AF Form 813 CEMIRT Facilities.pdf

10 March 2021

MEMORANDUM FOR 325 CES/CEIEC

FROM: 325 FW/JA

SUBJECT: Legal Review – AF IMT 813 – Civil Engineer Maintenance Inspection and Repair Team (CEMIRT) Facilities, 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 “Civil Engineer Maintenance Inspection and Repair Team (CEMIRT) Facilities” and find it legally sufficient.

2. Background. The purpose of this action is to pave the gravel drive South of B9732 and East of the metal storage pad by the North East corner of B9720. The asphalt drive will allow access to the concrete pads with a 6K forklift. The need for the action is to allow heavy equipment (forklift) to access the drive without getting stuck in the gravel that is currently laid down in the area. The proposed action is needed as soon as possible.

a. The proposed action will require paving with asphalt an 18’ X 44’ (792 SF) area, south of B9732, a 20’ X 52’ (1040 SF) area East of Metal Storage Pad and 72’ X 34’ (2448 SF) area south of the metal storage pad by the North East corner of B9720. No digging will be required to complete the project, a drag will be used to level the site.

b. No Action Alternative would result in maintaining the status quo, in which case the area will remained graveled, which is not feasible due to the need for a smooth surface to prevent forklifts getting stuck in the gravel, negatively impacting mission performance. No alternate action alternatives have been identified.

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, is the approved environmental document cited for use of this CATEX. The 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/analytical approach previously used is appropriate for the proposed action; the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action are not significantly different than 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

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

325TH FIGHTER WING (ACC)

TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE FLORIDA

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.

a. The cited 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 which 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/infrastructure, as well as executing repair, demolition and functionality improvements necessary to support the 325 FW mission 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 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 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, 10 Mar 2021

AF IMT 813 Review Checklist Civil Engineer Maintenance Inspection and Repair Team (CEMIRT)

Mr. Gerald Laver, 10 March 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 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be considered.

N/A

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, (“Rebuild EA”) 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.

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

Proposed action is in the same general area and identical to those evaluated in the EA resulting in a FONSI.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

No Action Alternative would result in the facilities not meeting Tyndall Installation Facility Standards, not complying with codes/regulations, and any adverse weather events could jeopardize the mission functions performed. The existing storm water system is damaged and has potential to flood the premises if left in its current condition.

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) 283-4362

3. TITLE OF PROPOSED ACTION

Upgrade and Repair CEMIRT Facilities

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) Lara Eremita GS 11

6a. SIGNATURE 6b. DATE 20201216

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

19. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING FUNCTION CERTIFICATION

(Name and Grade) Edwin Wallace, GS-12

19a. SIGNATURE 19b. DATE

EREMITA.LARA.A.154638403

Digitally signed by

EREMITA.LARA.A.1546384035

Date: 2020.12.16 15:40:11 -06'00'

WALLACE.EDWIN.

BLAIR.1047698347

Digitally signed by

WALLACE.EDWIN.BLAIR.1047698

Date: 2021.03.08 08:59:12 -06'00'

Upgrade and Repair CEMIRT Facilities, AF Form 813 continuation sheet

4.0 Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of the proposed action is to create a concrete area to use for equipment and trailer storage. Contractor will design and build the parking area to fit the listed vehicles and their turning radii and associated storm water mitigation measures. The second part of the project will improve buildings 1134, 1144, and 1142 in order to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and to comply with the fire and mission requirements of the facilities.

Current area where CEMIRT stores equipment and trailers ranging from tractor trailers to mobile aircraft arresting systems is going to be re-purposed by construction of a new Auto Hobby Shop, Car Wash, and Zone 4 Infrastructure efforts. A new location near the current CEMIRT complex is needed to hold the 97 pieces of equipment and trailers.

The facility repairs and upgrades are needed to bring the facilities in compliance with Federal, State and Air Force codes.

5.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA)

Proposed Action: The proposed action will consist of the following:

Concrete Parking Pad: The new parking area will be designed to fit the required vehicles and has been estimated to be a maximum of 60,000 SF when factoring in travel and turning. Lot will be need lights and fire hydrants, which will be routed from existing utilities. The size of the parking area will trigger the need for a pond, a swale, or both, as well as open or underground drainage.

The pond is estimated at a maximum of 18,000 SF. Access from the existing CEMIRT area to the future parking area will be required; part of the swales which border the north of the area will have to be filled in and paved for this connection. This, along with the new storm water design, will affect the existing drainage system. This system is approximately 63,690 sq. ft and consists of swales, berms, down spouts, erosion, control and connection to the out flow. The pattern of drainage between the swale behind 1142 around the equipment storage area, which routes to behind 1144, then a detention pond, which then flows to the major outfall, is currently insufficient and in need of repairs. Contractor will include the study of this system on its own, and how it relates to the new construction, in their design and modifications.

A topographical and geotechnical survey will be required. Borings will be 4" split spoon/auger and taken to a maximum of 35 ft. Soil cuttings will be placed back in the same hole from which it came. Eventual disturbed area (maximum 85k SF) will be cleared and grubbed. For parking lot, existing soils approximately 12" deep will be removed; maximum 24". Sub-grade will be smoothed and compacted to 95% of Modified Proctor values. Geo-textile fabric on top of the compressed soil may be placed. 12" of sub-base (most likely large rock), base (most likely small rock) and wearing course (most likely concrete) will be placed back. Storm water system will not be deeper than 8 feet. Utility runs for all systems will not be deeper than 5 ft. Actual areas utilized will be based on the design provided by the contractor.

Modify and improve the CEMIRT facilities and site area, including buildings 1134, 1142, and 1144. The facilities will be modernized to meet current codes, regulations, and the mission needs for the future. Fire codes and standard, UV protection standard, accommodations for the increase in personal and ADA regulations, relocating and adding fire hydrant to meet code requirements for the fire hydrant, and adding an overhead structure.

The current fire hydrant behind building 1144 will be capped off. Two new fire hydrant will be install with one waterline from each new fire hydrant connected to the water main off Mississippi Rd. The total length of water line is approximately 375 LF. The waterline trenches will be approximately 13 in. by 18 in. deep. The new fire hydrants will be in an accessible area;

approximately 300 ft apart from each other and within 300 ft from the center of the premises.

The added overhead structure will be approximately 1,622 sq. ft.

No Action Alternative: Status Quo – Under the no-action alternative, the facilities will not meet Tyndall Installation Facility Standards, will not be within compliance of codes/regulations, and any adverse weather events can jeopardize the mission functions performed. The existing storm water system is damaged and has potential to flood the premises if left in its current condition.

5.1 Anticipated Environmental Issues

5.2 Environmental Impacts

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.

Contractor is responsible for managing dust generated as part of this action. ACAM modeling was conducted for this action and determined a conformity determination is not required.

AICUZ/Noise

The primary sources of ambient noise at Tyndall AFB include military aircraft, vehicular traffic, and construction activities. This will also be the primary sources of noise in the project areas.

Water Resources:

Due to the total of new semi/impervious surface, stormwater design and compensation will be required as the size dictates the regulatory limits. Permitting will be required. Cumulative impacts to the overall work area will be addressed with any additional changes likely requiring stormwater design which incorporates the entire footprint of new surface.

A Construction Generic Permit (CGP)/Notice of Intent (NOI) will 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.

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. 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 material used as fill shall be clean sand/fill dirt/shell material and shall not be contaminated with vegetation, garbage, trash, tires, hazardous waste, or other materials that are not suitable for construction.

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

If dewatering is needed to complete the task, a state and/or federal permit may be required. All dewatering must be coordinated with CEIEC and AFCEC to verify dewatering and discharge locations. Additional drawings may be requested. All permit applications must be reviewed by CEIEC and signed by the 325th CES Commander prior to submittal. All costs associated with permits will be paid for by the contractor. All costs associated with any environmental sampling will be paid for by the contractor. It is the contractor’s responsibility to verify with all necessary regulatory agencies if any permits are required and/or provide written concurrence from the necessary agencies that no permits would be required prior to starting work, unless a viable regulation is noted detailing the activity would not require prior authorization and is agreed upon by the 325 CES/CEIEC.

Soil Impact:

Prior to and during construction, implement all erosion and sediment control measures (Best Management Practices) required to retain sediment on-site and to prevent violations of state water quality standards; implement additional best management practices as necessary and correct any erosion or shoaling that causes adverse impacts to the water resources. Stabilization measures shall be initiated for erosion and sediment control on disturbed areas as soon as practicable in portions of the site where construction activities have temporarily or permanently ceased, but in no case more than seven days after the construction activity in that portion of the site has temporarily or permanently ceased.

Biological Resources:

The proposed action would occur in a developed area. The nature of the location results in poor habitat for threatened and endangered species. Therefore, proposed action would not adversely affect any federally protected species. Proposed action is not sited in the 100 year floodplain or wetlands.

Cultural Resources:

The proposed undertaking has been coordinated with the State Historical Preservation Office.

An archaeologist must be on site during all ground disturbances. All work should cease and the Cultural Resources Manager should be contacted if archaeological deposits or human remains are encountered.

Hazardous Material/ Waste:

A letter of review from 325 CES/CEIEC Hazardous Materials Office 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 process. No materials should be brought onto the installation until a hazardous materials authorization letter has been received by the 325 CES/CEIEC hazardous materials office.

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 material in the container.

A Hazardous Waste Determination must be conducted/recorded for all wastes generated during the execution of this project IAW 40 CFR 262.11. A worksheet is attached to accomplish the requirement.

Solid Waste:

The contractor and all subcontractors are responsible for disposal of all solid waste generated from the project. There should not be any solid waste placed in the dumpsters/roll offs located on Tyndall AFB unless the dumpster/roll off was provided by the contractor for use during the project.

Pollution Prevention:

Environmental Management Systems (EMS). Contractors should perform work consistent with the policy and objectives identified in the installations Environmental Management Systems in accordance with AFI 32-7001, Environmental Management. Perform work in a manner that conforms to objectives and targets of environmental programs and operational controls identified by the EMS. Provide monitoring and measurement information as necessary to address environmental performance relative to environmental, energy, and transportation management goals. In the event of an EMS nonconformance or environmental noncompliance associated with the contracted services, tasks, or actions occurred, take corrective and preventative actions. In addition, employees must be aware of their roles and responsibilities under the installation EMS and of how these EMS roles and responsibilities affect work performed under the contract.

Coordinate training needs associated with environmental aspects and the EMS, and arrange training or take other action to meet these needs. Provide training documentation to the

Contracting Officer. Make EMS Awareness training completion certificates available to Government auditors during EMS audits and include the certificates in the Employee Training Records.

Cumulative Impacts:

There will be no accumulative effects for this proposed project. However, this action will be included to evaluate long term cumulative impacts of construction projects as part of the Tyndall AFB reconstruction activities.

5.3 Environmental Requirements

Digging/Excavation

Prior to any digging, an Excavation permit will be required. An Air Force Form 103, BCE Work Clearance Request, will be required.

5.4 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.

5.5 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 the proposed actions are identical to those 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: Upgrade and Repair CEMIRT Facilities

Project Description: B1134, B1144, B1142 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 listed species are located in the vicinity of one of the project areas, this area can be mowed not roller chopped.

__ 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 _1_____.

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

__ After consultation, State Historical Preservation Officer concurred that the project will have no adverse effect on historic properties. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation concurred in writing with this determination on _______.

_X _ Project will have no adverse effect on historic properties or archeological material.

__ Estimated sate to execute the MOA is _______ or no MOA was developed and the formal comments of the Council are being sought.

__ Project will be in the vicinity of a site of interest to Native Americans, Archeological Monitor must be present during digging.

__ Appropriate Native American Tribe or Group contacted on _______.

1. Wetlands Reviewed By: ___ewallace__________________ X__ Proposed action is not in a wetland area.

__ Requirements of EO11990 in progress. Estimated completion date is ______ __ Requirements of EO 11990 completed on ____.

__ Other

2. Flood Plain Reviewed By: ____ewallace_________________ _X_ Proposed action is not 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:

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

__ 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: ___FDEP

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.

__ Action Coordinated with Florida Department of Environmental Protection and USACE, no permits required.

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

_ _ Other: No stormwater impacts.

d. Asbestos:

_X_ Not present: _________ survey underway.

__ Present (abatement may not be required due to type and quantity).

e. Lead Based Paint:

_X Not present: _________ survey underway.

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

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

4. Hazardous Materials ___ Will chemicals (such as, but not limited to, compressed gases, adhesives, aerosol cans, sealants, paints, lubricants, solvents, oils, cleaners, degreasers and pesticides) be used __X__ 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.

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

__X__ 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.

_ 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.

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

underground storage tank removals).

_X_ Permits are required for this project, (Construction General Permit,10/2 Permit)

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. Follow attached guidelines __ 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

From: KLENCK, JOEL D CTR USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE To: Section106 Cc: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE; WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC; MOSS, JENNIFER E CTR USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEA; HARRACH, ILARIA GS-12 USAF AFCEC AFCEC/CZOE Subject: Re CEMIRT Parking Area Project, Tyndall Air Force Base, Bay County, Florida.

Date: Thursday, July 30, 2020 8:21:06 AM

Ms. Soweka, Thank you for your response and we note the stipulation for the CEMIRT Parking Area Project.

Sincerely, Joel

Joel Klenck, MA, PhD, JD Cultural Resource Management Director and Principal Investigator Archaeology and Cultural Heritage The NDN Companies, Inc.

325 CES/CEIEC

540 Mississippi Ave Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403

904 405 8618 DSN 523-4346

From: Section106 <Section106@mcn-nsn.gov> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 11:59 AM To: KLENCK, JOEL D CTR USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <joel.klenck.ctr@us.af.mil> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: CEMIRT Parking Area Project, Tyndall Air Force Base, Bay County, Florida.

Good noon Mr. Klenck, Thank you for sending the correspondence regarding the proposed 1700 Area CEMIRT parking lot project located on Tyndall AFB in Bay County, Florida. Bay County is located within the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's historic area of interest and is of importance to us. After review, the Muscogee Nation is unaware of any Muscogee sacred sites, burial grounds, or significant cultural resources located within the immediate project area. The Muscogee Nation concurs that there should be no effects to any known historic properties and that work should continue as planned. However, due to the historic presence of Muscogee people in the project areas, inadvertent discoveries of human remains and related NAGPRA items may occur, even in areas of existing or prior development. Should this occur, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation requests that all work cease and our office as well as other appropriate agencies be notified immediately. This stipulation should be implemented into the project plans to ensure that contractors are aware of it. Any changes to the mailto:joel.klenck.ctr@us.af.mil mailto:Section106@mcn-nsn.gov mailto:jose.cintron.1@us.af.mil mailto:edwin.wallace.1@us.af.mil mailto:jennifer.moss.1.ctr@us.af.mil mailto:jennifer.moss.1.ctr@us.af.mil mailto:ilaria.harrach@us.af.mil approved scope of work for this project will require re-submission to, and evaluation and approval by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation prior to initiation of any work for compliance with Section 106. Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions or concerns.

Thank you, Robin Soweka Jr.

Historic and Cultural Preservation Department | Cultural Resource Specialist Muscogee (Creek) Nation P.O. Box 580 | Okmulgee, OK 74447 T 918.732.7726 F 918.758.0649 http://www.muscogeenation-nsn.gov/

From: KLENCK, JOEL D CTR USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 2:55 PM To: Section106; David J. Proctor; Corain Lowe Cc: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE; MOSS, JENNIFER E CTR USAF ACC 325

CES/CEIEA

Subject: CEMIRT Parking Area Project, Tyndall Air Force Base, Bay County, Florida.

Dear Mr. Proctor, On behalf of Mr. Jose Cintron, I have attached a letter of invitation to participate in consultation, for the proposed undertaking of the CEMIRT Parking Area Project, on Tyndall Air Force Base, in Bay County,…