Attachment 5_NCO Beach Boardwalk-FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.pdf

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR 4 CONSTRUCTION

SITES

TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

PREPARED FOR:

Department of the Air Force

Contract W9127819D0025/Task Order W9127821F0147

April 2024

Final Environmental Assessment for 8 Construction Sites Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida i

COVER SHEET

Responsible Agency: 325th Civil Engineer Squadron (325 CES), Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), Florida

Proposed Action: Implementation of Eight Near-term Construction Projects at Tyndall AFB, Bay County, Florida

Points of Contact: 325 CES/CEIEC, 101 Mississippi Road Building 36233 Tyndall AFB, FL 32403

Report Designation: Environmental Assessment (EA)

Abstract: 325 CES has identified and programmed a series of eight near-term improvements at Tyndall AFB (i.e., Proposed Actions), which are expected to be implemented beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 (Calendar Year 2022 – Calendar Year 2023). The Proposed Actions include new facility and infrastructure construction and renovation, recreational facility enhancements, and management of natural resources. The purpose of implementing the Proposed Actions is to provide facility, infrastructure, and functionality improvements necessary to provide continued mission support for host and tenant units at Tyndall AFB.

The Proposed Actions are needed to improve and maintain function and capability in the facilities and infrastructure at the installation, and to prevent deterioration of these functions and capabilities that can occur over time due to obsolescence and evolving mission needs. There would be no new missions or personnel assigned to Tyndall AFB as a result of the Proposed Actions.

The following resources were identified for study in this EA: Air Quality, Noise, Safety and Occupational Health, Land Use, Soils, Water Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazardous Materials and Wastes.

Privacy Act Advisory: As required by law, substantive comments were addressed in the Final Environmental Assessment and made available to the public. Any personal information provided has been kept confidential. Private addresses were compiled to develop a mailing list for those requesting copies of the Final Environmental Assessment. Names, personal home addresses and phone numbers were not published in the Final Environmental Assessment.

Compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: This document is compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. This allows assistive technology to be used to obtain the available information from the document. Due to the nature of graphics, figures, tables, and images occurring in the document, accessibility is limited to a descriptive title for each item.

Compliance with Revised CEQ Regulations: This document has been verified that it does not exceed 75 pages, not including appendices, as defined in 40 CFR § 1501.5(f). As defined in 40 CFR § 1508.1(v) a “page” means 500 words and does not include maps, diagrams, graphs, tables, and other means of graphically displaying quantitative or geospatial information.

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR

VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA

PREPARED FOR:

Department of the Air Force

March 2024

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT/

FINDING OF NO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE

Various Construction Projects, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida

Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500–1508 and the Department of the Air Force’s Environmental Impact Analysis Process Regulations at 32 CFR 989, the Air Force has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential impacts on the natural and human environment associated with Various Construction Projects at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), Florida. The EA is herewith incorporated by reference into this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)/Finding of No Practicable Alternative (FONPA).

Purpose and Need The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide facility, infrastructure, and functionality improvements to mission support, infrastructure and recreational facilities that were damaged beyond repair during Hurricane Michael in 2018. This Proposed Action is needed to repair in kind facilities (e.g., repair in existing footprint) and infrastructure at the installation, and to prevent further deterioration of these functions and capabilities that can occur over time due to obsolescence.

Proposed Action

The following four projects comprise the Proposed Action:

• Perimeter Fence, Building 9310: This project would include repair by replacing the existing security fence that runs alongside PQM Lake Loop and Camp Eagle Road. The project would include clearing and grubbing vegetation along the fence line, 10 feet on each side of fence. The length of fence would be approximately 2,400 linear feet. There would be 24 fence posts installed approximately every 10 feet and driven to a depth of 18 inches.

• Extend Tyndall Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Boardwalk: This project would restore the landscape by backfilling the area washed out by storm activity (approximately 190 cubic yards) with a clean sand material similar to the native surficial sands and extend the boardwalk up to 600 feet to the south along the existing walking path. Once complete, the boardwalk would enhance the preservation of the natural dune environment and protect critical wildlife habitat by discouraging uncontrolled pedestrian throughfare.

• Construct Eagle Drive Pier Parking Lot: This project would involve expansion and widening of the existing access road and construction of asphalt parking area closer to the pier.

The current area consists of a deteriorating gravel road and does not allow for parking to access the beach or any potential future recreational use. The proposed parking area would be 11,400 square feet of new impervious surface. The total project area would be 65,000 square feet to accommodate stormwater features, lay-down areas and design changes due to limitations to the project area. This project would be in a teardrop shape to allow for handicap parking and widening of the road by 25 feet. No utilities are anticipated.

• Repair (Replace) Pier, Golf Course: This project would include a boardwalk/pier repair and replacement within the same footprint of the existing boardwalk/pier and would be approximately 47,000 square feet. Construction staging would include one of two method options: Staging at the existing parking lot; or Staging/construction materials from a barge. The boardwalk or a walking path may be constructed up to 280 linear feet and be up to 5 feet wide.

The boardwalk or walking path would commence from the existing parking lot and travel down existing grade to the pier. The elevation of the boardwalk or walking path may be up to 4-feet above the ground at any location and must have ramps at transition points. The existing parking lot would remain while the existing Golf Course Pier would be demolished in a separate project.

No dredging is anticipated, and no boats would dock at the pier. The use of the pier would be consistent with prior usage as a recreational fishing location and consistent with the Tyndall AFB Outdoor Recreation Component Plan and Tyndall AFB Hunting, Fishing and General Recreation Regulations.

Alternatives This EA has considered all reasonable alternatives under the CEQ regulation, 40 CFR §1502.14(a), which states that that all reasonable alternative that have been eliminated must be briefly discussed. Alternative locations for new construction were considered but it was determined that the impacts from new construction would be greater than in-kind repairs or replacements within existing disturbance footprints. These alternate sites were found not to meet the selection criteria for avoiding natural and cultural resources. Other alternatives, such as constructing a new pier in a different location, were also considered but were found to not meet the requirements of the Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization program, which funds the Proposed Action. This program is limited to maintenance, repair, restoration, and/or modernization activities, and as such, alternative locations with higher costs did not meet the funding constraints. No alternative action meets the purpose of and need for the action, satisfies the criteria set forth in the selection standards, and was carried forward for further detailed analysis in this EA.

Per 32 CFR 989.8(c), the Air Force may expressly eliminate alternatives from detailed analysis based on reasonable selection standards. Reasonable selection standards were applied to determine whether action alternatives considered meet the project’s purpose and need and satisfy the selection standards. Accordingly, the Silver Flag location was the only action alternative carried forward as meeting the selection standards for the Proposed Action.

Description of the No-Action Alternative

The CEQ regulation 40 CFR §1502.14(d) requires the inclusion of a No Action Alternative in the NEPA analysis. Under the No Action Alternative, the Air Force would not repair or construct recreational facilities/infrastructure. The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action by not supporting or enhancing the morale, welfare and readiness of personnel assigned to the installation, their families, and civilian staff; however, as required by NEPA, the No Action Alternative is carried forward for analysis in this EA. The No Action Alternative will be used to analyze the consequences of not undertaking the Proposed Action and will serve to establish a comparative baseline for analysis.

Environmental Consequences

The Air Force has concluded that the Various Construction Projects included in the Proposed Action would not affect the following resources. These resource areas were not carried forward for detailed analysis in this EA:

Airspace: Airspace management would not be affected by the Proposed Action. No part of the action employs or influences airspace operations or air traffic management; all action elements would occur on the ground, so they would not impact either the management or use of airspace.

Accordingly, airspace management and use are not carried forward for detailed analysis in this

EA.

Geology: The construction of new structures and the associated dredging activities would adhere to standard methods that do not significantly impact geology, such as site clearing, grading, and compacting. Excavation would only be conducted to the extent necessary for facility foundations and utility connections.

Utilities: The implementation of the Proposed Action would have no impact to utility demands as no utility installation or use is proposed or included in the designs.

Transportation: The Proposed Action does not entail any changes to existing roadways, such as modifications, rerouting, or closures.

Visual Resources: Visual resources would not be affected since sensitive visual resources are not located near the Proposed Action locations.

Based on the findings in this EA, no significant adverse impacts would result to the following resources. These resources areas were analyzed in detail.

Air Quality and Climate Change: Criteria pollutant emissions would temporarily increase with implementation of construction activities but would cease upon completion. These temporary emissions would be less than the initial indicator of significance. Therefore, temporary increases in these pollutant emissions would not be significant. Operational emissions would be no different than those that currently occur, so that there would be no changes to air quality resulting from the use of the pier, boardwalks, parking area or perimeter fence.

Noise: Construction activities would include land clearing, grading, and excavation; materials transport; and pavement construction. These activities would involve the use of vehicles, heavy construction equipment, and machinery and would be conducted during the daytime work hours.

Construction activities would temporarily increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Action areas; however, there are no noise sensitive sites close to any of the projects and because distance rapidly attenuates noise levels, all areas would experience only a minor increase in ambient noise conditions during construction hours. In addition, the duration of activity for each of the projects is expected to be short.

Biological Resources:

Perimeter Fence, Building 9310: Any impacts due to disruption of wildlife corridors or fragmentation of habitat typical of fencing installation is negligible because this installation would be replacing an existing fence in kind. The construction of this project would lead to short-term insignificant adverse impacts to wildlife due to habitat disturbance and individual displacements. Regarding the operation phase, increased human presence and noise associated with the Proposed Action would cause minor disturbances to wildlife around the site. Over time, many wildlife species have and would adapt to these new conditions or relocate to other areas, resulting in a long-term, insignificant adverse impact on wildlife.

Extend Tyndall Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Boardwalk: Due to the project footprint remaining in an existing beach access footpath, wildlife habitat is not present within the project boundary. Wildlife utilization is expected to primarily occur within the adjacent coastal dune environment. The construction of this project would lead to short-term insignificant adverse impacts to wildlife due to indirect disturbance from increased human activity. Regarding the operation phase, increased human presence and noise associated with the Proposed Action would cause minor disturbances to wildlife around the site. Over time, many wildlife species have and would adapt to these new conditions or relocate to other areas, resulting in a long-term, insignificant adverse impact on wildlife. As a beneficial use, a boardwalk can provide improved access for visitors to enjoy and appreciate dune ecosystems. The elevated design would decrease direct human activity and foot traffic within tertiary dune systems. Boardwalk piling structures may also encourage accretion of sand and encourage dune formation.

Construct Eagle Drive Pier Parking Lot: The conversion of a gravel parking area to a paved surface may involve clearing vegetation and altering the natural habitat. This can result in the loss of plant and animal species that rely on the area for shelter, food, or breeding. However, the area is currently utilized for parking and is currently non-vegetated. No adverse effects to habitat or vegetation are expected.

Repair (Replace) Pier, Golf Course: The construction of this project would lead to short-term insignificant adverse impacts to wildlife due to habitat disturbance and individual displacements.

Regarding the operation phase, increased human presence and noise associated with the Proposed Action would cause minor disturbances to wildlife around the site. Over time, many wildlife species have and would adapt to these new conditions or relocate to other areas, resulting in a long-term, insignificant adverse impact on wildlife individuals and not species populations. In a separate essential fish habitat (EFH) assessment conducted by Tyndall AFB, the Proposed Action was analyzed for its effects to EFH and EFH related species. Based on the analysis, it was determined that implementation of repairing and replacing the golf course dock/pier with new piles is not likely to adversely affect any EFH or EFH associated species or critical habitat. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries concurred with the determination with implementing conservation measures detailed in section

3.4.4.2 and Appendix A of the Final EA.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was invited to review the EA and concur with the Air Force’s effects determinations on biological resources as part of the Draft EA public review period. The USFWS responded and requested that the project be uploaded to their Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system. The project was uploaded, and confirmation was received from USFWS on 17/11/2023. No further comments were received within the following 90-day review period. Full informal consultation documentation can be found in Appendix A of the Final EA.

Water Resources: The Preferred Alternative projects have the potential to cause temporary and minor indirect effects on surface waters due to increased erosion and sedimentation during construction or demolition activities. However, by implementing BMPs specific to a required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), these impacts would be minimized. It is estimated that the Repair (Replace) Pier, Golf Course project would impact approximately 0.75 acres of wetlands and 0.87 acres of other surface waters. It is estimated that the Perimeter Fence, Building 9310 project would impact approximately 0.61 acres of wetlands. Engineering controls to minimize the potential damage to wetland and other surface water habitats in the project areas would be implemented. The regulatory jurisdiction of wetlands and other surface waters would be determined and may be mitigated for as part of the federal/state 404 permitting processes.

Throughout the design and permitting stages, efforts would be made to minimize both direct and indirect impacts on wetlands and other surface waters to the maximum extent feasible. No adverse impacts on wetlands and other surface waters are expected. During the design phase, all projects would implement design measures to avoid/minimize direct impacts to floodplains to the greatest extent practicable. The use of erosion control measures during construction would minimize erosion, sedimentation, and other potential indirect effects on floodplains. No adverse effects are expected.

Cultural Resources:

Perimeter Fence, Building 9310: 8BY3169 is an historic site known as the World War II Range Estimation Course. The site has undergone testing and evaluation and due to lack of integrity, the site is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP, therefore, the Preferred Alternative project’s direct and indirect effects will have no adverse effect on the property.

Extend NCO Boardwalk: Construction of the NCO boardwalk would likely minimize pedestrian traffic in the portion of the Limit of Disturbance (LOD) that has not been surveyed. As a result, the indirect effect of the preferred alternative is unlikely to have an adverse effect to any undocumented properties in the LOD.

Construct Eagle Drive Pier Parking Lot: 8BY153 is a prehistoric site consisting of Middle and Late Woodland culture groups and mid-20th century military housing. The site has undergone testing and evaluation and awaiting on final report. Based on management summary, the deposits have limited integrity and is recommended as ineligible. The Preferred Alternative will not directly impact the site but is next to site boundary. However, a monitor will be present to mitigate and avoid direct impacts while working near site boundaries. As a result, the Preferred Alternative project’s direct and indirect effects will have no adverse effect on the property.

Repair (Replace) Pier, Golf Course: 8BY2389 is a historic structure that is the remnants of the current fishing pier. 8BY2391, also a historic structure, is a military concrete pad that was used as a decorative location for military ceremonies/functions. Both sites were surveyed and evaluated as ineligible for listing due to lack of integrity. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative direct and indirect effects to repair the pier will have no adverse effect on the properties.

Construction of the boardwalk will assist in minimizing impacts to the site by pedestrian activity and vehicular traffic. The construction of the boardwalk will impact 8BY1914 and 8BY2388.

8BY1914 is a prehistoric/historic site and is recommended as eligible for NRHP listing.

8BY2388 is a prehistoric/historic site and is recommended as potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP.

SHPO has reviewed the draft EA within the 60-day review period and has not provided any comments or requests for an MOA. Mitigation measures identified through consultation with the Seminole Tribe of Florida include:

- Creating a POA under NAGPRA;

- Providing a copy of the phase II report for 8BY2388;

- Providing engineering plans for the Golf Course Pier boardwalk once designed that will incorporate measures to avoid significant impact to sites 8BY1914 and 8BY2388; and

- Providing archeological monitoring during construction.

With mitigation measures to minimize impacts to these sites, the Preferred Alternative will not have a significant impact to the site’s integrity.

Hazardous Materials and Waste: Construction for all Proposed Action projects would all occur in a similar fashion and using similar materials unless noted below; thus, any potential impacts to Hazardous Materials and Wastes would be consistent across all projects. During construction activities, proper handling and storage of hazardous materials must adhere to relevant environmental compliance regulations and Tyndall AFB's environmental management plans. To prevent any potential releases, measures would be implemented to ensure compliance.

Hazardous materials and petroleum products, such as fuel and lubricants, would be stored using double-walled tanks or secondary containment systems. These measures aim to mitigate any potential impacts to soil or groundwater in the event of a spill. Upon completion of the projects, it is anticipated that there would be no significant alterations or notable increases in the quantities and types of hazardous materials or wastes compared to the current conditions.

Land Use Infrastructure and Utilities:

Perimeter Fence, Building 9310: The fence installation under this Preferred Alternative project would not alter the current land use other than to remove vegetation from the 1.1-acre border. As a result, no significant land use impacts would occur from implementing the project.

Extend NCO Boardwalk: The project represents no change from the existing land use beyond the extension of the NCO boardwalk, which would be a compatible use for the area and terminate prior to the permanent vegetation boundary. The NCO boardwalk would aid in protecting the natural dune environment and would also protect critical wildlife habitat by discouraging uncontrolled pedestrian access to the area. Concrete used for the construction would be similar to that which has been previously approved. The NCO boardwalk project would remain consistent with historical land use, and the overall project would result in a net positive benefit to the local ecosystem.

Construct Eagle Drive Pier Parking Lot: Rehabilitation of the access road and parking lot under this Preferred Alternative project would not alter the current land use and the addition of stormwater features to manage runoff from the impervious surface would ensure erosion would not result from the project. As a result, no significant land use impacts would occur from implementing the project.

Repair (Replace) Pier, Golf Course: As part of this Preferred Action project construction of the footprint of the pier would remain the same as the former pier at 47,000 square feet. In-water work would be required to install new pylons to support the pier, but they would be placed in the same location as existing pylons. As a reconstruction project, the land use would remain consistent with historical use, and no significant land use impacts would occur.

Earth Resources: Construction for all projects associated with the Proposed Action would all occur in a similar geographical setting using similar materials; thus, any potential impacts to Earth Resources would be consistent across all projects. Approximately 3.16 acres of native and non-native soils would undergo direct disturbance as a result of site preparation and construction activities. The impacts on soils resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Action projects would be insignificant due to the relatively small construction footprint, short construction duration, and measures that would be implemented under required site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans.

Environmental Justice and Socioeconomics: Given the absence of environmental justice communities of concern regarding race or income in the vicinity of any of the projects associated with the Proposed Action, it can be concluded that the Proposed Action does not have adverse impact to or the potential to disproportionately affect Environmental Justice communities.

Safety and Occupational Health: The Proposed Action would not pose new or unacceptable safety risks to installation personnel or activities at the installation but would enable Tyndall AFB to meet current and future mission objectives at the installation and conduct or meet mission requirements in a safe operating environment. No long-term adverse impacts on safety would be expected.

No significant adverse cumulative impacts would result from activities associated with the Various Construction Projects Proposed Action when considered with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects.

Mitigation Measures and Permit Requirements The Air Force will implement any and all applicable best management practices that are required in permits. All activities will be conducted in accordance with installation management plans, including but not limited to hazardous material, hazardous waste, spill prevention, natural resources, and cultural resources management.

The following permits and mitigations are anticipated for the Proposed Action:

• Acquire all necessary wetland and water resource permits for the Proposed Action, including, but not limited to an NPDES permit, Environmental Resource Permits for wetlands and stormwater, State 404 Program Permit, and Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification.

• To minimize the potential for adverse impacts on the West Indian manatee, all in-water construction activities would follow the 2011 Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work.

• To minimize the potential for adverse impacts on the loggerhead, green, leatherback, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles, all in-water construction activities would adhere to the Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions (Revised March 23, 2006).

• To minimize the potential for adverse impacts on the Gopher tortoise, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Gopher Tortoise Guidelines (revised April 2023) buffer requirements would be followed if potentially occupied burrows are observed during construction.

• To minimize the potential for adverse impacts on Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), design elements of the Golf Course pier would incorporate The Construction Guidelines in Florida for Minor Piling-Supported Structures Constructed in or over SAV, Marsh or Mangrove Habitat, published jointly by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the NMFS.

• To minimize the potential for adverse impacts on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), pre- and post-construction SAV surveys within 200 feet of the area proposed for the golf course pier construction during the June 1st through September 30th peak SAV growing season in Florida. A post-construction survey would be conducted not less than one year following construction of the proposed pier. Additionally, Tyndall AFB will coordinate with the USACE and/or NOAA Fisheries through the permitting process (including pre-application meetings), to ensure we have a design that minimizes impacts to avoid destruction of EFH.

• Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters by Mark Fonseca, Jud Kenworthy, and Gordon Thayer, November 1998 will be referenced if any SAV restoration is needed post-construction.

• Provide mitigation for up to approximately 0.61 acres of wetland impact, estimated as equivalent to 0.41 functional units of mitigation credits.

• Mitigate for the loss of up to approximately 4.43 acres of 100-year floodplain by providing compensatory storage.

• During construction, archeological monitors would be present to ensure no intact subsurface deposits are disturbed.

Public Review, Agency Coordination, and Government-to-Government Coordination

An Early Public Notice was published in the Panama City News Herald on 3/17/2023 announcing commencement of the EA detailing that the action would take place in a floodplain/wetland and seeking advanced public comment. No public comments were received.

A public notice was placed in the Panama City News Herald on 11/12/2023 and 11/13/2023 announcing the availability of the Draft EA and Draft FONSI/FONPA for public review and comment. The documents were made available for review on the internet at https://www.tyndall.af.mil from 11/14/2023 to 12/14/2023.

Tribal consultation letters were submitted to federally recognized tribes on 11/30/2023.

Appendix A of the Final EA includes records of correspondence with the tribes. In an email dated 11/13/2023, Muscogee Creek Nation noted multiple sites of importance within the project site and recommended the presence of archeological monitors during construction. In an email http://www.tyndall.af.mil/ received 2/15/2024, the Seminole Tribe of Florida requested the Phase II report for site 8BY02388 and design plans for the Golf Course Pier project.

Finding of No Significant Impact Based on my review of the facts and analyses contained in the attached EA, conducted under the provisions of NEPA, CEQ Regulations, and 32 CFR §989, I conclude that the Proposed Action for Various Construction Projects would not have a significant environmental impact, either by itself or cumulatively with other known projects. Accordingly, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. This analysis fulfills the requirements of NEPA, the President’s CEQ 40 CFR §§ 1500-1508 and the Air Force EIAP regulations 32 CFR § 989. The requirements of NEPA and the CEQ’s regulations have been fulfilled.

Finding of No Practicable Alternative Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of Wetlands, directs federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with destruction and modification of wetlands and to avoid direct and indirect support of new construction in wetlands. EO 11998, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative.

The Proposed Action would result in direct and indirect impacts on wetlands and other surface waters (~2.23 acres). Wetland impacts will be reduced to the maximum extent possible through site design and implementation of environmental protection measures. Wetlands will be formally delineated, with a jurisdictional determination and compensatory mitigation, as appropriate following final design during permitting.

Given the Proposed Action's utilization of existing footpaths and damaged boardwalks at the NCO Boardwalk and Golf Course pier sites, all other potential locations would impose more significant environmental repercussions.

The designs of both the NCO boardwalk and Golf Course Boardwalk/Pier are connected to an existing access parking lot. Since there is already supporting infrastructure in place, the Proposed Action is dependent on utilizing it, leaving no other feasible alternatives. Regarding the Perimeter Fence for Building 9310, the absence of viable alternatives for placement is primarily attributed to the reliance on associated infrastructure (Building 9310).

It is estimated that the Perimeter Fence, Building 9310 project would impact approximately 0.61 acres of wetlands. Additionally, the Repair (Replace) Pier, Golf Course project is expected to impact approximately 0.75 acres of wetlands and 0.87 acres of other surface waters.

Special Flood Hazard Areas or 100-year floodplains are found within the project boundaries of the Perimeter Fence, Building 9310 project, Extend Tyndall NCO Boardwalk project, and the Repair (Replace) Pier, Golf Course project. Impact acreage would be refined during the permitting process, particularly for construction of elevated features. The construction activities have the potential to temporarily alter the natural flow patterns within the floodplain. During the design phase, the project would implement design measures to avoid/minimize direct impacts to floodplains to the greatest extent practicable. Per EO 11990, the Department of the Air Force has undertaken all actions to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the responsibilities of the Department of the Air Force (see also Section 3.4.3 of the EA).

Pursuant to Executive Order(s) 11988 and 11990, and considering all supporting information, I find there is no practicable alternative to the Proposed Action, which will impact floodplains and wetlands, as described in the attached EA. This finding fulfills both the requirements of the referenced Executive Orders and the EIAP regulation, 32 CFR § 989.14 for a Finding of No Practicable Alternative.

8 April 2024

ANDREW E. DEROSA, Colonel, USAF Date Chief, Civil Engineer Division HQ ACC/A4C, Directorate of Logistics, Engineering and Force Protection

DEROSA.ANDREW.E Digitally signed by

.1024579200

DEROSA.ANDREW.E.1024579200

Tyndall AFB Various Construction Projects Final EA March 2024

Privacy Advisory

Letters or other written comments provided may be published in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA). As required by law, substantive comments will be addressed in the Final EA and made available to the public. Any personal information provided will be kept confidential. Private addresses will be compiled to develop a mailing list for those requesting copies of the Final EA. However, only the names of the individuals making comments and their specific comments will be disclosed. Personal home addresses and phone numbers will not be published in the Final EA.

Cover Sheet

COVER SHEET

Responsible Agency: 325th Civil Engineer Squadron (325 CES), Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), Florida

Proposed Action: Various Construction Projects at Tyndall AFB, Bay County, FL

Points of Contact: 325 CES/CEIEC, 101 Mississippi Road Building 36233 Tyndall AFB, FL

Report Designation: Environmental Assessment (EA)

Abstract: Tyndall AFB has prepared this EA in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 United States Code Sections 4321-4370h), as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508) and Air Force regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (32 CFR part 989).

325 CES has identified and programmed various construction projects at Tyndall AFB (i.e., Proposed Action) with a planned execution year between Fiscal Year 2024 and 2025.

The Proposed Action would include four projects: 1. In-kind replacing of the Building 9310 perimeter security fence spanning 2,400 linear feet; 2. Extending the Tyndall Noncommissioned Officer Boardwalk 600 feet to the south along an existing pathway; 3. Constructing Eagle Drive Pier Parking Lot with 11,400 square feet of new impervious surface and a total project area of 65,000 square feet; and 4. Repairing and replacing the golf course boardwalk/pier with new pylons.

The following resource areas were identified for study in this EA: air quality and climate change, noise, biological resources, cultural resources, water resources, hazardous materials and waste, land use infrastructure/utilities, earth resources, environmental justice and socioeconomics, and safety and occupational health.

Compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: This document is compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. This allows assistive technology to be used to obtain the available information from the document. Due to the nature of graphics, figures, tables, and images occurring in the document, accessibility is limited to a descriptive title for each item.

Compliance with Revised Council on Environmental Quality Regulations: This document has been verified that it does not exceed 75 pages, not including appendices, as defined in 40 CFR 1501.5(f). As defined in 40 CFR 1508.1(v) a “page” means 500 words and does not include maps, diagrams, graphs, tables, and other means of graphically displaying quantitative or geospatial information.

Cover Sheet-i

This page intentionally left blank.

ES-i Executive Summary

ES.1 Proposed Action

This executive summary provides an overview of the proposed action, which consists of four projects aimed at enhancing various facilities and infrastructure within Tyndall Airforce Base. These projects include the construction of a perimeter fence for Building 9310; extension of the Tyndall Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Boardwalk; construction of the Eagle Drive Pier parking lot; and repair (replacement) of the Golf Course pier.

The replacement of the building 9310 perimeter fence involves replacing the existing security fence along PQM Lake Loop and Camp Eagle Road. The fence would be approximately 2,400 linear feet in length, 7 feet tall, and equipped with 3-strand barbed wire on outriggers. Vegetation within a 10-foot clearing zone on each side of the fence would be removed.

Repair of the Tyndall NCO Boardwalk aims to restore the landscape and prevent uncontrolled pedestrian access. Approximately 190 cubic yards of clean sand material will be used to backfill the area affected by storm activity as well. The extension will stretch up to 600 feet to the south along the existing walking path, terminating before reaching the permanent vegetation line. Low impact methods will be employed for constructing the wooden pile-supported boardwalk structure.

The construction of the Eagle Drive Pier parking lot involves expanding and widening the existing access road and creating an 11,400 square feet asphalt parking area closer to the pier. The teardrop-shaped parking lot will accommodate stormwater features, lay-down areas, and design changes to fit within a total project area of 65,000 square feet. The objective is to improve access to the beach and future recreational activities.

The Golf Course pier repair (replacement) project will involve repairing and replacing the existing boardwalk/pier. The new structure, spanning approximately 47,000 square feet, will be built within the same footprint as the current one. New pylons will support the pier, with depths of up to 20 feet.

Construction staging would occur either from the existing parking lot or using a barge for materials. A boardwalk or walking path would be constructed up to 280 linear feet and would have ramps at transition points. The project aligns with recreational fishing plans and regulations.

Overall, these four projects aim to improve security, preserve the natural environment, enhance access to recreational areas, and maintain the functionality of existing facilities. The proposed action prioritizes sustainable construction methods and adheres to relevant regulations and plans.

ES.2 Alternatives Considered

The National Environmental Policy Act and Council on Environmental Quality regulations require the consideration of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. The analysis presented in this Environmental Assessment, along with public and agency feedback, will guide decisions regarding the execution of the proposed action. After thorough evaluation, it is determined that no alternatives sites beyond the Proposed Action meets the purpose and need while satisfying the established selection standards:

1. Site Size Sufficiency. The site must provide a minimum contiguous size to accommodate surrounding landscaping, roadways, parking, and other supporting infrastructure and features.

ES-ii

2. Avoidance of sensitive natural and cultural resources. Development that affects cultural resources, sensitive species and their habitats, wetlands, and floodplains should be avoided.

Open spaces that characterize the base landscape should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.

3. Land use compatibility and Accessibility. The selected site must be compatible with existing land uses and land management objectives and currently accessible locations.

4. Support Morale and Welfare. The selected site must support and increase access to recreational facilities for service members and their dependents.

Alternative sites or footprints were considered but were not pursued in this analysis due to potential additional environmental impacts.

The No Action Alternative, which involves not repairing or constructing recreational facilities/infrastructure, is considered in the analysis. While it does not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action, analyzing the No Action Alternative provides important information for establishing a comparative baseline and understanding the potential consequences of not undertaking the proposed action. The No Action Alternative serves as a benchmark for comparison during the decision-making process.

ES.3 Summary of Environmental Resources Evaluated in this Environmental Assessment

Resources carried forward for detailed analysis include the following areas: air quality and climate change, noise, biological resources, water resources, cultural resources, hazardous materials and waste, land use infrastructure, earth resources, environmental justice, and safety and occupational health. This assessment does not carry forward the following resource areas for detailed analysis because potential impacts would be non-existent or negligible: airspace management and use; geology; utilities;

transportation; and visual resources.

Air Quality and Climate Change

The proposed action would result in temporary increases in criteria pollutant emissions during the construction phase. However, these emissions are considered to be below the threshold of significance, indicating no significant impact on air quality. Furthermore, the operational activities associated with the completed projects would maintain the current air quality conditions, with no additional changes expected.

Noise

The construction activities associated with the proposed action are expected to result in a temporary increase in noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the construction areas. Mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize potential disturbances to nearby residents and sensitive receptors. Once construction is completed, the noise levels are expected to return to normal or pre-construction levels.

Biological Resources

The proposed action is not expected to have significant impacts on listed floral or faunal species. The determination is that the proposed action would have a "no effect" on species without suitable habitat within the project areas and a "may affect, but not likely to adversely affect" determination for species whose habitat falls within project boundaries. Critical habitats for the Piping plover are located at a distance from the NCO Boardwalk project boundary, while critical habitats for the Choctawhatchee beach mouse and St. Andrews beach mouse are within the boundary. The presence of Gulf Sturgeon

ES-iii critical habitat adjacent to the shoreline and project boundaries suggests possible in-water impacts. The Golf Course pier repair (replacement) could indirectly affect submerged aquatic vegetation by altering water flow, light penetration, and increasing turbidity.

Water Resources

The proposed action is not expected to involve the removal or release of water from surface water bodies or groundwater. The projects would impact a total of approximately 0.611 acres of wetlands and

0.01 acres of Other Surface Waters. Mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize the potential adverse effects on wetland and floodplain ecosystems. Furthermore, the state of Florida has confirmed that the proposed action is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Plan, ensuring compliance with regulations and guidelines for sustainable development in coastal areas.

Cultural Resources

The United States Air Force has conducted a thorough evaluation of the proposed action's potential impact on archaeological or historic architectural resources. Based on this assessment, it is concluded that by employing listed minimization measures, the proposed action would not result in any significant adverse effects on these resources.

Hazardous Materials and Waste

It is expected that minimal additional hazardous materials or waste may be generated during the construction of the proposed action. To mitigate potential environmental risks, proper management and disposal protocols would be followed. Furthermore, no Environmental Restoration Program sites are identified within or adjacent to the proposed action, indicating that the projects will not interfere with ongoing environmental restoration efforts.

Land Use Infrastructure

The proposed action's emphasis on replacement and reconstruction projects ensures that all land uses would remain consistent with historical use. This approach minimizes the potential for significant land use impacts, preserving the established character and functionality of the area. The proposed action aims to improve existing infrastructure while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding environment and land uses.

Earth Resources

The proposed action would result in minimal direct disturbance to approximately 3.16 acres of native and non-native soils due to site preparation and construction activities. By implementing appropriate mitigation measures, it is possible to minimize the impacts on the soil resources and maintain their quality and functionality throughout the construction process.

Environmental Justice

The absence of environmental justice communities of concern regarding race or income in the vicinity of the proposed action supports the conclusion that the project does not have the potential to disproportionately affect these communities. This assessment contributes to ensuring fairness and equity in the planning and implementation of the proposed action.

Safety and Occupational Health

No adverse impact on safety is anticipated under the proposed action. Although short-term, minor direct impacts on contractor health and safety may occur during implementation, these risks can be

ES-iv mitigated through the implementation of appropriate safety measures and adherence to established regulations and best practices. The overall goal is to prioritize and maintain a safe working environment throughout the construction phase.

i Table of Contents

Final Environmental Assessment

Various Construction Projects at Tyndall AFB

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................................. vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES-i

ES.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................... i ES.2 Alternatives Considered .......................................................................................................... i ES.3 Summary of Environmental Resources Evaluated in this Environmental Assessment ............ii

1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................... 1-1

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

1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action .................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Decision to be Made ............................................................................................................ 1-5

1.4 Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination and Consultations................................. 1-5

1.4.1 Interagency Coordination and Consultations ........................................................... 1-5

1.4.2 Government to Government Consultations ............................................................. 1-5

1.4.3 Other Agency Consultations ..................................................................................... 1-5

1.5 Applicable Laws and Environmental Regulations ................................................................ 1-6

1.6 Public and Agency Review of the Environmental Assessment ............................................. 1-6

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

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

2.2 Selection Standards ............................................................................................................. 2-7

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis ........................................... 2-7

2.4 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis ........................................................................... 2-8

2.4.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................... 2-8

2.4.2 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) .................................................................. 2-8

2.5 Scope of Environmental Analysis ......................................................................................... 2-8

2.6 Summary of…