implementing regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500 through 1508) and supplemental Air Force regulations (32 CFR 989).

Hill AFB is an Air Force Materiel Command base in northern Utah (see Figure 1). It is the home of several operational and support missions. They include the following:

The 75th Air Base Wing. It is the host organization and provides support for the following:

• The OO-ALC

• Life Cycle Management Center

• Nuclear Weapons Center

• 388th and 419th Fighter Wings

• More than 60 other associate units totaling 20,000 personnel

The Ogden Air Logistics Complex (OO-ALC). It provides logistics, support, maintenance, and distribution for the following:

• F-35 Lightning II

• F-22 Raptor

• F-16 Fighting Falcon

• A-10 Thunderbolt

• C-130 Hercules

• T-38 Talon, and other weapons systems

• Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM)

Following completion of the 2008 WSD EUL EA, the U.S. Air Force entered into an EUL agreement with a private developer. The project name was changed to the Falcon Hill National Aerospace Research Park EUL.

It is commonly referred to as Falcon Hill. Due to economic conditions implementation has been slow. As economic conditions have improved, the pace of development is expected to increase. Development activities that have taken place since 2008 are described in Section 2.2.1, EUL Development Progress. The proposed development plan for Falcon Hill is unchanged from the 2008 WSD EUL EA. Development would include a mix of office, retail, restaurant, and hotel space. This includes the associated infrastructure such as parking lots.

Development involves the demolition of existing facilities within the development area. The work will occur in phases. This will be based on funding and market demand. Some actions will occur in areas that are relatively open space. Others will require demolition of Air Force-owned facilities that are considered substandard and cannot be economically upgraded.

EN1005151058ATL 1-1

1.2 Project Location

The Proposed Action is located within the boundaries of Hill AFB. The Base is located in northern Utah 25 miles north of Salt Lake City and 5 miles south of Ogden (see Figure 1). The Base occupies approximately 6,700 acres in Davis and Weber Counties. The western boundary parallels U.S. Interstate Highway 15 (I-15). The southern boundary parallels State Route 193.

The Falcon Hill area is shown in Figure 1. It consists of approximately 550 acres of land located on the west side of Hill AFB, directly east of and adjacent to, I-15.

1.3 Purpose and Need

The purpose and need for the Proposed Action remains unchanged from that stated in the 2008 WSD EUL EA Section 1.3. The primary purpose of the Proposed Action is to lease underutilized Base property for development in exchange for which the Air Force will be “paid” with new buildings. The process will leverage private financing to expedite the timeframe for replacement of substandard facilities.

1.4 Relevant Plans, Laws, and Regulations

The following is a list of documents that apply to the Proposed Action:

• Air Force Policy Directive 32-90, Real Property Asset Management

• Council on Environmental Quality NEPA Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508)

• Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act 1979

• Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990

• EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment

• EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites

• EO 13287, Preserve America

• EO 13327, Federal Real Property Asset Management

• Air Force Instruction 32-9003, Granting Temporary Use of Air Force Real Property

• 10 U.S.C. § 2667, Leases: Non-Excess Property of Military Departments and Defense Agencies

• PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Development

• Rule R307-325, Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: General Requirements

1.5 Related Environmental Documents

The following is a list of related environmental documents:

• 2008 WSD EUL EA (Hill AFB, 2008a). The result was a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Proposed Action has been implemented and is ongoing.

• See Section 1.5 of the 2008 WSD EUL EA for related environmental documents that addressed development projects that occurred within the Falcon Hill EUL area.

• I-15 North 1800/SR-37 Environmental Impact Statement for traffic improvements that would affect the Falcon Hill EUL area (UDOT, 2014).

1.6 Decisions that Must Be Made

Based on the identified impacts, the Air Force must decide whether a FONSI is warranted and will be issued. If a FONSI is not warranted, the Air Force must decide whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or abandon the Proposed Action.

There have been no changes to conditions regarding wetlands or floodplains within the EUL since 2008.

Therefore, a Finding of No Practicable Alternative (FONPA) would not be required.

1-2 EN1005151058ATL

EN1005151058ATL 1-3

The Air Force must decide whether to proceed with continued implementation of the EUL for redeveloping 550 acres at Hill AFB.

1.7 Scope of this Environmental Assessment

The scope of this Supplemental EA is to reassess particular resource areas where either the regulatory environment has changed or existing conditions have changed.

Areas that have changed since 2008 and have been identified for potential impact analysis are:

• Air quality

• Cultural resources

• Transportation

The 2008 WSD EUL EA adequately addressed impacts to other resource areas.

1.7.1 Resource Categories/Issues Considered for Assessment

The following resource categories/issues are considered in this Supplemental EA:

• Air quality

• Cultural resources – only properties not previously surveyed and evaluated in the 2008 WSD EUL EA are being discussed in this Supplemental EA

• Transportation

1.7.2 Resource Categories/Issues Eliminated from Further Study The following resource areas were eliminated from further analysis in this Supplemental EA because the impacts of the Proposed Action were adequately addressed in the 2008 WSD EUL EA. The 2008 WSD EUL EA eliminated geology, natural resources (threatened and endangered species, and floodplains), and environmental justice resource areas from further study, since there would be no change to conditions and no impacts would occur (see Section 1.7.2 of the 2008 WSD EUL EA). The following subsections summarize the impacts to each resource area that was fully analyzed in the 2008 WSD EUL EA, but eliminated from further analysis. There would be no changes to these resource areas under the No Action Alternative unless otherwise noted.

1.7.2.1 Soils

Impacts to soils would be the same as described in the 2008 WSD EUL EA. Construction activities would disturb soils, which could increase soil erosion. As stated in the 2008 WSD EUL EA, best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented and detailed in a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan developed for the Utah General Stormwater Permit for construction sites, which would minimize soil impacts.

1.7.2.2 Water Resources

Impacts to water resources would be the same as described in the 2008 WSD EUL EA. Impacts to surface waters could occur during construction from sedimentation. However, stormwater control structures and BMPs would be implemented and maintained until exposed soils are revegetated. Postconstruction stormwater controls would be designed and constructed to prevent an increase in the rate of stormwater discharge. Impacts to water resources would be less than significant.

1.7.2.3 Infrastructure and Utilities

Impacts to infrastructure and utilities would be the same as described in the 2008 WSD EUL EA. It is anticipated that the utilities and infrastructure have the capacity to meet the demands of new development. Minor modifications to utilities or infrastructure, such as power, could be needed. However, as stated in the 2008 WSD EUL EA, impacts resulting from potential modifications would be less than significant.

1-4 EN1005151058ATL

1.7.2.4 Hazardous Materials and Waste

Impacts to hazardous materials and waste and requirements when working in potentially contaminated areas would be the same as described in the 2008 WSD EUL EA. Likewise, conditions regarding hazardous materials and waste are the same as described in the 2008 WSD EUL EA. Hazardous materials, such as lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials, would be mitigated appropriately before demolition activities. These materials would be properly removed and disposed of, thereby limiting the potential for exposure of future Hill AFB personnel, which would be a long-term beneficial impact. With coordination with Hill AFB and adherence to Air Force requirements, impacts to hazardous materials from the Proposed Action would be less than significant.

1.7.2.5 Natural Resources

Impacts to and conditions of natural resources would be the same as described in the 2008 WSD EUL EA.

Approximately 50 percent of the EUL consists of impervious area, while the remainder consists of degraded sage habitat which could provide potential breeding habitat for birds. As stated in the 2008 WSD EUL EA, no site disturbance can be made during nesting season for migratory birds unless it has been determined that there are no active nests that would be impacted and/or through coordination with Hill AFB natural resources management (Hill AFB, 2008a). Impacts resulting from the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative would be less than significant.

Natural Resources – Wetlands. Conditions regarding wetlands within the EUL are the same as described in the 2008 WSD EUL EA. There are no jurisdictional wetlands within the EUL boundary (Hill AFB, 2008a).

No impacts to wetlands would occur as a result of the Proposed Action or the No Action Alternative.

1.7.2.6 Socioeconomics

Impacts to socioeconomics would be the same as described in the 2008 WSD EUL EA. There has been a slight increase in population in the area since the 2008 WSD EUL EA (U.S. Census Bureau [USCB], 2015a, 2015b).

No adverse impacts would be expected. Short-term beneficial impacts from increased spending during construction would be expected. Long-term beneficial impacts to the local economy would be expected. The proposed development would provide the region with an aerospace industry cluster, which would provide new jobs at high-tech firms for residents in Davis and Weber Counties. A potential increase in property tax revenues generated by the development, as well as sales tax revenue generated by the retail component of the Proposed Action, would be a long-term beneficial impact to the local economy and municipalities.

1.7.2.7 Safety and Occupational Health

Impacts to safety and occupational health would be the same as described in the 2008 WSD EUL EA. Impacts to safety and occupational health during construction would be less than significant. Long-term beneficial impacts would be expected from the removal of hazardous materials, such as asbestos and lead-based paint, and from the removal of safety hazards, such as unsafe structural conditions. New construction on Base would comply with anti-terrorism/force protection (AT/FP) requirements, which would be a long-term beneficial impact.

1.8 Applicable Permits, Licenses, and Other Requirements

Relevant permits, licenses, or other requirements that would be necessary for implementation of the Proposed Action are listed in Section 1.8 of the 2008 WSD EUL EA, which would apply to new development within the EUL.

EN1005151058ATL 1-5

1-6 EN1005151058ATL

SECTION 2

Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

The following three alternatives were considered in the 2008 WSD EUL EA Section 2.0 (Hill AFB, 2008a):

• Proposed Action: Lease and redevelop 550 acres of Air Force-owned property, as shown on Figure 1, including construction of new office buildings for exclusive Air Force use.

• Alternative A: Maintain and renovate existing facilities with EUL funding.

• No-Action Alternative: No change – continue current planning and programming efforts.

The Proposed Action was selected as the preferred alternative in the original 2008 WSD EUL EA.

No changes to the Proposed Action have occurred. Only impacts related to the Proposed Action are evaluated in this Supplemental EA. Implementation of the Proposed Action began in 2008. Development that has occurred is further described in Section 2.2.1, EUL Development Progress.

2.2 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is to lease approximately 550 acres of Air Force-owned property to a private developer.

The EUL area is referred to as the Falcon Hill National Aerospace Research Park (Falcon Hill EUL area) and is shown on Figure 1. In accordance with the Air Force Civil Engineer Center EUL program, Hill AFB land would be leased to and redeveloped by a private company. The Air Force would retain land ownership, but the developer would act as the property manager of the private sector leased assets. A detailed description of the Proposed Action can be found in the 2008 WSD EUL EA Section 2.4.2.

2.2.1 EUL Development Progress

Development within the EUL area has occurred since the 2008 WSD EUL EA. Approximately 25 acres of land are available for site development and 2 acres are available for easements. These areas have been roughly graded and have utilities to allow for future development or right-of-ways, which is shown as the pink area labeled Under Development on Figure 2. Approximately 15 acres have been granted a site development lease along with 11 acres of easement for the roads, utilities, and retention pond. An approximately 6-acre parking area with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for usage has been completed, while another approximately 1 acre of utility easements have been proposed and are pending. Table 2-1 lists development that has occurred within the EUL. A majority of the construction within the EUL has occurred in the southern portion of the development, as shown on Figure 2.

TABLE 2-1

Development Within the EUL Supplemental EA for the Falcon Hill National Aerospace Research Park EUL, Hill AFB

Feature Description

Commercial Building 1575 Building 1575 is a five-story (plus basement), 150,000-ft2 commercial office building located on-Base and occupied by the ICBM contractor. Construction on Building 1575 began in October 2010 with occupancy occurring March of 2012.

Roy Water Tank Roy City was granted a Site Development Lease for its water tank in October 2010.

Construction of the water tank was completed in October 2011.

EN1005151058ATL 2-1

TABLE 2-1

Development Within the EUL Supplemental EA for the Falcon Hill National Aerospace Research Park EUL, Hill AFB

Feature Description

Commercial Building 1580 Building 1580 is a three-story, 75,000-ft2-office building located near Building 1575 inside the Base perimeter fence. The Air Force occupies the first floor of the facility as Payment In-Kind and contractors will occupy the other two floors as commercial tenants of the EUL Developer.

Retail Area Located southwest of the new West Gate, the first off-Base building constructed as part of the EUL is a 10,000-ft2 retail building with capacity for up to six tenants including two with drive up customer service. The Site Development Lease also has areas for two retail pad sites. The first tenant took occupancy of the building in May 2015.

Air Force Building 408 Building 408 is occupied by the Air Force Security Forces Squadron and other security elements of the Air Force. The new Air Force facility was constructed for the Air Force as part of the Payment In-Kind profit sharing arrangement structured for the project. Building 408 is a 37,000-ft2 Air Force facility, built at another location on the installation (not within the Falcon Hill EUL area). The facility was completed in January 2012 and the occupants from Building 1219 moved at that time.

New West Gate The construction of the new West Gate was completed in April 2012 and allowed the current Base perimeter fence to move so that the general public would have access to the majority of the EUL development. The relocation of the new gate also significantly relieved traffic congestion that occurred from the interstate off-ramp during commuting hours.

Demolition of Building 1219 Demolition of Building 1219 started in December 2014 and was completed in February 2015. This was the first of the 1,200 zone buildings vacated and demolished as part of the Falcon Hill project’s purpose to replace 1,200 zone facilities.

2.3 No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would be the same as described in the 2008 WSD EUL EA and is incorporated by reference. As stated in the 2008 WSD EUL EA, under the No Action Alternative, the lease of approximately 550 acres of Air Force land to a private developer for redevelopment would not occur. In this Supplemental EA the No Action Alternative would mean that further development would discontinue. Existing substandard structures would continue to house the Hill AFB workforce for the foreseeable future. Maintenance and renovation would occur on an as-needed and funds-available basis. Hill AFB would continue to program Military Construction Projects to replace substandard facilities with new facilities, but funding would be unlikely. Poor work environments would persist. AT/FP requirements would be met slowly, if at all, and infrastructure would likewise not be modernized.

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Discussion

Because Alternative A was not selected in the 2008 WSD EUL EA, it is not further evaluated. No new reasonable alternatives have been identified since completion of the 2008 WSD EUL EA. Therefore, no other alternatives were considered in this Supplemental EA.

2-2 EN1005151058ATL

EN1005151058ATL 2-3

2-4 EN1005151058ATL

SECTION 3

Affected Environment This section describes the current condition of resources that could be affected by implementation of the Proposed Action and alternatives. This section describes only resources and conditions that have changed since the original 2008 WSD EUL EA, which includes the following:

• Air quality

• Cultural resources

• Transportation Potential impacts that would result from implementing the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative are discussed in Section 4, Environmental Consequences.

3.1 Air Quality

3.1.1 Definition of the Resource

3.1.1.1 Clean Air Act Criteria Pollutants

Under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established nationwide air quality standards to protect public health and welfare, with an adequate margin of safety. Last amended in 1990, the CAA requires the continued re-evaluation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA defines NAAQS for six air pollutants identified as causing harm to health, environment, or property. These pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than

2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), ozone (O3), and sulfur dioxides (SO2). Two types of standards are identified for each pollutant based on level of protection. Per 40 CFR Part 50, primary standards protect public health, including sensitive populations, while secondary standards protect public welfare. The EPA website provides the most up-to-date NAAQS for the criteria pollutants. Table 3-1 provides the NAAQS at the time this document was prepared.

TABLE 3-1

NAAQS for Criteria Pollutants Supplemental EA for the Falcon Hill National Aerospace Research Park EUL, Hill AFB

Pollutant Standard Type Averaging Period Primary Standard

CO Primary 1-hour 35 ppm 8-hour 9 ppm

Lead Primary and secondary Rolling 3-month average 0.15 µg/m3

NO2

Primary 1-hour 100 ppb

Primary and secondary Annual 53 ppb

O3 Primary and secondary 8-hour 0.070 ppm

SO2

Primary 1-hour 75 ppb

Secondary 3-hour 0.5 ppm

PM2.5

Primary

Annual 12 µg/m3

24-hour 35 µg/m3

Secondary Annual 15 µg/m3

PM10 Primary and secondary 24-hour 150 µg/m3 Notes: ppm = part(s) per million, ppb=part(s) per billion µg/m3 = microgram(s) per cubic meter Source: EPA website: http://epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html as of September 2015.

EN1005151058ATL 3-1

EPA uses criteria provided under the CAA to classify the country into attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance areas, usually designated by county or metropolitan statistical area. Any areas not meeting NAAQS are designated as nonattainment for the specific pollutant or pollutants. Designated nonattainment areas may be expanded according to Section 107(d) of the CAA, which defines a nonattainment area as “any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standards for the pollutant.” Nonattainment status can be further classified as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme, with extreme having the highest level of NAAQS exceedances. Each state is required to implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) demonstrating how nonattainment areas will be brought into compliance with NAAQS and other components of the CAA. Areas that currently meet the NAAQS, but historically did not, are considered attainment areas under maintenance status and are required to develop a maintenance plan under section 175A of the CAA, as amended. Federal agencies planning to undertake actions in nonattainment or maintenance areas subject to CAA SIPs or Maintenance Plans must first demonstrate that the proposed action will be in conformity with the state plan.

The CAA General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Parts 6, 51, and 93) requires federal agencies to make formal conformity determinations for federal actions in or affecting nonattainment or maintenance areas.

Proposals for federal actions must include evaluation of potential changes in direct and indirect air emissions caused by the actions, and must determine whether the actions conform to applicable state and federal implementation plans. The maximum increase in air emissions that is exempt from further detailed air quality analysis is called the de minimis level. If the project-related emissions of a criteria pollutant (or its precursors) do not exceed the applicable de minimis level, the action is assumed to conform for the pollutant under study and no further analysis is necessary. Conversely, if the total direct and indirect emissions of a pollutant are above the applicable de minimis level, a formal general conformity determination is required for that pollutant. The de minimis levels for each pollutant are defined in the General Conformity Rule and vary depending on the pollutant and the severity of the area’s nonattainment/maintenance status.

3.1.1.2 Greenhouse Gases

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are compounds that may contribute to accelerated climate change by altering the thermodynamic properties of the earth’s atmosphere. GHGs include the following compounds (EPA, 2010):

• Carbon dioxide (CO2)

• Methane (CH4)

• Nitrous oxide (N2O)

• Hydrofluorocarbons

• Perfluorocarbons

• Sulfur hexafluoride

The EPA Mandatory Reporting Rule became effective on 29 December 2009. Under this rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions must submit annual reports to EPA. In addition, the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) found that EPA has the authority to list GHGs as pollutants and to regulate emissions of GHGs under the CAA. On April 17, 2009, EPA found that CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride may contribute to air pollution and may endanger public health and welfare.

The CEQ has issued draft guidance on considering the effects of GHG emissions in NEPA documentation (CEQ, 2014). This guidance establishes an annual total of 25,000 metric tons of CO2 as a screening level for conducting a quantitative versus qualitative assessment of GHG emissions in NEPA analysis (CEQ, 2014).

3-2 EN1005151058ATL

3.1.2 Description of the Affected Environment

The Proposed Action lies within Davis and Weber Counties. In 2006, the EPA changed the primary and secondary PM2.5 standards from 65 ug/m3 to 35 ug/m3. This change meant Davis County and portions of Weber County could no longer meet the standard and a classification to nonattainment status would be imminent. Officially, the counties were designated by EPA as nonattainment areas for PM2.5 in 2009, thereby invoking the process of SIP development as described in Section 3.1.1. Because this classification was not made official until 2009, an Air Conformity Analysis was not included in the original 2008 WSD EUL EA. In addition, the EPA proposed to elevate the nonattainment designation to serious nonattainment on Novemeber 2015, which would require the State of Utah to impose additional strict measures to lower PM2.5 emissions.

Davis County is identified as a maintenance area for O3, but Weber County is designated as an attainment area for O3. Both Davis and Weber Counties are considered attainment areas for CO, PM10, NO2, SO2, and lead. As an additional note, Hill AFB is located near, but not in Ogden City, which remains in maintenance status for CO and PM10.

3.1.2.1 Existing Conditions Emissions

Hill AFB operates under a Title V operating permit for emission sources that include surface coating operations, metal plating operations, parts cleaning, steam generation, and a variety of other processes.

Values estimated from the most recent Annual Air Emissions Inventory (Hill AFB, 2015a, 2015b) are provided in Table 3-2. However, emissions from Air Force equipment being relocated as part of the Proposed Action are accounted for under the existing Base Title V operating permit and therefore are not included in calculations related to this analysis.

TABLE 3-2

Hill AFB Existing Conditions Emissions Summary Supplemental EA for the Falcon Hill National Aerospace Research Park EUL, Hill AFB

PM10

Emissions PM2.5 Emissions SO2 Emissions NOX Emissions CO Emissions VOC Emissions

HAP

Emissions

Stationary Sources (tons)

12.2 7.3 1.7 108.2 109.6 124.5 46.0

Aircraft / Aerospace Ground Equipment Sources (tons)

11.7 9.1 5.9 88.9 147.9 12.7 0.6

Total Emissions (tons) 23.9 16.4 7.6 197.1 257.5 251.5 46.6

Notes:

HAP = hazardous air pollutant NOx = nitrogen oxide Ox = nitrogen oxide VOC = volatile organic compound

3.2 Cultural Resources

3.2.1 Definition of the Resource

Cultural resources may include historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, buildings, structures, objects, districts, and sites of cultural importance to Native American or other cultures. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consult with the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), housed in the Utah Division of State History, and interested federally recognized Native American Tribes to identify significant cultural resources. Basewide formal consultation is conducted in accordance with the Hill AFB ICRMP (Hill AFB, 2007b) by the cultural resource manager.

EN1005151058ATL 3-3

In this description and in the subsequent discussion of impacts, the terms “significant” and “significance” are used both in the context of NEPA and in the context of the NHPA. When referring to buildings, structures, objects, or artifacts, the terms are used as defined in regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800). When referring to impacts, the terms are applied relative to their meaning under NEPA.

Cultural resources on federal property are regulated by several laws and Executive Orders (EOs) that require cultural resources to be considered in federal planning, decision making, and project execution.

These include:

• National Historic Preservation Act

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

• Archeological Resource Protection Act

• Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, as amended

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act

• AFI 32-7065

• Department of Defense Instruction 4715.3, Environmental Conservation Program

• 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties

• 36 CFR Part 60, National Register of Historic Places

• 36 CFR Part 78, Waiver of Federal Agency Responsibilities under Section 110 of the NHPA

• U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation

• National Register Bulletins (multiple)

• Legacy Resource Protection Program Act of 1992

• EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment

• Historic Sites Act of 1935

• EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites

3.2.2 Existing Conditions

The Base was surveyed for cultural resources during the assessment for the 2008 WSD EUL EA. That survey identified 168 buildings eligible for listing in the NRHP. This Supplemental EA does not address these previously identified properties.

Two additional structures, Buildings 1710 and 1723, were surveyed in June 2015 by Hill AFB. Each of these buildings sits on concrete foundations with welded steel panel walls on a steel frame. Hill AFB will recommend that Buildings 1710 and 1723 are not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and they do not contribute to the previously identified Ogden Arsenal/Ogden Air Materiel Area Historic District (Hill AFB, 2008b). The Historic Site Forms for these buildings are being completed and have not been submitted to the Utah SHPO for comment and concurrence on NRHP eligibility (Hill AFB, 2015c and 2015d).

The Hill AFB Railroad (Site number 42DV177/42WB508) has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP since finalization of the 2008 WSD EUL EA. The Hill AFB Railroad is eligible for listing in the NRHP because of its association with the development of the national and local railway system, the post-WWI era, the build-up to WWII, and the Cold War (Hill AFB, 2015e).

3.3 Transportation

3.3.1 Definition of the Resource

Transportation, for the purpose of this Supplemental EA, refers to the road network that facilitates the movement of traffic in and around the EUL project area. Conditions of the road network and level of traffic are also included for this resource area. This resource also includes alternative means of transportation, such as mass transit, relevant to the Proposed Action. Air transportation is not included in this section, as it was determined that there would be no impact to air transportation in the 2008 WSD EUL EA.

3-4 EN1005151058ATL

3.3.2 Existing Conditions

Existing conditions are similar to those as described in the 2008 WSD EUL EA. Some traffic flow improvements have been implemented since 2008. In 2012 the West Gate was relocated, approximately 200 feet west of Wardleigh Road. The relocated gate is east of traffic anticipated to be generated by off-Base development and allowed the current Base perimeter fence to be moved. Relocation of the West Gate and the fence provides the general public access to the majority of the EUL development area. The relocation of the West Gate also significantly relieved traffic congestion that occurred from the interstate off-ramp during commuting hours.

EN1005151058ATL 3-5

3-6 EN1005151058ATL

SECTION 4

Environmental Consequences

4.1 Introduction

This section presents a general analysis and discussion of potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. The analysis identifies the potential environmental effects associated with construction, demolition, and infrastructure improvement. The criteria for evaluating the potential environmental effects of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action are discussed in the following sections, identified by resource area. The analysis addresses direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.

Definitions of these terms are as follows:

• Direct: Effects that are caused by an action and occur around the same time at or near the location of the action.

• Indirect: Effects that are caused by an action and might occur later in time or be farther removed in distance but still be a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the action.

• Cumulative: Effects that result from the incremental effect of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably forseeable future actions.

The significance of impacts is assessed in terms of its context, which include the intensity and duration of the impact, and whether impacts are adverse or beneficial (40 CFR 1508.27). A less than significant impact is minor and may be detectable, but not measurable at the lowest level. A significant impact is one that is severely adverse, major, and highly noticeable. Short-term effects occur only with respect to a particular activity for a finite period, or only during the time required for construction activities. Potential long-term effects are more likely to be persistent and chronic. Adverse impacts have an unfavorable or undesirable outcome on the constructed or natural environment. Beneficial impacts have a positive outcome on the constructed or natural environment.

Mitigation measures, BMPs, and environmental protection measures are discussed as possible means to minimize the level of impact of a project on a resource area. Mitigation measures refer only to those actions that could reduce impacts below significance. BMPs are actions required by statutes, by regulations, or to fulfill permitting requirements that reduce potential impacts.