Statement of Work St Croix_Renewable Energy PDEAr.pdf

List of Acronyms 285 CBCS 285th Combat Communications Squadron

285 CES 285th Civil Engineering Squadron

AC Alternating Current

ANG Air National Guard

ANGS Air National Guard Station

BMP Best Management Practices

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DC Direct Current

DoD Department of Defense

DPNR Department of Planning and Natural Resources

EA Environmental Assessment

EO Executive Order

EPAct 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESQD Explosive Safety Quantity Distance

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAR Federal Aviation Regulations

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FY Fiscal Year

GSU Geographically-Separated Unit

IICEP Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning kw Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt-hour

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NGB National Guard Bureau

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

PIF Partner-in-Flight

PV Photovoltaic

RUSLE Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SWPPP Sedimentation and Water Pollution Prevention Plan

TPDES Territorial Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

USC United States Code

USEPA US Environmental Agency

USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service

WAPA Water and Power Authority

I

DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 1

Renewable Energy Project 2

285th Civil Engineering Squadron 3

St. Croix Air National Guard Station, St. Croix, US Virgin Islands 4

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 6 United States Code [USC] 4331 et seq.), the regulations of the President’s Council on 7 Environmental Quality (CEQ) that implement NEPA procedures (40 Code of Federal 8 Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), the US Air Force’s Environmental Impact Assessment Process 9 Regulations at 32 CFR Part 989, and US Air Force Instruction 32-7061 (12 March 2003), the Air 10 National Guard (ANG) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate the impacts 11 on the human environment that would result from the implementation of a renewable energy 12 project proposed by the Puerto Rico ANG’s 285th Civil Engineering Squadron (285 CES) at the 13 St. Croix Air National Guard Station (ANGS) in St. Croix, US Virgin Islands. The EA is 14 incorporated by reference in this Finding of No Significant Impact. 15

The 285 CES is supported as a Geographically-Separated Unit by the 156th Airlift Wing based at 16 Muñiz Air National Guard Base in Carolina, Puerto Rico. Until March 2012, the 285 CES was 17 designated as the 285th Combat Communications Squadron. The St. Croix ANGS is located just 18 north of the Henry E. Rohlsen Airport along the southern shore of the Caribbean island of St. 19 Croix. St. Croix, approximately 28 by 7 miles in size, is the largest of the US Virgin Islands. 20 Located about 40 miles east of Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands are an unincorporated territory 21 of the United States. 22

1. Proposed Action 23

The proposed action involves the installation of a combination of wind and solar energy systems 24 at the St. Croix ANGS. The wind energy systems would consist of up to three wind turbines. The 25 ANG is considering to types of turbines: pole-mounted 10-kilowatt (kw) horizontal axis wind 26 turbine of the Bergey Excel type or smaller; and ground-mounted 30-kw Green Energy 27 Technologies Wind Cube, approximately 22 feet by 22 feet in size. With regard to solar energy 28 systems, the ANG is considering crystalline or amorphous flush rooftop modules; pitched roof-29 mounted crystalline modules; or pitched ground-mounted crystalline modules. 30

The purpose of the proposed action is for the 285 CES to reduce to the maximum extent possible 31 its reliance on the commercial power grid by generating electricity on site using new renewable 32 energy systems. The proposed action is needed to address growing energy costs and support the 33 ANG’s renewable energy and energy management goals, which have been established consistent 34 with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Executive Order (EO) 13423, Strengthening Federal 35 Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, signed on January 24, 2007. 36

Draft FONSI

II

2. Alternatives 37

Three alternatives are evaluated in the EA: the No Action Alternative; the East Field Only 39 Alternative; and the Rooftops and East Field Alternative. 40

Under the No Action Alternative, the ANG would not construct the proposed renewable energy 41 systems. Existing conditions would continue unchanged. 42

Under the East Field Only Alternative, the ANG would construct up to three wind turbines (pole-43 mounted or Wind Cubes) and install pitched, ground-mounted crystalline solar panels in St. 44 Croix ANGS’s undeveloped eastern half (East Field). 45

Under the Rooftops and East Field Alternative, the ANG would construct up to three wind 46 turbines (pole-mounted or Wind Cubes) in the East Field and install pitched or flat, crystalline or 47 amorphous solar panels on the rooftops of the existing buildings and/or on a canopy that would 48 be constructed over the installation's existing parking lot. 49

3. Impacts 50

Consistent with 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3), air quality, noise, water resources, transportation, cultural 51 resources, socioeconomic conditions, and hazardous substances are not addressed in the EA 52 because the proposed action has no potential to have significant impacts on those resources. 53

No Action Alternative 54

Under the No Action Alternative, existing conditions would continue. There would be no 55 impacts. 56

East Field Only Alternative 57

Safety 58

Depending on their height and location, pole-mounted turbines could extend above the elevation 59 of either the Transitional Surface or the Horizontal Surface associated with Runway 10/28. This 60 would create obstructions as defined in the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77. Wind Cubes 61 would be much less likely to do so, given their lesser height (about 22 feet.) Although the 62 proposed solar arrays would not pierce any of the Part 77 surface overlying the project site, they 63 would be installed on the south-facing side of the East Field, looking toward Rohlsen Airport's 64 Runway 10/28. Light reflection on the panel could be a hazard to navigation. Therefore, the 65 proposed action could result in an adverse effect to airfield safety 66

Pursuant to FAR Part 77 Subpart B (§77.9), the ANG must notify the Federal Aviation 67 Administration (FAA) of the project using Form 7460-1. Upon notification, the FAA will 68 conduct an aeronautical study per Part 77 Subpart D and issue a determination stating whether 69 the proposed construction or alteration would be a hazard to air navigation based on the 70 aeronautical study findings. The notice must be provided at least 45 days before the start date of 71 the proposed construction or alteration or the date an application for a construction permit is 72

Renewable Energy Project, 285 CES, St. Croix, USVI

III

filed, whichever is earliest. No turbines or solar panels would be installed that would create a 73 hazard to air navigation and, therefore, a substantial adverse impact to air navigation. Thus, the 74 East Field Only Alternative would have no significant adverse impact on airfield safety. 75

Land Use 76

Installation of the proposed renewable energy systems in the East Field would introduce a new 77 land use to the property, which is currently mostly undeveloped. However, the proposed systems 78 are intended to support the installation's energy needs and, as such, represent a compatible land 79 use. They would not conflict with land uses outside the installation (potential conflicts with 80 airport safety are addressed under Safety). The East Field Only Alternative would have no 81 adverse impacts on land use. 82

Geological Resources 83

Installing the proposed wind and solar energy systems in the East Field would require some 84 excavation and grading to construct the turbine foundations, the solar panel racks, the associated 85 inverter building, and the transmission lines. The small scale of the proposed structures would 86 ensure that impacts remain minor. No blasting or large excavation work would be required. The 87 general topography of the hillside would be altered in places by grading, but this would be 88 limited to small, discrete areas, most likely on the southern slope of the site. Overall, the change 89 in topography would be minor and no significant. 90

In the short term, the construction of the proposed renewable energy systems would require 91 removing vegetation and disturbing soils, creating a risk of increased soil erosion, especially 92 given the steep grade of the East Field. However, soils in the project area are not highly erodible. 93 The risk of erosion would be further minimized through the design and implementation of 94 appropriate best management practices (BMP). The Virgin Islands Environmental Protection 95 Handbook (2002) provides information on selecting BMPs at construction sites in the territory 96 and the ANG would follow the guidance in the handbook, as appropriate. Examples include earth 97 berms and rapid re-vegetation of disturbed areas. 98

Construction would be performed in adherence to the terms of the DPNR's Territorial Pollutant 99 Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Storm Water General Permit for Storm Water 100 Permitting for Construction Projects, including the preparation, DPNR approval, and 101 implementation of a project-specific Sedimentation and Water Pollution Prevention Plan 102 (SWPPP) (Title 12, Chapter 182, US Virgin Islands Code). Permit standards would be adhered to 103 during construction activities. As a result of these measures, short-term erosion impacts would 104 not be significant. 105

In the long term, there would be an increase in the amount of impervious surface on the site by 106 approximately 450 to 550 square feet out of the approximately four acres of the East field. 107 Measures to manage the increased runoff and prevent excessive erosion along the steep slopes of 108 the site would be incorporated in the design of the proposed structures, as appropriate. The 109 proposed ground-mounted solar panels would be set up in several rows separated by enough 110 space to allow for access for maintenance. The panels would be a few feet above ground and 111 inclined toward the south. Stormwater would run in sheets off their surface to the ground below. 112

IV

To prevent erosion from this concentrated flow, gravel or a similar material would be put in 113 place at the base of the panel arrays to break the energy of the water and prevent scouring. 114

These and other appropriate measures would be incorporated in the permit (Major Earth Change 115 Permit) application to be filed by the ANG and reviewed and approved by DPNR prior to 116 beginning construction. Compliance with permitting requirements would ensure that any impacts 117 remain non-significant. 118

Biological Resources 119

Through the construction of foundations for the proposed wind turbines and solar inverter, up to 120 550 square feet of grassy vegetation would be lost (out of about four acres). Grass within the 121 footprint of the proposed solar panels would also be lost to build the racks holding the panels and 122 place gravel or other erosion-controlling material on the ground between the rows of panels. The 123 shadow cast by the panels in the areas not otherwise altered would likely result in the affected 124 vegetation dying off. However, this impact could be offset by planting these areas with shade-125 tolerant species. If this does not prove a feasible option, the total loss of vegetation from the 126 project would remain limited and only affect an area that is currently artificially maintained as an 127 open grass field. No natural vegetation would be lost. Therefore, the adverse impact to 128 vegetation would not be significant. 129

The construction and operation of the proposed renewable energy systems would not have an 130 adverse impact on non-flying terrestrial animal species, as there is very limited habitat for such 131 species on the installation. 132

The proposed action may be anticipated to result in some bird and bat mortality through collision 133 with rotating blades (as well as poles), a well-known effect of the operation of wind turbines. 134 Although a quantitative assessment of the number of individuals that may be killed is not 135 possible, based on the small size of the proposed wind systems and the lack of high-quality 136 habitat in the project area, this number is anticipated to be very low and negligible at the 137 population level. 138

There are three terrestrial species protected under the Endangered Species Act that may occur on 139 St. Croix. Of these, the St. Croix ground lizard (Ameiva polups) has been known to occur only on 140 the north side of the island, where its critical habitat is located. Vahl's boxwood (Buxus vahlii) is 141 a plant that occurs only in semi-evergreen forest of the subtropical moist forest zone and may not 142 occur in St. Croix at all. The tropical lilythorn (Catesbaea melanocarpa) is only known to occur 143 on St. Croix on a site near Halfpenny Bay, well to the east of the project site. The East Field is 144 maintained as an open grass field and does not provide adequate habitat for any of those 145 federally-endangered species. The proposed action would have no adverse effect on them or their 146 critical habitat (concurrence from the US Fish and Wildlife Service pending.) 147

Visual Resources 148

Implementation of the East Field Only Alternative would change the appearance of the East 149 Field by introducing new vertical (the proposed wind turbines) and horizontal (the proposed 150 solar arrays) elements to the site. 151

V

Although the exact height and location of the proposed structures has not yet been determined 152 and would largely depend on the findings of the FAA's aeronautic study and on engineering 153 considerations, it is most likely that they would be installed on the south-facing slope of the site. 154 Thus, the greatest change would occur to the views from Rohlsen airport. Pole-mounted turbines 155 would be most visible, as they would reach above the surrounding vegetation while, at that 156 distance, Wind Cubes may be less conspicuous and recognizable as wind-energy systems. The 157 proposed solar arrays may appear as a shining surface with no or few details visible. 158

The visual context of the airport is characterized by both horizontal and vertical utilitarian 159 structures, and any visual disruption created by the new renewable energy elements would be 160 further minimized by the distance between the passenger terminal and the site (about half a 161 mile). Thus, the new elements are not likely to be particularly intrusive or to result in a 162 noticeable degradation of a viewshed that has no particular touristic or historic significance. 163

The proposed wind energy systems may also be partially visible from Route 66 eastbound 164 depending on their type, height, and location. These additions to a landscape already dominated 165 by tall vertical highway lighting features are not likely to be perceived as particularly intrusive. 166 The ground-mounted solar panels would not be visible from the road. 167

For these reasons, the proposed action would not result in significant adverse impacts to visual 168 resources. 169

Rooftops and East Field Alternative 170

The impacts of the Rooftops and East Field Alternative would generally be the same or less than 171 those of the East Field Only Alternative. The construction and operation of the proposed wind 172 turbines would have the same impacts under either alternative. The impacts on soils, vegetation, 173 and visual resources that would result from installing the panels in the East Field would not 174 occur because solar panels would be installed on existing rooftops or on the roof of a proposed 175 new canopy over the 285 CES installation’s parking lot. Constructing a new parking canopy 176 would not increase the amount of impervious surface on the installation since the parking lot is 177 already paved. Therefore, like the East Field Only Alternative, the overall lesser impacts of the 178 Rooftops and East Field Alternative would be non-significant. 179

4. Public Notice 180

NEPA, 40 CFR 1500-1508, and 32 CFR 989 require public review of the EA before approval of 181 the FONSI and implementation of the proposed action. The Draft EA for this proposed action 182 will be mailed to (number to be determined) federal and territorial agencies and organizations. A 183 notice of availability for public review will be published in the in the Virgin Islands Daily News 184 (dates to be determined). The Draft EA will be made available for public review at a local public 185 library. The review period will run from (dates to be determined). 186

VI

5. Finding of No Significant Impact 188

After careful review of the potential impacts of this proposed action, I have concluded that 189 implementation of the proposed action would not have a significant impact on the quality of the 190 human environment or generate significant controversy; therefore, an environmental impact 191 statement does not need to be prepared. This analysis fulfills the requirements of NEPA and the 192 CEQ regulations. 193

RICHARD L. EDWARDS, P.E., Colonel, USAF Date Chief, Asset Management Division194

Environmental Assessment 195 for 196

Renewable Energy Project 197

285th Civil Engineering Squadron 199

St. Croix Air National Guard Station 201

St. Croix, US Virgin Islands 202

Internal Review Draft – Not for Public Release 203

This environmental assessment (EA) evaluates the potential impacts on the human environment that would result 205 from a renewable energy project proposed by the Puerto Rico’s Air National Guard’s 285th Civil Engineering 206 Squadron at the St. Croix Air National Guard Station in St. Croix, US Virgin Islands. The proposed action consists 207 of installing power-generating wind energy and solar photovoltaic (PV) systems at the St. Croix ANGS to supply 208 electricity for the operation of the existing facilities. The proposed action would have no significant adverse effects 209 on the human environment. Preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required. 210

Please send comments to:

Mr. Robert Dogan

NGB/A7AM

Shepperd Hall - Air National Guard Readiness Center

3501 Fetchet Avenue Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762-5157 ang.env.comments@ang.af.mil

Comments will be addressed in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and made available to the public. Any submitted comments may be published in the Final EA. Any personal information provided will be used only to identify your desire to make a statement during the public comment period or to fulfill requests for copies of the Final EA or associated documents. Private addresses will be compiled to develop a mailing list of those requesting copies of the Final EA. However, only the names of the individuals making comments and the specific comments will be disclosed in the Final EA. Personal home addresses and phone numbers will not be published.

January 2013 213

This page intentionally left blank. 215 i Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 216

Chapter Page 217

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 218

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED ......................................................................................................................... 1 219

1.1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1 220

1.1.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................ 2 221

1.2 LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................ 2 222

1.3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 2 223

1.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ................................................................................... 2 224

1.3.2 Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning (IICEP) ................ 3 225

1.3.3 Air Conformity Requirements ......................................................................................................... 4 226

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ........................................................................................................ 4 227

1.4 RESOURCES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY .......................................................................... 5 228

2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................... 7 230

2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................... 7 231

2.1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 7 232

2.1.2 Proposed Activities .......................................................................................................................... 7 233

2.2 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................................. 11 234

2.2.1 East Field Only Alternative ........................................................................................................... 11 235

2.2.2 Rooftops and East Field Alternative .............................................................................................. 11 236

2.2.3 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................................... 12 237

2.2.4 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed ......................................................................................... 12 238

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................... 15 240

3.1 SAFETY ........................................................................................................................................... 15 241

3.1.1 Airfield Clearance Requirements and Safety ................................................................................. 15 242

3.1.2 Explosive Safety Areas .................................................................................................................. 16 243

3.1.3 Force Protection and Physical Security ......................................................................................... 17 244

3.2 LAND USE ...................................................................................................................................... 17 245

3.2.1 Area Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 17 246

3.2.2 Installation Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 17 247

3.3 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 17 248

3.3.1 Geology and Topography .............................................................................................................. 17 249

3.3.2 Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 18 250

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 22 251

3.4.1 Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................... 22 252

3.4.2 Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................... 22 253

3.4.3 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................. 24 254

3.5 VISUAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 25 255

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................. 29 257

4.1 SAFETY ........................................................................................................................................... 29 258

4.1.1 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................................... 29 259

4.1.2 East Field Only Alternative ........................................................................................................... 29 260

4.1.3 Rooftops and East Field Alternative .............................................................................................. 30 261

Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment

Contents ii

4.2 LAND USE ...................................................................................................................................... 31 262

4.2.1 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................................... 31 263

4.2.2 East Field Only Alternative ........................................................................................................... 31 264

4.2.3 Rooftops and East Field Alternative .............................................................................................. 31 265

4.3 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 31 266

4.3.1 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................................... 31 267

4.3.2 East Field Only Alternative ........................................................................................................... 32 268

4.3.3 Rooftops and East Field Alternative .............................................................................................. 33 269

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 33 270

4.4.1 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................................... 33 271

4.4.2 East Field Only Alternative ........................................................................................................... 33 272

4.4.3 Rooftops and East Field Alternative .............................................................................................. 35 273

4.5 VISUAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 36 274

4.5.1 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................................... 36 275

4.5.2 East Field Only Alternative ........................................................................................................... 36 276

4.5.3 Rooftops and East Field Alternative .............................................................................................. 37 277

5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................................ 39 279

6. SPECIAL PROCEDURES ................................................................................................................. 41 281

6.1 PERMITS ......................................................................................................................................... 41 282

6.2 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND CONTROL MEASURES ........................................................ 41 283

7. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 43 285

8. PREPARERS ................................................................................................................................... 45 287

APPENDIX A - IICEP CORRESPONDENCE 289

APPENDIX B - PERMITTING INFORMATION 291

Contents iii

LIST OF TABLES 293

Table Page 294

Table 3-1 – Soils

Contents iv

LIST OF FIGURES 296

Figure after Page 297

Figure 1-1 – Location of U.S. Virgin Island ................................................................................................. 2 298 Figure 1-2 – Location of St. Croix Air National Guard Station .................................................................... 2 299 Figure 1-3 – St. Croix Air National Guard Station ....................................................................................... 2 300 Figure 2-1 – Footprint of Part 77 Surfaces ................................................................................................... 8 301 Figure 2-2 – East Field Only Alternative .................................................................................................... 10 302 Figure 2-3 – Rooftops and East Field Alternative v

LIST OF PHOTOS 304

Photo Page 305

Photo 2-1 – Bergey Excel turbine on monopole ........................................................................................... 8 306 Photo 2-2 – Wind Cube ................................................................................................................................. 8 307 Photo 2-3 – Example of ground-mounted solar panels ............................................................................... 10 308 Photo 3-1 – Looking east toward the top of the East Field ......................................................................... 19 309 Photo 3-2 – Looking west from top of East Field toward the developed part of the site ............................ 19 310 Photo 3-3 – Access ramp to the East Field (north side) .............................................................................. 20 311 Photo 3-4 – Looking south to the southeast corner of the East Field.......................................................... 20 312 Photo 3-5 – Looking north from near top of the East Field ........................................................................ 26 313 Photo 3-6 – Looking west from near top of the East Field ......................................................................... 26 314 Photo 3-7 – Looking south from near top of the East Field ........................................................................ 27 315 Photo 3-8 – East Field (west slope) seen from Route 66 eastbound ........................................................... 27 316 Photo 3-9 – East Field (south slope) seen from Rohlsen Airport’s passenger terminal .............................. 28 317

Contents vi

This page intentionally left blank. 319

1 Introduction

1. Introduction 320

This environmental assessment (EA) evaluates the potential impacts on the human environment 321 that would result from the implementation of a renewable energy project proposed by the Puerto 322 Rico Air National Guard’s (ANG) 285th Civil Engineering Squadron (285 CES) at the St. Croix 323 Air National Guard Station (ANGS, also referred to in this EA as the 285 CES installation) in St. 324 Croix, US Virgin Islands. The proposed action consists of installing power-generating wind 325 energy and solar photovoltaic (PV) systems at the St. Croix ANGS to supply electricity for the 326 operation of the existing facilities. 327

The ANG has prepared this EA pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 328 Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] 4331 et seq.), the regulations of the 329 President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that implement NEPA procedures (40 330 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), the US Air Force’s Environmental Impact 331 Assessment Process Regulations at 32 CFR Part 989, and US Air Force Instruction 32-7061 (12 332 March 2003). The information presented in this document will serve as the basis for deciding 333 whether the proposed action would result in a significant impact to the environment, requiring 334 the preparation of an environmental impact statement, or whether no significant impacts would 335 occur, in which case a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be appropriate. 336

1.1 Purpose and Need 337

1.1.1 Background 338

The 285 CES is supported as a Geographically-Separated Unit (GSU) by the 156th Airlift Wing 339 based at Muñiz Air National Guard Base in Carolina, Puerto Rico. Until March 2012, the 285 340 CES was designated as the 285th Combat Communications Squadron (285 CBCS). On March 3, 341 2012, the unit was re-designated a civil engineering squadron after losing its communications 342 mission. It is currently in a two-year transition phase to its new mission. A total of 12 full-time 343 personnel work at the St. Croix ANGS. 344

The 285 CES and its predecessor units have been present on St. Croix since 1980. It operates out 345 of the St. Croix ANGS, located on a hill just north of the Henry E. Rohlsen Airport. Roughly 346 square in shape, the station covers approximately 7.5 acres and consists of two distinct parts. The 347 western side (approximately 2.6 acres) has been cut into the hillside and graded; it is mostly 348 paved and contains four buildings that house the unit’s administrative, storage, and maintenance 349 functions. The eastern side (East Field) retains the original topography of the site and consists of 350 an undeveloped, fairly steep hillside. The terrain slopes from approximately 200 feet above mean 351 sea level near the northeast corner southward and westward down to approximately 130 feet. The 352 entire parcel has been cleared of trees and bushes and is maintained as an open grass field. 353

Introduction 2

1.1.2 Purpose and Need 354

The purpose of the proposed action is for the 285 CES to reduce to the maximum extent possible 355 its reliance on the commercial power grid by generating electricity on site using new renewable 356 energy systems. 357

The proposed action is needed to address growing energy costs. Currently, the 285 CES 358 purchases electricity from the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority (WAPA). In fiscal year 359 (FY) 2009, the unit used a total of 274,040 kilowatt-hour (kWh) for a total cost of $75,855. In 360 FY 2010, it used 286,020 kWh for a cost of $93,976. FY 2012 energy costs are projected to be 361 40 percent greater than in FY 2010, as energy prices in the territory continue to rise. 362

The proposed action is also needed to support the ANG’s renewable energy and energy 363 management goals, which have been established consistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 364 (EPAct 2005) and Executive Order (EO) 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, 365 and Transportation Management, signed on January 24, 2007. EPAct 2005 mandates that no less 366 than 7.5 percent of federal energy consumption in FY 2013 and thereafter come from renewable 367 energy. The act defines renewable energy as electric energy generated from solar, wind, biomass, 368 landfill gas, ocean (including tidal, wave, current, and thermal), geothermal, municipal solid 369 waste, or new hydroelectric generation capacity achieved from increased efficiency or additions 370 of new capacity at an existing hydroelectric project. EO 13423 requires that at least half of all 371 renewable energy required under EPAct 2005 comes from new renewable sources. 372

1.2 Location 373

Henry E. Rohlsen Airport and the St. Croix ANGS lie along the southern shore of the Caribbean 374 island of St. Croix (see Figures 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3). St. Croix, approximately 28 by 7 miles in size, 375 is the largest of the US Virgin Islands, a group of islands located about 40 miles east of Puerto 376 Rico, part of the Virgin Islands archipelago and of the Leeward Islands of the Lesser Antilles 377 chain. 378 In addition to St. Croix, the US Virgin Islands consist of three main islands: Saint Thomas, Saint 380 John, and Water Island, along with several dozen of smaller islands, for a total area of about 134 381 square miles. Acquired from Denmark in 1916, the US Virgin Islands are an organized, 382 unincorporated territory of the United States. The capital, Charlotte Amalie, is located on St. 383 Thomas. 384

1.3 Summary of Environmental Study Requirements 386

1.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 387

NEPA provides for the consideration of environmental issues in federal agency planning and 388 decision-making. Under NEPA, federal agencies must prepare an environmental impact 389 statement or an EA for any federal action, except those actions that are determined to be 390 “categorically excluded.” An environmental impact statement is prepared for those federal 391

Location of U.S. Virgin Islands

Figure 1-1

0 250 500125

Miles 0 400 800200

Kilometers Source: ESRI Data & Maps, 2012

P a th

L:

C om m on

\G

IS

_D a ta \6

_N G

B

1_

S t_

C ro ix \M

X D s\ F ig ur e _1

-1

L oc at io n .m xd

St. Thomas

St. John

St. Croix

This page intentionally left blank.

Location of St. Croix Air National Guard Station

Figure 1-2

0 2 41

Miles 0 3 61.5

Kilometers Source: ESRI Data & Maps, 2012

P a th

L:

C om m on

\G

IS

_D a ta \6

_N G

B

1_

S t_

C ro ix \M

X D s\ F ig ur e _1

-2

S tC ro ix

Lo ca tio n .m xd

Caribbean Sea

St. Croix Air National Guard Station

Henry E. Rohlsen Airport

Airport Rd

Henry E.

Rohlsen Airport

Melvin H Evans Hwy

Runway 10/28

St. Croix Air National Guard Station

Figure 1-3

0 1,000 2,000500

Feet 0 250 500125

Meters Source: ESRI Data & Maps, 2012

P a th

L:

C om m on

\G

IS

_D a ta \6

_N G

B

1_

S t_

C ro ix \M

X D s\ F ig ur e _1

-3

A N

G S

Lo ca tio n.

m xd

St. Croix Air National Guard Station

East Field

3 Introduction actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. An EA is a concise 392 public document that serves to provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether 393 to prepare an environmental impact statement. The EA includes brief discussions of the 394 following: 395

The need for the proposal. 396

The alternatives (as required under Section 102 [2] [E] of NEPA). 397

The environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. 398

A listing of agencies and persons consulted. 399

The regulations governing NEPA compliance for the US Air Force and the Air National Guard 400 are contained in 32 CFR Part 989. Paragraph 14 of the regulations describes requirements 401 applying to the preparation of an EA, including the following: 402

The length of an EA should be as short and concise as possible, while matching 403 the magnitude of the proposal. An EA briefly discusses the need for the proposed 404 action, reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, the affected environment, 405 the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives (including the 406 “no action” alternative), and a listing of agencies and persons consulted during 407 preparation. The EA should not contain long descriptions or lengthy, detailed 408 data. Rather, incorporate by reference background data to support the concise 409 discussion of the proposal and relevant issues (32 CFR 989.14[d]) 410

Every EA must lead to either a FONSI, a decision to prepare an EIS, or no action on the proposal 411 (32 CFR 989.14[a]). Should the Air National Guard determine that the proposed action would 412 have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, an EIS would be prepared. 413

1.3.2 Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for 414

Environmental Planning (IICEP) 415

Consistent with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a letter dated January 3, 2012 has been sent 416 to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Southeast Region, Caribbean Ecological Services 417 Field Office, to solicit information on any federally-listed species or designated critical habitats 418 that may be present on or near the project site. A copy of this letter is provided in the IICEP 419 Appendix (Appendix A). Response is pending. Also, on November 28, 2012, the ANG met with 420 a representative of the US Virgin Island Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) 421 Division of Fish and Wildlife as part of the site visit for the EA. 422

Consistent with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the ANG has been 423 coordinating with the US Virgin Islands State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) with regard 424 to any potential effects of the proposed action to resources listed or eligible for listing in the 425 National Register of Historic Places. A copy of the letter sent to the SHPO is included in the 426 IICEP Appendix. Response is pending. 427

Introduction 4

1.3.3 Air Conformity Requirements 428

The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 expanded the scope and content of the Clean 429 Air Act’s conformity provisions. Under Section 176(c) of the CAAA, a project is in 430 “conformity” if it corresponds to a state air quality implementation program’s purpose of 431 eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the National Ambient Air 432 Quality Standards (NAAQS) and achieving expeditious attainment of these standards. 433

Conformity requires that such activities do not: 434

(1) Cause or contribute to any new violation of any standards in any area. 435

(2) Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any 436 area. 437

(3) Delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission 438 reduction or other milestone in any area. 439

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has published final rules on general 440 conformity (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) that apply to federal actions in areas designated in 441 nonattainment or maintenance for any of the NAAQS. The rules specify de minimis emission 442 levels by pollutant to determine the applicability of conformity requirements for a project. St. 443 Croix is in attainment for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, a conformity determination analysis is 444 not required. 445

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act 446

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (16 USC § 1451, et seq., as amended) 447 provides assistance to states, in cooperation with federal and local agencies, for developing land 448 and water use programs in coastal zones. CZMA excludes from the coastal zone “…lands the use 449 of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of…the Federal Government, its officers, or 450 agents” (16 USC §1453[1]). If a proposed federal activity would affect coastal resources or uses 451 beyond the boundaries of the federal property, i.e., would have spillover effects, Section 307 of 452 CZMA stipulates that the action must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the 453 enforceable policies of that state’s federally-approved coastal management plan. 454

The US Virgin Islands Coastal Management Program was approved by National Oceanic and 455 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1979. The lead agency is the Department of Planning 456 and Natural Resources (DPNR). The coastal zone includes the entire territory and is managed 457 according to the US Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Act. 458

The US Virgin Islands Legislature enacted the Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Act in 459 1978 as a means of regulating development and managing coastal resources in the territory. The 460 US Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Program was established to carry out the mandates 461 and objectives of this act. Day-to-day operations of the program are managed and administered 462 by DPNR’s Division of Coastal Zone Management. 463

5 Introduction

The US Virgin Islands coastal zone includes the islands and the waters extending seaward to the 464 outer limits of the US territorial sea. The coastal zone incorporates open waters, tidal flats, 465 estuaries, bays, inlets, wetlands, lagoons, beaches, dunes, bluffs, and upland areas. The inland 466 coastal zone is divided into two tiers. The first tier (Tier I) is composed of a relatively narrow 467 strip of land along the coast as well as all offshore islands and cays, except federal lands. All 468 development activities in Tier I are subject to a Virgin Islands coastal zone management permit 469 issued by the Coastal Zone Division. The second tier (Tier II) comprises the interior portions of 470 the three main islands. Within Tier II, activities are subject to review by DPNR’s Permits 471 Divisions for compliance with earth change, subdivision, and zoning requirements. 472

The Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Act divides the permit system into two categories: 473 Major and Minor land permits. All land projects are treated as major projects, except the 474 following which are treated as minor: a subdivision or the construction of one or two single-475 family residences or a duplex; improvements to an existing structure costing less than $52,000; 476 one or more structures valued in their entirety at less than $75,000; any other development, 477 except the extraction of minerals, valued at less than $66,000; or the extraction of minerals 478 valued at less than $17,000. 479

As confirmed during a meeting with representative of DPNR at the 285 CES on November 26, 480 2012, the proposed project site is within Tier II. Based on current information, the proposed 481 action would require a Major Land Permit. Compliance with permitting requirements, as 482 applicable, will ensure that the proposed action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable 483 with the enforceable policies of Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Program. 484

1.4 Resources Eliminated from Further Study 485

Consistent with 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3), the following resources are not considered further in this 486 EA because the proposed action has no potential to significantly affect them: 487

Air Quality – While the construction of the proposed renewable energy systems would generate 488 some air pollutant emissions from the operation of construction equipment and vehicles, these 489 emissions would be limited and temporary. They would cease entirely after construction is 490 completed. In the long term, no new sources of emissions would be created. By increasing the 491 total amount of electricity produced by wind and solar systems on St. Croix and correspondingly 492 reducing the amount produced by traditional means, the proposed action would have a long-term 493 positive impact on air quality. However, given the small scale of the proposed action, this 494 positive impact would be very small. 495

Noise – In the short term, the construction of the proposed renewable energy systems would 496 generate some noise from the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. Any such noise 497 would be limited to the project area and cease entirely after construction is finished. In the long 498 term, the proposed wind turbines would generate noise from the rotation of their blades. 499 However, considering the comparatively small size of the proposed turbines, their location near 500 Henry E. Rohlsen Airport, and the absence of sensitive noise-receptors (e.g., residences, schools, 501 places of worship) nearby, there is no potential for significant noise impacts. 502

Introduction 6

Water Resources – There are no natural or artificial bodies of water within or adjacent to the 503 project site. It is separated from the shore (approximately 4,500 feet away) by Henry E. Rohlsen 504 Airport. The East Field consists of a steep hillside and contains no wetlands. Review of Federal 505 Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Map 7800000091G indicates that the 506 proposed project site is outside the 100-year floodplain and the 500-year floodplain. Therefore, 507 the proposed action has no potential to affect water resources. 508

Transportation – In the short term, construction of the proposed renewable energy systems 509 would generate some additional traffic to and from the 285 CES installation. Because of the 510 small scale of the proposed projects, the number of additional trips involved would be small and 511 all such impacts would cease entirely after construction is completed. In the long-term, the 512 proposed action would not generate any new traffic. 513

Cultural Resources - In 2002, the ANG conducted a Phase I archaeological survey and 514 architectural evaluation of the St. Croix ANGS. The five structures located on the installation 515 were evaluated and determined to be non-eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 516 Places. The archaeological survey found that the archaeological potential of the ANGS is very 517 low and recommended no further investigations. Therefore, the proposed action has no potential 518 to affect historic properties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. [To be 519 updated after SHPO’s response is received.] 520

Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice (Executive Order [EO] 12898), and Protection of 521 Children (EO 13045) – The proposed action does not involve any direct or indirect change in 522 the number of full-time or traditional personnel working at the 285 CES installation; therefore, it 523 has no potential to have impacts on the local or regional demography or the services serving the 524 local or regional population. Because of the modest scale of the proposed project and its lack of 525 significant adverse effects as documented elsewhere in this EA, the proposed action would not 526 disproportionately affect minorities or economically-disadvantaged populations.