draft environmental assessment for beddown and …

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR BEDDOWN AND OPERATION OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD HELICOPTER AERIAL INTERCEPT WING AT HANGAR 14 JOINT BASE ANDREWS, MARYLAND USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200

December 2020

U.S. Coast Guard Civil Engineering Unit Cleveland

316th Wing CES/CEIE Joint Base Andrews, Maryland United States Air Force

DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW

USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200

i

Table of Contents SECTION 1 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................ 1-3 1.3 Interagency / Intergovernmental Coordination and Consultations ............................. 1-7

1.3.1 Interagency Coordination and Consultations ................................................ 1-7 1.3.2 Government-to-Government Consultations .................................................. 1-7 1.3.3 Other Agency Consultations .......................................................................... 1-7

1.4 Public Review ................................................................................................................ 1-8 1.5 Decision to be Made ..................................................................................................... 1-8 1.6 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ..................................................................... 1-8

SECTION 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .............................................................. 2-1 2.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Beddown and Ground-Based Operations at MSF .......................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Flight Operations ............................................................................................ 2-2

2.2 Selection Standards ...................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Screening of Alternative Locations ............................................................................... 2-5

2.3.1 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Beddown and Operation of HAIW and Relocation of MSF at Hangar 14 at JBA .......................................................... 2-5

2.3.2 Alternative 2: Dulles International Airport .................................................... 2-5 2.3.3 Alternative 3: Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International

Airport ............................................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.4 Alternative 4: Manassas Regional Airport ..................................................... 2-6 2.3.5 Alternative 5: Leesburg Executive Airport ..................................................... 2-6 2.3.6 Alternative 6: Stafford Regional Airport ........................................................ 2-6

2.4 Description of the Alternatives to be Carried Forward ................................................ 2-9 2.4.1 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Beddown HAIW at Hangar 14 ................... 2-9 2.4.2 No-Action Alternative .................................................................................... 2-9

2.5 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration ................................................. 2-10 SECTION 3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .............................................................. 3-1

3.1 Airspace Management .................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Definition of Resource ................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................... 3-6

3.2 Aircraft Noise ................................................................................................................ 3-8 3.2.1 Definition of Resource ................................................................................... 3-8 3.2.2 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 3-12

3.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 3-17 3.3.1 Definition of Resource ................................................................................. 3-17 3.3.2 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 3-17

3.4 Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 3-21 3.4.1 Definition of Resource ................................................................................. 3-21 3.4.2 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 3-21

3.5 Hazardous Materials and Wastes ............................................................................... 3-23 3.5.1 Definition of Resource ................................................................................. 3-23



ii

3.5.2 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 3-23 3.6 Transportation and Circulation ................................................................................... 3-26

3.6.1 Definition of Resource ................................................................................. 3-26 3.6.2 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 3-26

3.7 Safety .......................................................................................................................... 3-31 3.7.1 Definition of Resource ................................................................................. 3-31 3.7.2 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 3-32

3.8 Socioeconomics .......................................................................................................... 3-33 3.8.1 Definition of Resource ................................................................................. 3-33 3.8.2 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 3-33

SECTION 4 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Airspace Management .................................................................................................. 4-2

4.1.1 Approach to Analysis ..................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.2 Impacts ........................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.3 Proposed BMPs .............................................................................................. 4-4

4.2 Aircraft Noise ................................................................................................................ 4-4 4.2.1 Approach to Analysis ..................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.2 Impacts ........................................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.3 Proposed BMPs .............................................................................................. 4-6

4.3 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.3.1 Approach to Analysis ..................................................................................... 4-8 4.3.2 Impacts ........................................................................................................... 4-9 4.3.3 Proposed BMPs ............................................................................................ 4-10

4.4 Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 4-10 4.4.1 Approach to Analysis ................................................................................... 4-10 4.4.2 Impacts ......................................................................................................... 4-11 4.4.3 Proposed BMPs ............................................................................................ 4-11

4.5 Hazardous Materials and Wastes ............................................................................... 4-12 4.5.1 Approach to Analysis ................................................................................... 4-12 4.5.2 Impacts ......................................................................................................... 4-12 4.5.3 Proposed BMPs ............................................................................................ 4-13

4.6 Transportation ............................................................................................................ 4-13 4.6.1 Approach to Analysis ................................................................................... 4-13 4.6.2 Impacts ......................................................................................................... 4-14 4.6.3 Proposed BMPs ............................................................................................ 4-15

4.7 Safety .......................................................................................................................... 4-16 4.7.1 Approach to Analysis ................................................................................... 4-16 4.7.2 Impacts ......................................................................................................... 4-16 4.7.3 Proposed BMPs ............................................................................................ 4-18

4.8 Socioeconomics .......................................................................................................... 4-18 4.8.1 Approach to Analysis ................................................................................... 4-18 4.8.2 Impacts ......................................................................................................... 4-19 4.8.3 Proposed BMPs ............................................................................................ 4-20

4.9 Potential Mitigation Measures ................................................................................... 4-20 SECTION 5 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Cumulative Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 5-1



iii

5.1.1 Approach to Cumulative Impacts Analysis ..................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Cumulative Projects at JBA ............................................................................ 5-2 5.1.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis ......................................................................... 5-2 5.1.4 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Enhancement of Long-Term

Productivity .................................................................................................... 5-7 SECTION 6 List of Preparers ................................................................................................... 6-1 SECTION 7 Persons and Agencies Consulted/Coordinated ..................................................... 7-1 SECTION 8 References ........................................................................................................... 8-2 Figures Figure 1-1. Regional Location ........................................................................................................ 1-5 Figure 1-2. Hangar 14 at Joint Base Andrews ............................................................................... 1-6 Figure 2-1. Project Location and Candidate Training Facilities ..................................................... 2-8 Figure 3-1. FAA Airspace Classification ......................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2. 2020 Existing Noise Contours ................................................................................... 3-16 Figure 4-1. 2020 Proposed Noise Contours .................................................................................. 4-7 Tables Table 2-1. Screening of Alternatives ............................................................................................. 2-7 Table 3-1. Existing Daily Aircraft Operations at JBA...................................................................... 3-7 Table 3-2. Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments .............................. 3-11 Table 3-3. Lmax Associated with Direct Overflight of Based KC-135R, C-40, F-16, UH-1N, and

Proposed MH-65D ...................................................................................................... 3-13 Table 3-4. Land Area Affected by DNL Noise Levels Above 65 dB .............................................. 3-14 Table 3-5. National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Local Attainment Status ..................... 3-19 Table 3-6. Stationary-Source Emissions at JBA ........................................................................... 3-20 Table 3-7. JBA ERP Sites .............................................................................................................. 3-25 Table 3-8. On-Base Roadway Conditions and LOS ...................................................................... 3-29 Table 3-9. Off-Base Roadway Conditions and LOS ...................................................................... 3-30 Table 3-10. Population Trends .................................................................................................... 3-33 Table 3-11. Estimated Per Capita Income (2014-2018) for ROI, State, Nation ........................... 3-34 Table 4-1. Proposed Daily Aircraft Operations at JBA .................................................................. 4-2 Table 4-2. Land Area Affected by DNL Noise Levels Greater than 65 dB ..................................... 4-5 Table 4-3. Proposed Action Annual Emissions and NAAQS Thresholds........................................ 4-9 Table 5-1. Cumulative Projects at and in the Vicinity of JBA ........................................................ 5-3



iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

% percent %NC fan speed %NF core engine fan speed µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 1 HS 1st Helicopter Squadron 11 WG 11th Wing 316 WG 316th Wing 4 MAW 4th Marine Aircraft Wing 89 AW 89th Airlift Wing 89 OG 89th Operations Group 113 WG 113th Wing 457 AS 457th Airlift Squadron 459 ARW 459th Air Refueling Wing 844 CG 844th Communications Group AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic ACAM Air Conformity Applicability Model ACS American Community Survey ADIZ Air Defense Identification Zone AFCEC Air Force Civil Engineer Center AFDW Air Force District Washington AFI Air Force Instruction AFMAN Air Force Manual AGE aerospace ground equipment AGL above ground level AICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use Zone ANG Air National Guard ARFF Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting AST aboveground storage tank AT/FP Anti-Terrorism / Force Protection ATC Air Traffic Control ATCAA Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace BMP best management practice BWI Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments CATEX Categorical Exclusion CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFA Controlled Firing Area CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGAS Coast Guard Air Station CO carbon monoxide CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act dB decibel



v

dBA A-weighted decibel DCA Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport DERA Defense Environmental Restoration Act DNL day-night average A-weighted sound level DoD Department of Defense DoDI Department of Defense Instruction dRWAI deployable Rotary Wing Air Intercept EA Environmental Assessment EHS Extremely Hazardous Substances EIAP Environmental Impact Analysis Process EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ERP Environmental Restoration Program ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulation FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise FL Flight Level FOB Forward Operating Base FOC Full Operational Capacity FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Federal Register FRZ Flight Restricted Zone GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System HAIW Helicopter Aerial Intercept Wing HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant HEF Manassas Regional Airport HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development HWMP Hazardous Waste Management Plan Hz hertz I- Interstate IAD Dulles International Airport IAP Initial Accumulation Point IBD Inhabited Building Distance IDP Installation Development Plan IFR Instrument Flight Rules ILD Intraline Distance ILS Instrument Landing System IMD Intermagazine Distance INM FAA Integrated Noise Model IR instrument route IRP Installation Restoration Program ITLO Installation Tribal Liaison Officer JBA Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility Washington JBAI Joint Base Andrews Instruction JYO Leesburg Executive Airport



vi

Lmax maximum noise level LOS level of service LTOs landing take-off training sorties MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MDE Maryland Department of the Environment MDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources MMRP Military Munitions Response Program MOA Memorandum of Agreement MSF Mission Support Facility MSL mean sea level MTR Military Training Route MWR morale, welfare, and recreation NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAFW Naval Air Facility Washington NAS National Airspace System NAVAID navigation aid Navy U.S. Navy NCPC National Capital Planning Commission NCR National Capital Region NCRADF National Capital Region Air Defense Facility NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NM nautical miles NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOA Notice of Availability NORAD North American Aerospace Defense Command NVG Night-vision Goggle O3 ozone Pb lead PCA Positive Control Area PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in size POL petroleum, oils, and lubricants ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million PTRD Public Transit Route Distance QD Quantity-Distance RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RMN Stafford Regional Airport RNAV Area Navigation ROI region of influence RWAI Rotary Wing Air Intercept



vii

SCIF Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility SEL A-weighted Sound Exposure Level SFRA Special Flight Rules Area SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SO2 sulfur dioxide SUA Special Use Airspace SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TDY Temporary Duty Travel TEMP Terminal Instrument Procedures TIM Time in Mode tpy tons per year TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control USAF U.S. Air Force USC U.S. Code USCG U.S. Coast Guard USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USMC U.S. Marine Corps UST underground storage tank VFR Visual Flight Rules VMR Andrews U.S. Marine Corps Transport Squadron Andrews VOC volatile organic compound vph vehicles per hour vphpl vehicles per hour per lane VR visual route W- Warning Area

DRAFT EA for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200

Page 1-1

SECTION 1

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility Washington (JBA) is a 6.9-square-mile installation located in

unincorporated Prince George’s County, Maryland, approximately 4.5 miles southeast of Washington, DC.

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) 316th Wing (316 WG) serves as the host unit at JBA and is responsible for the

facilities on the base. (The 316th Wing was activated on 11 June 2020, becoming the host wing for JBA

and taking on the Airmen and units of the 11th Wing [11 WG].) The 89th Airlift Wing (89 AW) is a tenant

unit at JBA; however, the 89th Operations Group (89 OG) is responsible for airfield operations at JBA.

Other tenant units include: the Air Force District of Washington (AFDW), 844th Communications Group

(844 CG), 89AW, 1st Helicopter Squadron (1 HS), 457th Airlift Squadron (457 AS), 459th Air Refueling Wing

(459 ARW) of the USAF Reserve Command, 113th Wing (113 WG) of the District of Columbia Air National

Guard (ANG), U.S. Army Priority Air Transportation, Naval Air Facility Washington DC, 4th Marine Aircraft

Wing (4 MAW) – Marine Transport Squadron Andrews of the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC), and Fleet Logistics

Support Squadrons One and Five Three of the U.S. Navy (Navy), Department of Energy, Defense

Intelligence Agency, Maryland State Police Aviation Command, and Civil Air Patrol.

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Air Station Atlantic City, NJ operates the National Capital Region Air Defense

Facility (NCRADF) using MH-65D “Dolphin” helicopters to accomplish the Rotary Wing Air Intercept

(RWAI) mission. The NCR RWAI mission includes visual identification of low, slow-moving, aerial targets

that have entered restricted airspace established by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) above

the National Capital Region (NCR) and enforced by the North American Aerospace Defense Command

(NORAD). In addition to the existing NCR RWAI mission, USCG also supports the deployable RWAI (dRWAI)

mission, where USCG aircraft temporarily relocate to provide air intercept outside the NCR. The USCG

HAIW oversees two facilities that support the NCR RWAI mission: 1) the NCRADF; 2) the Mission Support

Facility (MSF). The existing hangar for the NCR RWAI mission is located at Ronald Reagan Washington

National Airport (DCA), established in 2006 via a lease agreement with the local Airport Authorities. The

existing MSF for the NCR RWAI mission is located at Coast Guard Air Station (CGAS) Atlantic City.


Page 1-2

CGAS Atlantic City operates MH-65D Dolphin aircraft: at least three of these aircraft are at the NCRADF.

The remaining aircraft are located at CGAS Atlantic City for maintenance and pilot proficiency training.

The HAIW will include pilots, aviation maintenance personnel, and support personnel (including

civilians/contractors). Pilots and aviation maintenance personnel operate the aircraft at the NCRADF and

rotate from CGAS Atlantic City to the NCRADF on a “temporary duty status” to staff the NCR RWAI

mission. Ferrying personnel between the NCRADF and CGAS Atlantic City – a distance of 184 miles –

routinely requires approximately 4 hours one-way in regular traffic with significant increases during

holidays or inclement weather. Once at the NCRADF, in addition to response missions, the pilots

conduct training.

The USCG proposes to relocate the existing MSF to Hangar 14 at JBA and beddown up to 7 aircraft for

maintenance and pilot proficiency training. The proposed relocation of the MSF would reduce transit

times and costs related to the movement of aircraft and personnel between CGAS Atlantic City and the

NCRADF (see Section 1.2, Purpose and Need). Hangar 14 is located along the airfield of JBA.

(see Figure 2).

Hangar 14 is currently occupied by USMC

Transport Squadron Andrews (VMR Andrews),

which permanently occupies approximately

27,400 square feet (SF) (i.e., 20 percent) of the

hangar, and the 113 WG, which has been

temporarily relocated during renovations to

their existing hangar south of Hangar 14 in the

East Operations District. The facilities in Hangar

14 consist of the hangar deck, offices,

warehouse area, and ancillary spaces (e.g.,

breakrooms, restrooms, etc.).

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been

prepared to evaluate potential environmental

Hangar 14 is located on the airfield of JBA. This hangar would provide office space and support and maintenance facilities for up to 7 MH-65D Dolphin Helicopters to support the NCR RWAI mission.


Page 1-3

impacts of the proposed relocation and operation of the USCG HAIW MSF at JBA.1 The EA complies with

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S. Code [USC] §§4331 et seq.), the regulations

of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that implement NEPA procedures (40 Code of

Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508). Further, because the USCG would be a tenant of the USAF at

JBA, the EA is being prepared in accordance with USAF Environmental Impact Assessment Process

Regulations codified at 32 CFR Part 989, and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7061 as promulgated in 32 CFR

Part 989, Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP).

The information presented in this document will serve as the basis for deciding whether the Proposed

Action would result in a potentially significant impact to the human environment, requiring the

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or whether no significant impacts would occur,

in which case a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be appropriate.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

Currently, USCG RWAI personnel are

temporarily assigned from one of four home

locations (CGAS Atlantic City, Savannah,

Detroit, or New Orleans) to the NCRADF.

Personnel retain their home base at those

locations, and all maintenance and support

activities occur at those locations rather than

The MH-65D Dolphin is a twin-engine helicopter capable of operating from land or flight deck- equipped USCG cutters.

at NCRADF. Ferrying personnel between the NCRADF and the MSF at CGAS Atlantic City – a distance of

184 miles – routinely requires approximately 4 hours one-way in regular traffic with significant increases

during holidays or inclement weather resulting in substantial annual recurring Temporary Duty Travel

(TDY) expenditures. The proposed relocation of the existing MSF to Hangar 14 at JBA would reduce the

distance between the MSF and the NCRADF from 184 miles to 10 miles, reducing personnel and aircraft

transit times between mission facilities. It is anticipated that reaching Full Operational Capacity (FOC) for

the NCR RWAI mission would eliminate requirements for personnel and aircraft from other USCG air

stations.

1 A NEPA-compliant Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) A2.3.8 was prepared to address interior renovations to Hangar 14, per 32 CFR 989 (USAF 2019). Physical modifications to the Hangar 14 structure would include interior and exterior renovations within the 5-foot line of the structure as well as the abatement of asbestos, lead, hexavalent chromium, and seismic retrofit.


Page 1-4

RWAI pilots assigned to CGAS Atlantic City currently average 15-17 flight hours per month, below the

USCG Air Operations Manual (2018) recommended a minimum of 20-25 hours per month. Additionally,

aircrews assigned to the RWAI mission average 120 deployed days per year beyond standard duty

rotations at CGAS Atlantic City. The Proposed Action is needed to increase permanent personnel and

aircraft associated with the RWAI mission, reduce annual recurring TDY expenditures, and increase pilot

proficiency.

Purpose Statement. The purpose of the beddown and creation of the USCG HAIW, including the

relocation of the MSF to Hangar 14 at JBA, is to reach FOC of the RWAI mission by providing a

permanent MSF with assigned pilots, aviation maintenance and support personnel, and dedicated MH-

65D Dolphin aircraft within the NCR. The NCR RWAI mission has existed at initial operating capability

since its inception in 2006, and achieving FOC would allow the USCG to create a center of excellence for

this mission, freeing up personnel at Air Stations Atlantic City, Savannah, Detroit, and New Orleans to

return to a single mission focus. (See Section 2.3, Proposed Action and Alternatives, for a more detailed

description of the Proposed Action.) Impact analyses for the Proposed Action and its alternatives are

presented in Section 4, Environmental Consequences.

Need Statement. The need for the proposed beddown at Hangar 14 at JBA stems from the expanded

demand for RWAI and dRWAI in support of inter-agency partners. The geographic separation of the

NCRADF and the existing MSF at CGAS Atlantic City results in transit delays and costs associated with

rotating crews and aircraft between the NCRADF and the MSF. Further, CGAS Atlantic City currently

offers inadequate space for training, aircraft maintenance, warehouse storage, administrative areas, and

community services. Space constraints require aircraft and ground support equipment to be stored

outside on the ramp, exposed to the weather, degrading the aircraft and equipment’s integrity. Under

the Proposed Action, the entirety of operations and maintenance supporting all RWAI/dRWAI

missions would be located at the MSF within the NCR Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA). Additionally, all five

resulting air stations (HAIW, Atlantic City, Savannah, New Orleans, and Detroit) would return aircrews to

a single-mission focus, increasing flight safety and mission proficiency.


Page 1-7

1.3 INTERAGENCY / INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND CONSULTATIONS

1.3.1 Interagency Coordination and Consultations

Per the requirements of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (42 USC §4231[a]) and Executive

Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, Federal, state, and local agencies with

jurisdiction that could be affected by the Proposed Action were notified during the development of this

EA (see Appendix A). Consultation regarding potential impacts of the Proposed Action was also initiated

with the following agencies: Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Maryland State

Clearinghouse Office of Planning, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), Prince George’s

County Department of Planning, National Capital Parks-East, and National Capital Planning Commission

(NCPC). JBA did not coordinate with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) because no marine

resources will be impacted by implementation of the Proposed Action.

1.3.2 Government-to-Government Consultations

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and its implementing regulations (36 CFR

Part 800), requires Federal agencies to consult with interested federally recognized Native American tribal

governments whose interests might be directly and substantially affected by activities on federally

administered lands. Consistent with EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments, Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 4710.02, Interactions with Federally-Recognized

Tribes, and AFI 90-2002, Air Force Interaction with Federally-Recognized Tribes, federally recognized

Native American tribes that are historically affiliated with lands in the vicinity of JBA have been invited to

consult on all proposed undertakings that have a potential to affect properties of cultural, historical, or

religious significance to the tribes (see Appendix B). The tribal consultation process is distinct from NEPA

consultation or the interagency coordination process, and it requires separate notification of all relevant

tribes. The timelines for tribal consultation are also distinct from those of other consultations. The 316 WG

Tribal Liaison Officer is the point-of-contact (i.e., Installation Tribal Liaison Officer [ITLO]) for government-

to-government consultation with appropriate Native American tribes.

1.3.3 Other Agency Consultations

Per the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA and implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) a finding

of effect and request for concurrence have been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer

(SHPO) by the 316 WG (see Appendix A). Because the Proposed Action is located within Maryland’s Coastal

_̂_̂

_̂

§̈¦80

§̈¦70

§̈¦97

Maryland

ChesapeakeBay

Delaware Bay A t l a n t i cO c e a n

Po t omac River

Susquehanna River

Rappahannock River

Potomac R iver

Joint Base Andrews

Coast Guard Air StationAtlantic City

Reagan National Airport

§̈¦70

§̈¦195

§̈¦66

§̈¦495

§̈¦87

§̈¦95

§̈¦78

§̈¦95

§̈¦476

§̈¦476

§̈¦95

§̈¦80

§̈¦78

§̈¦76

§̈¦295

§̈¦380§̈¦180

§̈¦95

§̈¦176

§̈¦81

§̈¦85

§̈¦280§̈¦287

§̈¦95

§̈¦95

§̈¦270

§̈¦276

§̈¦83

§̈¦95

§̈¦64

§̈¦295 §̈¦64

Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

WestVirginia

District ofColumbia

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

New York

Bowie

Richmond

Hagerstown

Harrisburg Reading

Lancaster PhiladelphiaMetro Area

Allentown

Atlantic City

Long Branch

New York CityMetro Area

BaltimoreMetroArea

K:\AMEC US OFFICES\Santa Barbara\335000012 - JBA\dwg\Figure 1-1 - Regional Location.mxd - stephane.descombes - 3/18/2020 - 12:24:39 PM

JOINT BASE ANDREWSENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

MAY 2020

335000012

1-1REGIONAL LOCATION

DR

AWN

BY:

SD

CH

ECKE

D B

Y: D

M

1:2,000,000

0 3015

Miles

_̂ Existing Air Operations Location

_̂ Proposed MSF Location

Highway

Interstate

Municipality

UNITED STATESCOAST GUARD

(̂

(̂

(̂ (̂

(̂(̂

!

!

!

!Trenton

DoverAnnapolis

MD

AtlanticOcean

New York

Baltimore

Washington DC

Philadelphia

Raleigh

Richmond

Harrisburg

PA

VA

NC

MD

NJ

WV

NY

DEJoint Base Andrews

DATE

SCALE

PROJECT NO.

FIGURE

ParkingAirfield

Paraloft(NAVY)

Hangar14 (Navy)

TRENTON ST

ANNAPOLIS ST

BAINBRIDGE ST

EAST

PER

IMET

ER R

D

K:\AMEC US OFFICES\Santa Barbara\335000012 - JBA\dwg\Figure 1-2 - Hangar 14.mxd - stephane.descombes - 3/18/2020 - 12:24:04 PM

MAY 2020

335000012

1-2DR

AWN

BY:

SD

CH

ECKE

D B

Y: D

M

1:1,500

0 12562.5

FeetDATE

SCALE

PROJECT NO.

FIGURE


HANGAR 14


§̈¦95

Hangar 14

Joint Base Andrews


Page 1-8

Zone, a consistency determination to ensure compliance with the CZMA was submitted to the Maryland

Coastal Zone Management Program for review and concurrence (see Appendix A).

1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW

NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and 32 CFR Part 989 requires public review of the EA before approval of a

FONSI and implementation of the Proposed Action. Additionally, a Notice of Availability (NOA) for public

review of the Draft EA was published in the Maryland Independent and the Draft EA has been made

available for public review online at www.andrews.af.mil. All substantive public comments received

during the 30-day public review period for the Draft EA will be considered and incorporated into the Final

EA.

1.5 DECISION TO BE MADE

The EA evaluates whether the Proposed Action would result in significant impacts on the human and/or

natural environment. If potentially significant impacts are identified, JBA would undertake best

management practices (BMPs) and/or mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts to

below the level of significance, undertake the preparation of an EIS addressing the Proposed Action, or

abandon the Proposed Action.

This EA is a planning and decision-making tool that will be used to guide JBA in implementing the Proposed

Action in a manner consistent with Air Force standards for environmental stewardship.

1.6 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The Proposed Action evaluated in this EA comprises the beddown and maintenance of a HAIW and

associated operations and proficiency training in established regional airspace. Operations associated

with the Wing would include aircraft flight and training activities, as well as ground-based maintenance

activities within JBA, an active Federal installation with plans, procedures, and protocols in place that

ensure appropriate monitoring and control of similar activities, including ongoing activities associated

with helicopter operations at the base. The Proposed Action does not involve or require any new

construction or other ground-disturbing activities. This EA evaluates potential environmental impacts to

the following resources that would have the potential to be affected by implementation of the Proposed

Action or its alternatives:

• Airspace Management;

• Noise (Aircraft Noise);

http://www.andrews.af.mil/


Page 1-9

• Air Quality (Mobile-Source Air Emissions);

• Land Use;

• Hazardous Materials and Wastes;

• Transportation and Circulation;

• Safety; and

• Socioeconomics (including Housing and Community Services).

Per NEPA, resource areas anticipated to experience either no environmental impacts or negligible

environmental impacts under the implementation of the Proposed Action or its alternatives are not

examined in detail in this EA. These environmental resources include:

• Biological Resources;

• Cultural Resources;

• Geological Resources;

• Water Resources; and

• Visual Resources/Aesthetics.

As described below, implementation of the Proposed Action or any of its alternatives, including the No-

Action Alternative, would have no impact on the following resource areas; as such, further evaluation of

these environmental resources is not advanced in the EA:

Biological Resources. The natural environment in the vicinity of JBA has changed dramatically to

accommodate the growing population and economic activities in the greater Washington, DC area, and

the area immediately surrounding the base is dominated by intensive commercial and residential

development. The long history of urbanization in the area has resulted in a setting that offers little to no

habitat or refuge for sensitive animal or plant species.

Cultural Resources. Land at JBA has been repeatedly disturbed during the initial development of and

subsequent improvements at the base. The Proposed Action does not include any modifications to

physical development or the natural environment of JBA beyond internal modifications to Hangar 14

(which have been previously evaluated for potential impacts to Cultural Resources; no impacts were

identified [USAF 2019]). The proposed beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW and relocation of the

HAIW MSF at Hangar 14 would not include any ground disturbance or physical alteration to structures;

therefore, no impacts to any known and unknown cultural resources would occur. In the interest of full

disclosure and proactive communication, appropriate Tribal representatives will be contacted via


Page 1-10

government-to-government outreach; copies of correspondence will be included in an appendix to the

EA.

Geological Resources. Native subsurface soils at JBA have been replaced by fill material during the

initial development of and subsequent improvements at the base. Beddown and operation of the USCG

HAIW at JBA would not disturb native soils or lead to erosion and would not create or exacerbate a

geological hazard to human health or the environment. Further, the Proposed Action does not include

any ground-disturbing activities and would not have any impacts on topography or unique geological

features. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have no impact on geological resources, and these

resources will not be assessed further in this EA.

Water Resources. As described for biological resources, the natural environment in the vicinity of JBA has

been modified dramatically to accommodate historical population and socioeconomic growth in the

Washington, DC area. The area immediately surrounding the base is dominated by intensive commercial

and residential development. Further, given the operational nature of the Proposed Action, its

implementation would not have the potential to impact groundwater availability or consumption,

floodplains, surface water features, or wetlands.

Visual Resources / Aesthetics. The Proposed Action includes the beddown and operation of the USCG

HAIW at Hangar 14. The addition to the existing tempo and mix of aircraft operations at JBA associated

with the new HAIW would be negligible given the small number of proposed aircraft in the context of the

heavily used airfield. Further, HAIW training activities would potentially be spaced across five candidate

training airfields in the greater Washington, DC area. Because the Proposed Action would not result in any

changes to the existing aesthetics of Hangar 14 or the surrounding viewshed – and because Hangar 14 is

not visible from any off-base locations – there would be no impact on visual resources or aesthetics, and

these resources will not be evaluated further in this EA.

Environmental Justice. In accordance with EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, NEPA requires evaluating the potential for minority

populations or low-income populations to be disproportionately impacted by adverse environmental

consequences of Federal action. No adverse environmental effects associated with implementing the

Proposed Action are anticipated to impact on- or off-base communities. Therefore, no populations (i.e.,

minority, low-income, or otherwise) would be disproportionately or adversely impacted, and no adverse

impacts to environmental justice communities would result.


Page 2-1

SECTION 2

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION

The Proposed Action comprises the beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW and aircraft operation and

pilot proficiency training in the established regional airspace system, and the relocation of the MSF to

JBA. Implementation of the Proposed Action would ensure on-demand RWAI capability for national

security events.

In selecting possible alternative locations for the beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW, including

the relocation of the MSF, a series of requirements were identified to define selection standards,

including the requirements for the MSF itself, Location and Airfield, and Special Facility and RWAI

Mission Requirements (see Section 2.2, Selection Standards). Based on these requirements and vetting

of potential alternative locations, Hangar 14 at JBA and use of existing airspace in the region was

identified as the only viable alternative (see Section 2.3, Screening of Alternatives, for detailed

information).

The Proposed Action does not include any physical alterations to Hangar 14 or JBA not previously

evaluated and authorized. The Proposed Action comprises 1) beddown and maintenance operations,

including the use of Hangar 14; and 2) flight operations, including training, transit, and mission flights.

2.1.1 Beddown and Ground-Based Operations at MSF

The Proposed Action would provide a permanent MSF at Hangar 14 supporting the NCR RWAI mission with

assigned pilots, aviation maintenance and support personnel, and dedicated MH-65D Dolphin aircraft.

RWAI personnel and material would be drawn from existing assignments at CGAS Atlantic City, which

currently provides the majority of personnel and all aircraft for the ongoing RWAI mission, with

additional personnel provided, as needed, by USCG facilities located in Savannah, Detroit, and New

Orleans.

Hangar 14 is currently occupied by VMR Andrews and the ANG’s 113 FW. During the remodeling of Hangar

14 to support the USCG’s HAIW, VRM Andrews would relocate elsewhere at JBA but would return to

Hangar 14 upon completion of remodeling work and would occupy less than one-third of the total

Hangar 14 building space. The 113 FW is temporarily located within Hangar 14 – during the renovation of

their existing hangar, located immediately south of Hangar 14 – and will permanently return to their

hangar following completion of construction activities there.


Page 2-2

At FOC under the Proposed Action, the USCG HAIW would include approximately 250 personnel,

consisting of a mix of officers (pilots), enlisted aircrew/aircraft maintenance personnel/support

personnel, civilian, and contract employees. However, it is expected that only approximately 80

personnel would be on-site at Hangar 14 at any given time.

2.1.2 Flight Operations

Under the Proposed Action, maintenance, support, and storage of 7-10 MH-65D Dolphin aircraft would

occur at Hangar 14 at JBA, where the unit would complete approximately 8-10 daily training sorties.

NCR RWAI mission sorties and several training sorties will continue from the NCRADF. Flights between

JBA and will occur daily to support training and operations.

As stated above, RWAI pilots assigned to CGAS Atlantic City average 15 to 17 flight hours per month,

below the Air Operations Manual recommended a minimum of 20 to 25 hours per month. Additionally,

aircrews assigned to the NCR RWAI mission average 120 deployed days per year in addition to

standard duty rotations at CGAS Atlantic City. Implementation of the Proposed Action would enable

increased training flight hours by eliminating/reducing transit hours ferrying between CGAS Atlantic City

and the NCRADF. It is anticipated that under the Proposed Action, there would be approximately 8 to 10

training sorties per day from Hangar 14 at JBA. Training flights last between 1 and 2 hours on average

and no longer than 3 hours. USCG currently uses JBA for limited pilot proficiency training for TDY pilots at

the NCRADF. Under the Proposed Action, the USCG at JBA would use a wider variety of training airfields

within the greater Washington, DC area. It may include an additional five training airfields to support

pilot training activities while minimizing potential flight conflicts at JBA, potentially including:

• Manassas Regional Airport (HEF), VA – approximately 30 nautical miles (NM) to JBA;

• Easton Newman Field, MD – approximately 40 NM to JBA;

• Stafford Regional Airport (RMN), VA – approximately 35 NM to JBA;

• Marine Corps Airfield Quantico, VA - approximately 25 NM to JBA; and

• Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD - approximately 40 NM to JBA.


Page 2-3

Other existing training airfields may be used on an infrequent basis, such that operations would result in

a negligible contribution to overall flying operations at the airfields.

In summary, the proposed beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW would involve the following actions:

• Relocate and beddown a total of 7-8 MH-65D Dolphin aircraft assigned to the NCR RWAI mission to

Hangar 14 at JBA;

• Continue to utilize the existing NCRADF; and

• Conduct training sorties from both the proposed MSF at JBA and the existing NCRADF.

2.2 SELECTION STANDARDS

NEPA and CEQ regulations mandate the consideration of reasonable alternatives for the Proposed Action.

“Reasonable alternatives” are those that also could be implemented to meet the purpose of and need for

the Proposed Action. Per the requirements of 32 CFR Part 989, Air Force EIAP regulations, selection

standards are used to identify reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action.

In selecting possible alternative locations for the beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW, including

relocation and function of the MSF at Hangar 14 at JBA, a series of requirements were identified to

define selection standards, including the MSF itself, Location and Airfield, and Special Facility and RWAI

mission requirements. The following selection standards were evaluated:

Mission Support Facility (MSF):

• Provide maintenance capacity for 11 MH-65D Dolphin aircraft including an MSF with the capability

to simultaneously park up to 8 aircraft in the hangar while rotating them to the NCRADF ;

• Facility must have 24/7 access; and

• Facility must have a workstation area.


Page 2-4

Location and Airfield:

• Located no less than 8 NM and no more than 35 NM from DCA;

• Airfield Air Traffic Control (ATC) must be available to accommodate USCG operations 24 hours per

day, 7 days per week, and 365 days per year. Positive communications with ATC are acceptable

instead of a continuously staffed control tower and airport facility or suitable nearby practice

airfields. ATC must accommodate day and night flight training requirements daily for USCG

aircraft between the hours of 0730-0200;

• Runways, taxiways, and apron parking must support all USCG rotary-wing aircraft types;

• Airport runways must have published compatible Instrument Flight Rules (IFRs) and published

Instrument Landing System (ILS);

• Must accommodate special training maneuvers to include Night-vision Goggle (NVG) training,

emergency procedures, check rides, RWAI maneuvers, and pilot/aircrew upgrade syllabus flight.

Transit times to available training airspace should not exceed 1 hour for each sortie, on average;

and

• Location must meet Anti-Terrorism / Force Protection (AT/FP) restrictions and capabilities.

Special Facility and RWAI Mission:

• Must provide 3-ton capacity overhead crane capability for two hangar bays and hangar doors that

have manual capabilities or redundant power that allows hangar doors to remain operational at

all times in case of a power outage, fire, etc.;

• Parking must be inside a controlled perimeter;

• MSF must accommodate ground and flight maintenance procedures such as engine and airframe

washes, paint, ground engine run-ups, and functional check flights; and

• MSF will have personnel assigned 24 hours per day supported throughout multiple shifts.

These selection standards were refined to the following six selection criteria:

• Military/Civilian Site – Military sites were preferred due to existing compliance with AT/FP and

other security requirements;

• Presence of Air Traffic Control Tower – Sites with existing ATC towers was preferred;

• ATC Tower Hours of Operation – Site with 24/7 ATC capability were preferred over sites with

limited hours;


Page 2-5

• Presence of Existing Facility – Sites with existing and available hangar facilities was preferred

over sites requiring new construction;

• Crash Fire Rescue – Sites with existing Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) capability were

preferred over sites without these resources and capabilities; and

• ILS – Site with published ILS procedures were preferred over sites without.

2.3 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS

The following six potential location alternatives to meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Action

were considered:

2.3.1 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Beddown and Operation of HAIW and Relocation of MSF at

Hangar 14 at JBA

Under this alternative, the Proposed Action would be implemented at Hangar 14 at JBA, as described in

Section 2.1, Proposed Action.

2.3.2 Alternative 2: Dulles International Airport

Under this alternative, the MSF would be located at Dulles International Airport (IAD), located

approximately 20 NM from the NCRADF. This site is a civilian airport that does not have existing

available hangar space to support the RWAI mission. Therefore, this alternative is not considered viable

and is not carried forward for further analysis in this EA.

2.3.3 Alternative 3: Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport

Under this alternative, the MSF would be located at Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall

International Airport (BWI), over 26 NM from the NCRADF. This civilian airport does not have available

hangar space to support the RWAI mission. Therefore, this alternative is not considered viable and is not

carried forward for further analysis in this EA.


Page 2-6

2.3.4 Alternative 4: Manassas Regional Airport

Under this alternative, the MSF would be located at Manassas Regional Airport (HEF), 24 NM, from the

NCRADF. This site is a civilian airport with limited ATC tower hours of operation (0630 to 2230), no

existing hangar facilities to support the RWAI mission, and no ARFF capabilities. Therefore, this

alternative is not considered viable and is not carried forward for further analysis in this EA.

2.3.5 Alternative 5: Leesburg Executive Airport

Under this alternative, the MSF would be located at Leesburg Executive Airport (JYO), 28 NM, from the

NCRADF. This site is a civilian airport with a remote ATC tower, no existing available hangar facilities to

support the RWAI mission, and no existing ARFF capabilities. Therefore, this alternative is not considered

viable and is not carried forward for further analysis in this EA.

2.3.6 Alternative 6: Stafford Regional Airport

Under this alternative, the MSF would be located at Stafford Regional Airport (RMN), 33.5 NM, from the

NCRADF. This site is a civilian airport that lacks an ATC tower, has no existing hangar facilities to support

the RWAI mission, and has no ARFF capabilities. Therefore, this alternative is not considered viable and is

not carried forward for further analysis in this EA.

The selection standards described in Section 2.2, Selection Standards, were applied to these alternatives

to determine which alternative(s) could serve the purpose of and need for the action.



Page 2-7

Table 2-1. Screening of Alternatives

Alternative Airport Military/Civil Tower Tower Hours of Operations

Existing Facility Crash Fire Rescue ILS

1 JBA M Yes 24/7 Yes Yes Yes 2 Dulles International C Yes 24/7 No Yes, ARFF Index E Yes

3 Baltimore/

Washington Thurgood Marshall International

C Yes 24/7 No Yes, ARFF Index D Yes

4 Manassas Regional C Yes 0630-2230 Daily No No Yes 5 Leesburg Executive C No Remote Tower No No Yes 6 Stafford Regional C No No Tower No No Yes

_̂

_̂

!

!

!

!

!

C h e s a p e a k eB a y

R a p p a h a n n o c k R i v e rP

o

t o m a c R i v e r

Maryland

VirginiaWashingtonMetro Area

§̈¦95

DC

Air D

efen

seId

enti f

i cat

ion

Z on e

DC Flight Restricted Zone

C h e s a p e a k eB a y

Joint Base Andrews

Reagan National Airport

£¤1

£¤1

£¤1

£¤1

£¤360

£¤50

£¤29

£¤360

£¤1

£¤17

£¤50

£¤15

£¤29

£¤17

£¤1

£¤17 £¤301

£¤50

£¤301

£¤50

£¤15

£¤301

§̈¦66§̈¦395

§̈¦95

§̈¦295

§̈¦270

§̈¦95

§̈¦95

§̈¦70

§̈¦495

§̈¦97

§̈¦97

§̈¦270

§̈¦695Maryland

Maryland

Maryland

Virginia

Districtof Columbia

Bowie

Hall

LaurelOdenton

Centerville

Herndon

Reston

SterlingSugarland Run

FiveMile Fork Fredericksburg

Hoadly

Columbia

La Plata

Mattawoman

Simpsonville

WaldorfWoodbridge

EmoryGrove

Gaithersburg

MontgomeryVillage

Olney

Potomac

Annapolis

SevernaPark

Cambridge

Easton

LexingtonPark

WashingtonMetro Area

Pine Orchard BaltimoreMetroArea

Manassas

Four Mile Fork

Dale City

Leesburg

Manassas RegionalAirport (HEF)

Easton Newnam Field (ESN)

Stafford Regional Airport (RMN)

Marine Corps Air Facility Quantico (NYG)

Naval Air Station Pax River (NHK)

K:\AMEC US OFFICES\Santa Barbara\335000012 - JBA\dwg\Figure 2-1 - Operations Area.mxd - stephane.descombes - 3/18/2020 - 12:24:14 PM

MAY 2020

335000012

2-1DR

AWN

BY:

SD

CH

ECKE

D B

Y: D

M

1:750,000

0 105

Miles

_̂ Existing Air Operations Location

_̂ Proposed MSF Location

! Candidate Training Site

Highway

Interstate

Airspace Boundary

Municipality

DATE

SCALE

PROJECT NO.

FIGURE


PROPOSED USCG HAIW OPERATIONS AREA



Page 2-9

2.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO BE CARRIED FORWARD

NEPA and CEQ regulations mandate the consideration of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action.

“Reasonable alternatives” are those that also could be implemented in order to satisfy the purposed of

and need for the Proposed Action.

The NEPA process is intended to support flexible, informed decision-making; the analysis provided by this

EA and feedback from the public and other agencies will inform decisions made about whether, when,

and how to execute the Proposed Action. Among the alternatives evaluated is a No-Action Alternative,

which will be presented in order to facilitate analysis of the consequences of not undertaking the

Proposed Action (i.e., it will not be presented to simply conclude “no impact,” but will establish a

comparative baseline for analysis).

One alternative, Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Beddown HAIW at Hangar 14, was found to achieve the

purpose of and need for the action and satisfy the selection standards described in Section 2.2,

Selection Standards. Alternative 1 and a No-Action Alternative are carried forward for detailed analysis in

this EA. Alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration are discussed in Section 2.5,

Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration.

2.4.1 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Beddown HAIW at Hangar 14

Under Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), the USCG HAIW would beddown and operate from a new MSF

located at Hangar 14 at JBA as described in Section 2.1, Proposed Action. The MSF would provide support

and maintenance activities for up to 8 USCG MH-65D Dolphin aircraft in addition to continued use of the

NCRADF. The Proposed Action satisfies applicable USCG, Air Force, Department of Defense (DoD), State

and/or Federal requirements, as well as supporting identified mission requirements that would allow the

RWAI mission to reach FOC.

2.4.2 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the USCG HAIW would not be relocated to JBA and would continue to

be based at CGAS Atlantic City in concert with the NCRADF. Hangar 14 would continue to be utilized by

the Navy and USMC. The No-Action Alternative would not meet current or projected mission

requirements needed to bring the USCG RWAI mission to FOC due to transit time and costs associated

with rotating aircraft between the existing MSF at CGAS Atlantic City and the NCRADF. However, this

alternative will be carried forward for further analysis, consistent with CEQ regulations, to provide a

baseline against which impacts of the Proposed Action can be assessed.


Page 2-10

2.5 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been eliminated from further consideration based on the screening

results presented in Section 2.3, Screening of Alternative Locations. These alternatives were removed for

a variety of reasons, including not being military facilities (Alternatives 2 through 6), lack of on-site ATC

tower (Alternatives 5 and 6), limited ATC tower hours of operation (Alternative 4), lack of existing and

available hangar facilities (Alternatives 2 through 6), and lack of ARFF resources and capability (Alternatives

4, 5, and 6).



Page 3-1

SECTION 3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

This section describes relevant human and natural environmental conditions at the project site and in the

surrounding area for resources potentially affected by the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative

described in Section 2, Proposed Action and Alternatives. Although the region of influence (ROI) or the

typical expected geographic scope of potential impacts is considered to be focused on Hangar 14 and

generally within JBA, some resources (e.g., aircraft noise) would extend beyond the boundaries of JBA to

include all operational and training areas potentially utilized by the USCG HAIW under both the Proposed

Action and No-Action Alternative. In compliance with NEPA and CEQ regulations, and in accordance with

AFI 32-7061 Environmental Impact Analysis Process, each environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic

resource category typically considered in an EA, excluding those eliminated from further analysis in

Section 1, Scope of the Environmental Analysis, was reviewed for its applicability to the Proposed Action

and No-Action Alternative and is fully described below.

3.1 AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT

3.1.1 Definition of Resource

Airspace management is defined by the USAF as the coordination, integration, and regulation of the use

of airspace of defined dimensions. The objective is to meet military training requirements through the

safe and efficient use of available navigable airspace in a peacetime environment while minimizing the

impact on other aviation users and the public (AFI 13-201, Airspace Management). There are two

categories of airspace or airspace areas: regulatory and nonregulatory. Within these two categories,

further classifications include controlled, uncontrolled, special use, and other airspace. The categories and

types of airspace are dictated by: 1) the complexity or density of aircraft movements; 2) the nature of the

operations conducted within the airspace; 3) the level of safety required; and 4) national and public

interest in the airspace. As discussed in Section 4.1, Airspace Management, the Proposed Action would

not require any modification to the current terminal airspace structure or operational procedures, or any

changes to the departure and arrival route structure of any airport.



Page 3-2

3.1.1.1 Controlled Airspace

Controlled airspace is a generic term that encompasses the different classifications of airspace (Class A,

B, C, D, and E airspace shown in Figure 3-1) and defines dimensions within which air traffic control service

is provided to Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flights and to Visual Flight Rules (VFR) flights (U.S. Department

of Transportation 1994). All military and civilian aircraft are subject to Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).

Class A Airspace

Class A airspace includes all flight levels or operating altitudes over 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL).

Formerly referred to as a Positive Control Area (PCA), Class A airspace is dominated by commercial aircraft

utilizing routes between 18,000 and 60,000 feet MSL.

Class B Airspace

Class B airspace typically comprises contiguous cylinders of airspace, stacked upon one another, extending

from the surface up to 14,500 feet MSL. To operate in Class B airspace, pilots must contact appropriate

controlling authorities and receive clearance to enter the airspace. Additionally, aircraft operating within

Class B airspace must be equipped with specialized electronics that allow air traffic controllers to

accurately track aircraft speed, altitude, and position. Class B airspace is typically associated with major

metropolitan airports and is the designation for JBA.

Class C Airspace

Airspace designated as Class C can generally be described as controlled airspace that extends from the

surface or a given altitude to a specified higher altitude. Class C airspace is designed and implemented to

provide additional ATC into and out of primary airports where aircraft operations are periodically at high-

density levels. All aircraft operating within Class C airspace are required to maintain two-way radio

communication with local ATC entities.

Class D Airspace

Class D airspace encompasses a 5-statute-mile radius of an operating ATC-controlled airport, extending

from the ground to 2,500 feet above ground level (AGL) or higher. All aircraft operating within Class D

airspace must be in two-way radio communication with the ATC facility.

FAA Airspace ClassificationEA

C L A S S A

C L A S S B C L A S S C

C L A S SD

CLASS GCLASS GCLASS G

C L A S S E

CLASSG

FL 60018,000 MSL

14,500 MSL

2,500 AGL

14,500 MSL

700 AGL 1,200 AGLNONTOWEREDAIRPORT

– above ground level– flight level– mean sea level

AGLFL

MSL NOTE: Altitudes not to scale.

Source: FAA 1993.

FIGURE

3-1



Page 3-4

Class E Airspace

Class E airspace, which can be described as general controlled airspace, includes designated Federal

airways consisting of the high altitude (J or “Jet” Route) system and low altitude (V or “Victor” Route)

system. Class E airspace extends upward from either the surface or a designated altitude to the overlying

or adjacent controlled airspace. Also included in this class of airspace are Federal Airways, airspace

beginning at either 700 or 1,200 feet AGL used to transition to or from the terminal or enroute

environment and enroute domestic and offshore airspace, designated below 18,000 feet MSL.

3.1.1.2 Uncontrolled Airspace

Uncontrolled airspace (Class G) is not subject to restrictions that apply to controlled airspace. Limits of

uncontrolled airspace typically extend from the ground surface to 700 feet AGL in urban areas and from

the ground surface to 1,200 feet AGL in rural areas. Uncontrolled airspace can extend above these

altitudes to as high as 14,500 feet MSL if no other types of controlled airspace have been assigned. ATC

does not have authority to exercise control over aircraft operations within uncontrolled airspace. Primary

users of uncontrolled airspace are general aviation aircraft operating in accordance with VFR.

3.1.1.3 Special Use Airspace

Special Use Airspace (SUA) consists of airspace within which specific activities must be confined, or

wherein limitations are imposed on aircraft not participating in those activities. With the exception of

Controlled Firing Areas (CFAs), SUA is depicted on aeronautical charts, including hours of operation,

altitudes, and the agency controlling the airspace. All special use airspace descriptions are contained in

FAA Order 7400.8.

Prohibited and Restricted Areas are regulatory special use airspace and are established in FAR Part 73

through the rulemaking process. Warning Areas (W-), CFAs, and Military Operations Areas (MOAs) are

nonregulatory SUA.

Warning Areas are airspace of defined dimensions over international waters that contain activity that may

be hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. Because international agreements do not provide for

prohibition of flight in international airspace, no restrictions to flight are imposed. As such, Warning Areas

are established in international airspace to alert pilots of nonparticipating aircraft to potential danger.



Page 3-5

CFAs are established to contain activities that, if not conducted in a controlled environment, would be

hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. The approval of a CFA shall only be considered for those activities

that are either of short duration or of such a nature that they could be immediately suspended upon

notice that such activity might endanger nonparticipating aircraft. Examples of such activities include:

firing of missiles, rockets, anti-aircraft artillery, and field artillery; static testing of large rocket motors;

blasting; and ordnance or chemical disposal.

MOAs are airspace areas designated outside of Class A airspace, to separate or segregate certain

nonhazardous military activities from IFR traffic and to identify for VFR traffic where these activities are

conducted. When a MOA is active, IFR traffic may be cleared to enter and pass through the area if

adequate IFR separation criteria can be met and procedures are described in a Letter of Agreement

between the unit and the ATC controlling agency (FAA Order 7400.2K). Nonparticipating VFR aircraft are

not prohibited from entering an active MOA; however, extreme caution is advised when such aircraft

transit the area during military operations. All MOAs within the U.S. are depicted on sectional aeronautical

charts identifying the exact area, the name of the MOA, altitudes of use, published hours of use, and the

corresponding controlling agency.

3.1.1.4 Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace

Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) is airspace above 18,000 feet

MSL designed to accommodate non-hazardous high-altitude military flight

training activities; this airspace remains in the control of the FAA and, when

not in use by military aircraft, may be used to support civil aviation

activities. ATCAA permits military aircraft to conduct high-altitude air-to-air

combat training, practice evasive maneuvers, perform aerial refueling, and

initiate or egress from attacks on targets within a range. ATC routes IFR

traffic around this airspace when activated; ATCAA does not appear on any

sectional or enroute charts.

3.1.1.5 Military Training Routes

Military Training Routes (MTRs) are flight paths that provide a corridor for low-altitude navigation and

training. Low altitude navigation training is important because aircrews may be required to fly at low

altitudes for tens or hundreds of miles to avoid detection in combat conditions. To train realistically, the

military and the FAA have developed MTRs. This system allows the military to train for low-altitude

The JBA airfield and associated airspace is managed from the JBA ATC tower.



Page 3-6

navigation at air speeds in excess of 250 knots. There are two types of MTRs, instrument routes (IR) and

visual routes (VR).

3.1.2 Existing Conditions

3.1.2.1 JBA Airspace and Aircraft Operations

JBA is located within the NCR SFRA and Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ). The FAA classifies this area as National

Defense Airspace. The SFRA is a permanent Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) surrounding the

Washington, DC Metropolitan Area, extending 30 NM from DCA and from the surface up to, but not

including, 18,000 feet MSL. Within the SFRA, the ready identification, location, and control of aircraft is

required in the interest of national security. All pilots must file a flight plan, establish two-way radio

communications with ATC, and operate the aircraft transponder on the transponder code assigned by

ATC. The FRZ is established within the SFRA and extends 13-15 NM from DCA. The altitude confines of the

FRZ are the same as the SFRA. Flight operations within the FRZ are restricted to flights authorized by the

FAA and TSA. US military aircraft with prior FAA approval and DoD aircraft operating in/out of JBA are

permitted in the FRZ.

JBA is designated as Class B controlled airspace, and the base operates using both IFR and VFR. JBA Class

B airspace is controlled by Potomac Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) and JBA ATC. The inner

area of this JBA ATC airspace is centered on JBA starting at ground level, continues upward to a ceiling

elevation of 2,500 feet MSL, and extends horizontally for 5 NM. The outer area of the airspace ring extends

an additional 7 NM, beginning at ground level and extending to 2,000 feet MSL (JBA 2017). USAF aircraft

based at JBA include the KC-135, F-16, and UH-1N. Additionally, the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, USMC,

Department of Energy, Civil Air Patrol, and Maryland State Police also have aircraft based at JBA.

Aircraft operations consist of takeoffs, touch-and-gos, and closed pattern flights. Since a pilot performing

a touch-and-go or a closed pattern flight essentially performs a landing and a takeoff, touch-and-gos and

closed pattern flights are each counted as two operations. In 2019, there were approximately 113,156

annual aircraft operations, 310 daily operations, at JBA. Operations associated with aircraft based at JBA

comprise approximately 78 percent (%) of daily aircraft operations, with transients accounting for the

remaining 22% (Table 3-1) (JBA 2017 and USCG 2020a).



Page 3-7

Table 3-1. Existing Daily Aircraft Operations at JBA

Aircraft Daily Operations

Arrivals Departures Closed Pattern1 Total Operations Based 51.1 51.1 70.5 (141) 243.2 Transient 5.5 5.5 28 (56) 67 Total 56.6 56.6 98.5 (197) 310.2 1 One Closed Pattern = Two Operations Source: JBA 2020a.

3.1.2.2 JBA Runways

JBA operates two active Class B runways: Runway 01R/19L and Runway 01L/19R are both oriented in a

north-south direction. Runway 01R/19L offers dimensions of approximately 9,775 feet in length by 150

feet wide, while Runway 01L/19R is 9,318 feet in length and 200 feet wide. Both runways are equipped

with an approach lighting system and Runway 01L/19R has a Category III ILS (JBA 2017).

3.1.2.3 Jet Routes and Victor Airways

The enroute phase of flight is defined as that segment of flight from the termination point of a departure

procedure to the origination point of an arrival procedure. The procedures employed in the enroute phase

of flight are governed by a set of specific flight standards established by 14 CFR, FAA Order 8260.3, and

U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), as well as other related publications. Enroute

IFR navigation is evolving from the ground-based navigational aid (NAVAID) airway system to a

sophisticated satellite and computer-based system that can generate courses to suit the operational

requirements of almost any flight. The FAA Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) provides satellite-

based positioning, navigation, and timing services in the U.S. to enable performance-based operations for

all phases of flight, to include enroute navigation (FAA 2014).

The enroute airspace structure of the National Airspace System (NAS) consists of three strata. The first

stratum of low-altitude airways in the U.S. can be navigated using NAVAIDs, have names that start with

the letter V, and are called Victor Airways. They cover altitudes from approximately 1,200 feet AGL up to,

but not including 18,000 feet MSL. One Victor Airway (V), V 123-455, abuts JBA Class B Airspace to the

north. The second stratum of high-altitude airways in the U.S. all have names that start with the letter J,

and are called Jet Routes. These routes run from 18,000 feet MSL to 45,000 feet MSL. The third stratum

allows random operations above Flight Level (FL) 450 (FAA 2014).


Recently, low-altitude Area Navigation (RNAV) routes have been created by the FAA. These RNAV routes

provide more direct routing for IFR aircraft and enhance the safety and efficiency of the NAS. In order to

utilize these routes, aircraft must be equipped with IFR-approved GNSS. RNAV routes not based on VOR

routes at both low and high altitudes are given the prefix “T” and “Q” (FAA 2014).

3.1.2.4 CGAS Atlantic City Aircraft Inventory

CGAS Atlantic City operates 11 MH-65D rotary-wing aircraft and conducts training operations at CGAS

Atlantic City and alert mission operations at the NCRADF. Up to eight (8) aircraft are stationed at CGAS

Atlantic City, and at least three (3) aircraft are on station at the NCRADF.

3.1.2.5 USCG NCRADF Training

While completing alert mission requirements, the USCG conducts daily training sorties. Training sorties

consist of either Air Intercept (air-to-air identification) or Proficiency (VFR and IFR approaches,

departures, and closed patterns). Air intercept training, which accounts for 50% of training, occurs at

altitudes high enough to preclude noise impacts to persons on the ground within areas approved via

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the FAA. Proficiency training accounts for 40% of total

training, of which 70% already occurs at JBA, with the remaining 10% identified as miscellaneous

training. Every proficiency sortie at JBA consists of up to 25 closed patterns and can include both VFR

and IFR low approaches, touch-and-gos, or full stops.

3.2 AIRCRAFT NOISE


Noise is defined as unwanted sound or, more specifically, as any sound that is undesirable because it

interferes with communication, is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying (Federal

Interagency Committee on Noise [FICON] 1992). Human response to noise can vary according to the type

and characteristics of the noise source, the distance between the noise source and the receptor, the

sensitivity of the receptor, and the time of day.

Page 3-8



Page 3-9

Due to the wide range in sound levels, sound is expressed in decibels (dB), a unit of measure based on a

logarithmic scale. A 10-dB increase in noise level corresponds to a 100-percent increase (or doubling) in

perceived loudness. As a general rule, a 3-dB change is necessary for noise increases to be noticeable to

humans (Bies and Hansen 1988). Sound measurement is further refined by using an A-weighted decibel

(dBA) scale that emphasizes the range of sound frequencies that are most audible to the human ear

(i.e., between 1,000 and 8,000 cycles per second). Sound frequency is measured in terms of hertz (Hz),

and the normal human ear can detect sounds ranging from approximately 20 to 15,000 Hz. However,

because all sounds in this wide range of frequencies are not heard equally well by the human ear, which

is most sensitive to frequencies in the 1,000 to 4,000 Hz range, the very high and very low frequencies are

adjusted to approximate the human ear’s lower sensitivity to those frequencies. This is called “A-

weighting” and is commonly used in measurement of community environmental noise. Unless otherwise

noted, all decibel measurements presented in the following noise analysis are dBA.

Day-night average A-weighted sound level (DNL) is a noise metric that averages all A-weighted Sound

Exposure Level (SEL) values over a 24-hour period, with an additional 10-dB penalty added to noise events

occurring between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. This penalty is intended to compensate for generally lower

background noise levels at night and the additional annoyance of nighttime noise events. DNL is the

preferred noise metric of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), U.S.

Department of Transportation, FAA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Department of

Veterans Affairs, and DoD.

Analyses of aircraft noise exposure and compatible land uses around DoD facilities are normally

accomplished using a group of computer-based programs, collectively called NOISEMAP (USAF 1992).

NOISEMAP, through its program BASEOPS, allows entry of runway coordinates, airfield information, flight

tracks, flight profiles (i.e., engine thrust settings, altitudes, and speeds) along each flight track for each

aircraft, numbers of flight operations, run-up coordinates, run-up profiles, and run-up operations. The

FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM) also allows entry of all of the aforementioned parameters and is used

to analyze aircraft at public/civilian airports.

In airport noise analyses, noise contours are used to help determine compatibility of aircraft operations

and local land uses. Although noise resulting from aircraft flight operations represents the greatest

contribution to the overall noise environment near the airfield, other noise sources (e.g., highway traffic)

may also influence total ambient noise levels. Other activities that may generate substantial amounts of

noise at an airport include engine preflight run-ups and aircraft maintenance activities, industrial

operations, and construction activities.



Page 3-10

Although aircraft maintenance actions and industrial operations may generate large amounts of noise,

they are typically confined to the airfield and industrial areas. Construction activities, on the other hand,

may occur anywhere on the site and result in disturbance to on-site personnel or off-site noise-sensitive

receptors (e.g., housing areas and schools). However, construction noise tends to be localized and

temporary and may be reduced through use of special equipment or scheduling restrictions.

Table 3-2 identifies noise levels associated with some common indoor and outdoor activities and settings.

Table 3-2 also indicates the subjective human judgments of noise levels, specifically the perception of

noise levels doubling or being halved. For reference purposes, a baseline noise level of 70 dB is described

as moderately loud. As can be seen in the table illustrating the logarithmic dB scale, humans perceive an

increase of 10 dB as a doubling of loudness, while an increase of 30 dB corresponds with an eight-fold

increase in perceived loudness.

3.2.1.1 Land Use Guidelines and Ambient Noise

Guidelines established by FICON are used by HUD to determine acceptable levels of noise exposure for

various land use categories. Land use categories most sensitive to ambient noise are residential,

institutional, cultural, and some recreational uses. Industrial land uses are the least sensitive to

surrounding noise, largely due to the inherently high levels of ambient noise associated with industrial

activities.

According to FICON, the following communities have the indicated typical ranges of outdoor DNL noise

levels: Quiet Suburban, 48 to 52 dB; Normal Suburban, 48 to 57 dB; and Urban Residential 58 to 62 dB

(FICON 1992). Noise levels from flight operations exceeding ambient background noise typically occur

beneath main approach and departure corridors, under local air traffic patterns around the airfield, and

in areas immediately adjacent to parking ramps and aircraft staging areas. As departing aircraft gain

altitude, their noise contribution drops to levels indistinguishable from the ambient background.



Page 3-11

Table 3-2. Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments



Page 3-12


3.2.2.1 Regional Setting

JBA is located in Prince George’s County, Maryland, approximately 5 miles southeast of Washington, DC.

The base is bordered by Allentown Road to the west, Marlboro Pike to the east, Old Alexandria Ferry Road

to the south, and Suitland Parkway to the north. Communities surrounding JBA include Morningside,

Forestville, Westphalia, Woodyard, Clinton, and Camp Springs.

Land use in the vicinity of JBA is generally characterized by a mix of commercial, residential, industrial,

and undeveloped land. The areas west and north of the base are heavily developed, and the areas to the

south and east are generally rural and lower-density suburban development.

Much of the area surrounding JBA is moderately populated, with noise levels of correspondingly moderate

magnitude. The noise environment of communities surrounding JBA is characteristic of a suburban setting

that typically experiences noise associated with vehicles on local highways and aircraft activities. Major

transportation routes in the vicinity include the Interstate (I-) 495, which is located to the west of JBA and

has Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volume between 192,000 and 202,000 vehicles (Maryland

Department of Transportation 2018).

3.2.2.2 JBA Operations

Aircraft noise dominates the noise environment in the vicinity of JBA, and most aircraft operations are

conducted by the C-40 “Clipper”, F-16 “Fighting Falcon”, KC-135R “Stratotanker”, and UH-1N “Huey.”

Table 3-3 describes maximum noise levels (Lmax) associated with direct overflight of aircraft in takeoff,

landing, and cruise configurations. Aircraft typically utilize takeoff and landing configurations during initial

ascent from and final descent to the runway. Cruise configuration is typically used when aircraft are flying

at pattern altitude or engaged in maneuvers outside of JBA Class B airspace.



Page 3-13

Table 3-3. Lmax Associated with Direct Overflight of Based KC-135R, C-40, F-16, UH-1N, and Proposed MH-65D

Aircraft Engine Power Setting

Airspeed (knots)

Altitude (feet AGL)

500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000

KC-135R

Takeoff 89.6 %NF 300 93.9 87.1 79.8 68.9 59.1 47.0

Landing 66.5 %NF 150 90.4 83.4 75.8 64.4 54.2 42.1

Cruise 75.0 %NF 240 91.5 84.6 77.0 66.5 55.5 43.1

C-40

Takeoff 16,000 lbs 160 93.1 86.2 78.7 67.1 56.5 43.9

Landing 4,000 lbs 160 87.2 80.0 72.3 60.5 49.7 36.6

Cruise 6,000 lbs 180 89.7 82.5 74.9 63.5 53.6 42.0

F-16 (220)

Takeoff 91.0 %NC 300 109.0 101.6 93.6 81.5 71.0 58.7

Landing 82.5 %NC 160 95.7 88.8 81.3 70.1 60.2 48.7

Cruise 86.0 %NC 220 102.7 95.5 87.6 75.8 65.2 53.2

UH-1N

Takeoff 53% 53 76.4 69.9 63.1 53.1 44.6 N/A

Landing 55% 55 81.5 75.3 68.8 59.5 51.5 N/A

Cruise 100% 80 82.8 76.4 69.8 60.2 52.1 N/A

MH-65D

Takeoff 74% 74 81.3 74.0 65.7 52.5 40 N/A

Landing 75% 75 81.6 75.2 68.5 58.9 50.8 N/A

Cruise 100% 120 75.7 68.5 60.5 48 37.1 N/A Notes: Lmax was calculated under standard acoustic atmospheric conditions (70°F and 59% relative humidity). %NF = Fan Speed %NC = Core Engine Fan Speed Source: USAF 2003a.

Aircraft operations at JBA were modeled in 2020 using NOISEMAP and the existing fleet mix and

operational counts to complete the Joint Base Andrews Installations Compatible Use Zone Study and the

USCG’s HAIW operations at JBA as existing conditions. As shown in Figure 3-2, aircraft operations

generated noise contours of 65, 70, 75, 80, and 85+ DNL. The 80 and 85+ 80 DNL contours remained

entirely within JBA property; however, the 65, 70, and 75 DNL contours extended beyond the JBA

boundary. Existing acreage, both the total and off-base, are presented in Table 3-4.



Page 3-14

Table 3-4. Land Area Affected by DNL Noise Levels Above 65 dB

Noise Level (DNL)

Existing Total (acres)

Existing Off-Base (acres)

65-69 1,572 842 70-74 964 238 75+ 554 8

Total 3,090 1,088 Source: JBA 2020a.

Public annoyance is the most common concern associated with exposure to elevated noise levels. The

DNL noise metric has been strongly correlated to public annoyance (Finegold et al. 1994). When subjected

to DNL levels of 65 dB, approximately 12 percent of the persons exposed will be “highly annoyed” by the

noise. At levels below 60 dB, the percentage of annoyance is substantially lower (less than 8%), and at

levels above 70 dB, it is substantially higher (greater than 25%).

Land uses in the vicinity of JBA exposed to aircraft noise levels exceeding 65 dB DNL are predominately

industrial and forest. To a lesser extent, low- and medium-density residential, agricultural, and

transportation land use activities occur within the 65+ dB DNL noise contours.

It should be noted that some additional noise results from day-to-day activities associated with

operations, maintenance, and industrial functions associated with the operation of JBA. These noise

sources include the operation of ground-support equipment, and other transportation noise from

vehicular traffic; however, this noise is generally localized in industrial areas on or near the base. Noise

resulting from aircraft operations remains the dominant noise source in the base vicinity.

JBA maintains an Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Program intended to promote compatible

land uses in nongovernment areas adjacent to JBA (USAF 2015; 2017). The AICUZ study outlines the

location of runway clear zones, aircraft accident potential zones, and noise contours. In addition,

incompatible land uses are identified, and compatible land use recommendations are provided for areas

in the vicinity of the base. Three types of planning controls (e.g., compatible zoning, building code

modifications, and avigation easements) have been developed to minimize conflicts between military and

civilian airfields nearby communities (USAF 2015).



Page 3-15

3.2.2.3 JBA Noise Abatement

The USAF strives to be a good neighbor and actively pursues operational measures to minimize aircraft

noise. Noise abatement procedures apply to flight operations, as well as engine run-up and maintenance

operations conducted on station. To the greatest extent possible, flights are routed over sparsely

populated areas to reduce the exposure to noise. Through USAF regulations, commanders are required

to periodically review existing traffic patterns, instrument approaches, weather constrictions, and

operating practices in relation to populated areas and other local situations.

Inflight Guides provide detailed noise abatement procedures for departures, patterns, and arrivals,

including:

• After takeoff, aircraft will climb as rapidly as possible to 1,500 feet above MSL.

• Multiple approaches and touch-and-go operations are not authorized during quiet hours

(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

• Helicopters are not permitted to operate below 800 feet AGL between Runway 01L/19R and the

western perimeter of the base during quiet hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

• Helicopters avoid overflying base housing and Malcolm Grow Medical Center.

• Aircraft will maintain traffic pattern altitude as long as practical before landing.

• North IFR departure aircraft executing a left turn will begin a standard rate turn within 1.5 NM of

the departure end of the runway.

• Aircraft making an east turnout from either Runway 01L or Runway 01R will not turn right until

reaching Suitland Parkway at an altitude at or above 400 feet AGL.

Hangar 14

¬«4

¬«223

¬«5

¬«337

¬«4

§̈¦495

K:\AMEC US OFFICES\Santa Barbara\335000012 - JBA\dwg\Figure 3-2 - 2020 Existing Noise Contours.mxd - stephane.descombes - 4/14/2020 - 1:47:26 PM

MAY 2020

335000012

3-2DR

AWN

BY:

SD

CH

ECKE

D B

Y: D

M

1:36,000

0 3,0001,500

FeetDATE

SCALE

PROJECT NO.

FIGURE


2020 EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS


LEGEND:Maryland State Route

Joint Base Andrews Boundary (approximate)

Existing Noise Level (DNL):65-69

70-74

75-79

80-84

85+

¬«4



Page 3-17

3.3 AIR QUALITY


Air quality in a given location is determined by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are established by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) for criteria pollutants, including: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide

(NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and 2.5

microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). NAAQS represent maximum levels of background pollution

that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. Each

state has the authority to adopt standards stricter than those established by the USEPA and the MDE has

adopted the NAAQS and is responsible for maintaining air quality standards for the State of Maryland

where JBA is located.


3.3.2.1 Criteria Pollutant and Attainment Status

Air quality is affected by stationary sources (e.g., industrial development) and mobile sources (e.g., motor

vehicles). Air quality at a given location is a function of several factors, including the quantity and type of

pollutants emitted locally and regionally as well as the dispersion rates of pollutants in the region. Primary

factors affecting pollutant dispersion include wind speed and direction, atmospheric stability,

temperature, topography, and the presence or absence of inversion layers.

Beyond listed criteria pollutants, the State of Maryland has adopted a state-level ambient air quality

standard for fluoride. However, neither JBA nor the proposed USCG HAIW beddown and operations at

JBA are expected to generate fluoride emissions to any significant degree. Moreover, based on USEPA

information there are no fluoride monitoring stations in the vicinity of JBA.

The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 place the responsibility to achieve compliance with NAAQS

on individual states, in this case the MDE. Areas not in compliance with any of the NAAQS can be declared

nonattainment areas by the USEPA or the appropriate state or local agency. Nonattainment areas are

declared for each pollutant addressed by the NAAQS. Once the USEPA declares an area as nonattainment,

the USEPA requires each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP), a compilation of goals,

strategies, schedules, and enforcement actions that will lead the state into compliance with the NAAQS.

Should the state and local air agencies fail to develop adequate SIPs, then the USEPA will develop a Federal



Page 3-18

Implementation Plan to remedy the state’s failure. To be re-designated to attainment, the area must show

through monitoring and modeling that pollutant levels are consistently meeting the NAAQS and have been

maintained for a minimum of two consecutive 10-year periods for each applicable criteria pollutant

regulatory area. During this time, the declared area is in transitional attainment, also known as

maintenance.

JBA is located within the Prince George’s County, Washington, DC-MD-VA area, which is designated as

“marginal” nonattainment of the 2015 8-hour O3 NAAQS (Table 3-5). The area was previously considered

a “marginal” nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour O3 but was re-designated as a maintenance area for

this NAAQS in May 2019. The area was also previously designated a “moderate” nonattainment area for

the 1997 8-hour O3 NAAQS, but as of February 2015 the USEPA has revoked the 1997 NAAQS. Therefore,

the 2015 8-hour O3 “marginal” nonattainment designation is the applicable status (USEPA 2020).

The Washington, DC-MD-VA area within Prince George’s County was also designated a “severe”

nonattainment area for the 1979 1-hour O3 NAAQS; however this was also revoked by the USEPA in 2004

(USEPA 2020).

Until November 5, 2014, the area was also designated a “moderate” nonattainment area with respect to

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, but has since been reclassified as a maintenance area (USEPA 2020). The USEPA

strengthened the annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) in December 2012, for

which Prince George’s County received an attainment designation as of January 2015 (80 Federal Register

[FR] 2206). The 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS was revoked for maintenance areas on October 24, 2016 (81 FR 58010)

and the USEPA indicated that USAF compliance with the General Conformity Rule of the CAA is not

required for these areas re-designated as maintenance areas.

3.3.2.2 Other Hazardous Air Pollutants

In addition to the criteria pollutant standard discussed above, the USEPA also regulates hazardous air

pollutant (HAP) emissions for each state under the CAAA via the National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) program. Under the NESHAP program, emitters are considered

“Major” sources if they emit 10 or more tons per year (tpy) of any of the more than 150 HAPs or 25 tpy

or more of any combination of HAPs while smaller emitters that output less than 10 tpy of any single HAP

is considered an “Area” source. JBA is an “Area” source for emissions of HAPs.



Page 3-19

Table 3-5. National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Local Attainment Status

Pollutant Standard Averaging Time Ambient Concentration

Prince George’s County Attainment

Status

CO Primary 1-houra (ppm) 35

Attainment 8-houra (ppm) 9

NO2 Primary 1-hourb (ppb) 100

Attainment Primary and Secondary Annualc (ppb) 53

O3 Primary and Secondary 8-hourd (ppm) 0.070 Nonattainment

SO2 Primary 1-hourc (ppb) 75

Attainment Secondary 3-houra (ppm) 0.5

PM2.5

Primary and Secondary 24-hourf (µg/m3) 35

Attainment Primary Annual arithmetic meang (µg/m3) 12 Secondary Annual arithmetic meang (µg/m3) 15

PM10 Primary and Secondary 24-hourh (µg/m3) 150 Attainment

Note: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion a. Not to be exceeded more than once per year; b. 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years; c. Annual mean; d. Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentrations, averaged over 3 years; e. 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years; f. 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years, g. Annual mean, averaged over 3 years; h. Not to be exceeded more than once per year, on average over 3 years

Source: USEPA 2016.

3.3.2.3 Climate

JBA’s geographic location near the eastern seaboard provides for a humid subtropical climate where

winters are cold but short and summers are long, warm, and humid (11 WG 2018). Based on data collected

between 1943 and 2016, the average annual temperature at JBA is 57°F, ranging from a minimum of 49°F

to a maximum of 66°F. The record high temperature is 105°F and the record low is -7°F. The warmest

months of the year are May through September, with average temperatures in the mid- to high-70s and

80s. The coldest months of the year are December, January, and February when the average annual

temperature remains in the 40s (USAF 2018).



Page 3-20

JBA receives an average annual rainfall of 42.4 inches and the average annual snowfall at JBA is 19.2

inches, with snowfall recorded during every month from October through April. Winter ice storms are

common in the area, which can be particularly disruptive to road travel and flight operations. Freezing

rain occurs on average 4 days annually, during the months of January, February, and March. These

conditions are sufficiently severe to require de-icing capability at the airfield (USAF 2018).

3.3.2.4 Existing Emissions at JBA

Air emissions at JBA originate from two sources, stationary and mobile emissions sources. Stationary

emission sources at JBA include:

• Combustion sources (e.g., jet engine tests, natural-gas-fired generators, water heaters, aircraft

arresting barrier engines, diesel-fired generators, and fire pumps, etc.);

• Fuel storage and fuel transfer operations (e.g., fuel storage tanks); and

• Operational sources (e.g., solvents, cleaners, antifreeze, and other materials containing volatile

organic compounds [VOCs] and HAPs).

See Table 3-6 for a summary of the 2019 stationary source criteria pollutant emissions from JBA.

Table 3-6. Stationary-Source Emissions at JBA

Category Annual Emissions (tpy)

CO NOx PM2.5 PM10 SOx VOCs HAPs

AGE 2.12 0.82 0.085 0.088 1.89E-02 0.15 0

Boilers 10.59 12.605 0.96 0.96 0.076 0.69 1.64E-02

Emergency Generators 1.62 4.033 0.16 0.16 3.42E-02 0.15 2.29E-03

Run-up/Engine Testing 0.088 0.14 4.15E-03 6.41E-03 7.35E-03 1.31E-03 7.59E-04

2019 Total Stationary Source Emissions 14.42 17.60 1.21 1.21 0.14 0.99 1.94E-02

Major Source Thresholds 100 100 -- 100 100 50 25



Page 3-21

Mobile emission sources at JBA include: on- and off-road vehicles and equipment, Aerospace Ground

Equipment (AGE), and aircraft operations. JBA is a busy aircraft operations hub, averaging 310 daily flight

operations (Table 3-1) for the U.S. military and includes a wide variety of aircraft and associated emissions,

including cargo transport, fighter jets, and large personnel transport aircraft along with limited rotary-

wing aircraft. The installation currently emits HAPs during operational activities, which include storing

fuel, using paints, and running generators. However, with respect to NESHAP and Urban Air Toxics

regulations, JBA is considered to be an Area source, as it is not a Major source with the potential to emit

10 tpy or more of a single HAP. Consequently, the NESHAP program developed for major

industrial/manufacturing categories does not apply to the base.

3.4 LAND USE


Land use can be separated into two primary categories: natural and human modified. Natural land cover

includes woodlands, rangelands, grasslands, and other open or undeveloped areas. Human modified land

uses include residential, commercial, industrial, communications and utilities, agricultural, institutional,

recreational, and generally other areas developed from natural land cover conditions. Land use is

regulated by management plans, policies, regulations, and ordinances that determine the type and extent

of land use allowable in specific areas along with protecting specially designated or environmentally

sensitive areas.


JBA encompasses 6.9 square miles and is located in unincorporated Prince George’s County, Maryland

approximately 4.5 miles southeast of Washington, DC. Located on the Capital Beltway (I-495),

communities surrounding the base are part of the greater Washington, DC metropolitan area and include

Morningside, Forestville, Westphalia, Woodyard, Clinton, and Camp Springs. Land use on JBA is

characterized by past and ongoing development with much of the existing land area previously disturbed

by construction consisting of impervious surfaces including airfields, hangars, offices, parking lots, and

other structures and uses typical of a fully developed military installation.

Within JBA, a variety of land uses can be found that are typical of military installations across all service

branches. The three largest land uses at JBA include airfield, open space, and outdoor recreation. In

general, the base is divided by the airfield, which is oriented in a north-south direction. Beyond the airfield



Page 3-22

to the west, most land is dedicated to morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) facilities with limited

industrial uses located in the northwest section of the base. The primary MWR land uses on the western

half of the base consist of housing and community support services, a golf course, and a medical center.

Beyond the airfield to the east, land use primarily supports airfield operations and includes administrative

and industrial facilities.

JBA’s 2016 Installation Development Plan (IDP; USAF 2016) divided JBA into nine planning districts, which

include:

1. Airfield

2. West Operations

3. East Operations

4. Industrial

5. Training

6. Historic Residential

7. Administrative and Support

8. Residential

9. Recreation

Of the nine JBA planning districts, Hangar 14 is located in the East Operations District adjacent to the East

Airfield where USCG HAIW training sorties would take off from and land.

Planning District 1, Airfield, is characterized by two parallel runways, associated taxiways, ramps, aprons,

and a hazardous cargo pad. District 1 is classified as a common shared utility area for all mission partners

at the base, as the West Operations, East Operations, and Industrial Districts host unique facilities and

infrastructure to provide direct support for each specific mission partner.

Planning District 3, East Operations, focuses on flightline operations and airfield missions including the

459 ARW, 113 WG, and Naval Air Facility Washington (NAFW) units. The 459 ARW area consists mainly of

hangar and aircraft support facilities. The 113 WG area includes a maintenance hangar, aircraft shelters,

squadron operations, storage, and maintenance support facilities. Within the NAFW area there are a

mixture of hangars, administrative support, squadron operations, and storage. The current layout and

facilities in District 3 have led to constraints on parking, personnel, and hangar space due to needed facility

upgrades. For example, adequate parking spaces and accessibility are not available on drill weekends,

vehicle circulation is constrained, and several existing hangars are not an adequate size to accommodate

larger airframes.



Page 3-23

Hangar 14 is currently unoccupied with the exception of approximately a quarter of the facility, which is

utilized by the USMC as a tenant of the USAF-owned facility. The existing and future land use of the

Hangar 14 project site is categorized as Aircraft Operations and Maintenance as depicted in the current

JBA IDP (USAF 2016).

3.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES


The term hazardous materials refers to substances defined as hazardous by the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the term hazardous waste refers

to wastes defined as hazardous by the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Hazardous materials are substances that, because of their quality,

concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, could present substantial danger to

public health or the environment when released into the environment.

Under 40 CFR Part 261, hazardous wastes regulated under RCRA are defined as solid, liquid, contained

gaseous, semisolid waste, or any combination of wastes that either are listed or exhibit one or more of

the hazardous characteristics. Petroleum products—including petroleum-based fuels, oils, and their

wastes—are not covered under CERCLA but might be covered under RCRA.

Issues associated with hazardous materials and wastes typically center on waste streams; underground

storage tanks (USTs); above ground storage tanks (ASTs); and the storage, transport, use, and disposal of

pesticides, fuels, lubricants, and other industrial substances. Implementation and operation of the

Proposed Action would raise issues related to hazardous materials and waste management Environmental

Restoration Program (ERP) sites and are examined further in this EA.


Activities on JBA require the use of hazardous materials and result in the generation of hazardous wastes,

and as such the base is regulated as a hazardous waste generator under Subtitle C of RCRA and its

amendments. JBA is responsible for the acquisition, use, storage, and ultimate disposal of hazardous

materials, including hazardous materials primarily associated with aircraft operations. Primary types of

hazardous wastes generated at JBA include batteries, solvents, used fuel, petroleum, oils, and lubricants

(POLs), paints, deicing fluid, fluorescent bulbs, rags, fuel filters, and solvent-contaminated solids. These



Page 3-24

materials could adversely impact surface water and groundwater resources should they enter any of those

resource areas. JBA must comply with various water quality requirements and regulations, including the

Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater program;

the Maryland Stormwater Management Guidelines for State and Federal Projects; the Energy

Independence Security Act (Section 438): EO 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration;

Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load requirements; the Maryland Watershed Implementation Plan;

and an installation-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

JBA does not store hazardous wastes on-site beyond the 90-day period which would require the base to

secure a Hazardous Waste Storage Permit. Additionally, JBA does not treat or dispose of hazardous wastes

on-site and a permit for treatment or disposal of hazardous waste is not held by the base. However, as a

hazardous waste generator, JBA must properly identify its hazardous waste streams, collect and

temporarily store hazardous waste in compliance with RCRA rules, ensure hazardous waste is taken off-

site by haulers licensed to transport hazardous waste pursuant to 49 USC §§5101 et seq., and that

hazardous waste is taken to a permitted treatment or disposal facility.

Hazardous waste is accumulated at 56 locations on base, most of which are Initial Accumulation Points

(IAPs) located throughout JBA (USAF 2017). Whenever the quantity of hazardous waste at an IAP reaches

55 gallons (or solids fill a 55-gallon container), it is transported to a designated central hazardous waste

storage area. Hazardous waste is removed from the hazardous waste storage area on JBA and disposed

of by licensed private contractors no less frequently than every 90 days (USAF 2017). In addition to the

hazardous wastes, universal wastes, or wastes that would otherwise be considered hazardous waste if

not recycled, are generated by JBA operations. Universal wastes that is not recycled reverts to hazardous

waste status.

Solid waste containers are serviced regularly at JBA. In addition to typical solid waste, operations and

maintenance activities also result in the generation of industrial non-hazardous waste which is collected

and tracked in a manner similar to hazardous waste and universal waste.

Consistent with federal guidance and the Prince George’s County Comprehensive Ten-Year Solid Waste

Management Plan, 2012–2022 (Prince George’s County 1997), JBA strives to minimize solid waste

generated on the base and operates a recycling program that diverts 54 percent of the solid waste

generated on base and 85 percent of the construction and demolition debris generated on base from

disposal (Michael Baker International 2015).



Page 3-25

Environmental Restoration Program Sites

As of March 2015, 153.7 acres, or 4% of the land area at JBA, are designated ERP sites (USAF 2016),

including a total of 60 ERP sites, of which 29 sites have achieved No Further Remedial Action Planned

(NFRAP) status and six are Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) sites (USAF 2016).

AFI 32-7020, The Environmental Restoration Program, provides guidance and procedures for executing

the USAF ERP within the U.S. The JBA ERP includes sites from the Installation Restoration Program (IRP)

and the MMRP, both of which are funded through the Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA)

to fulfill the requirements of AFI 32-7020. These investigation and cleanup activity areas include spill sites,

former fire training areas, former landfills, storage tank sites, a sludge disposal area, areas where

munitions were used, and solid waste management units. Sites at JBA are at varying stages of

investigation, cleanup, and closeout. Table 3-8 below provides a brief summary of ERP sites in the vicinity

of the Proposed Action.

Table 3-7. JBA ERP Sites

Name Description Phase1 ECOP Category2

LF-05 Leroy’s Lane Landfill LTM 5 SA-056 Boston Avenue Storage Area NFA 2 SS-13 POL Storage Yard Spill SC 2 SS-22 Hangar 13 Navy Area RA 2 SS-26 Former Hangar 15 FS 6 SS-721 Outdoor Fuel Cell Storage Area

SC 2

ST-08 UST Leak - MOGAS - Government Refueling Station LTM 2 ST-14 East Side Service Station Tank Site RA 5 SWMU-12 District of Columbia Air National Guard Motor Pool

Waste Oil UST 3227 RI 7

SWMU-56 Civil Engineering Storage Yard near Building 3459 RI 7 TU-139 Contaminated Soil Site at UST, Building 3139 SC 2 TU-167 UST at Building 3167 PA/SI 2 TU-214 UST at Building 3214 PA/SI 2

1Phase: ECOP – Environmental Condition of Property FS – Feasibility Study LTM – Long Term Monitoring NFA – No Further Action RA – Remedial Action SC – Site Closure SI – Site Investigation PA – Preliminary Assessment



Page 3-26

RI – Remedial Investigation 2The seven ECOP categories are applied IAW AFI 32-7066 standard environmental condition categories: Category 1: An area or real property where no storage, release, or disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum products or their derivatives has occurred into the environment or structures or disposed on the subject property (including no migration of these substances from adjacent properties). Category 2: An area or real property where only the release or disposal of petroleum products or their derivatives has occurred. Category 3: An area or real property where release, disposal, or migration or some combination thereof, of hazardous substances has occurred, but at concentrations that do not require a removal or remedial action. Category 4: An area or real property where release, disposal, or migration, or some combination thereof, of hazardous substances has occurred, and all remedial actions necessary to protect human health and the environmental have been taken. Category 5: An area or real property where release, disposal, or migration, or some combination thereof, of hazardous substances has occurred and removal or remedial actions or both, are under way, but all required actions have not yet been taken. Category 6: An area or real property where release, disposal, or migration or some combination thereof, of hazardous substances has occurred, but required response actions have not yet been initiated. Category 7: An area or real property that is unevaluated or requires additional evaluation.

3.6 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION


Transportation and circulation refer to the movement of vehicles throughout a road and highway

network. Primary roads are principal arterials, such as major interstates, designed to move traffic and not

necessarily provide access to all adjacent areas. Secondary roads are arterials such as rural routes and

major surface streets, which provide access to residential and commercial areas, hospitals, schools, and

military installations. Other transportation modalities include commuter bus and rail as well as air travel.


JBA is located 5 miles southeast of Washington, DC. The primary roadway providing regional access to JBA

and the surrounding communities is I-95/495, the “Capital Beltway,” located along the west side of the

base. Other, smaller highways and local roadways provide direct access to the base. Transportation and

circulation within JBA is achieved via internal road and street networks.

3.6.2.1 On-Base Transportation

Access to and from JBA is regulated by five entry-control facilities including: Main Gate, Pearl Harbor Gate,

North Gate, Virginia Gate, Maryland Gate, and West Gate. Of these, Main Gate serves as the primary

entrance and exit point of the base and processes the most vehicles per day (USAF 2016). The existing

capacity of access gates present no constraints to future development and existing conditions present

minor constraints (Gannett Fleming 2009, 2013; USAF 2016, 2010).



Page 3-27

There is a total of 101 miles of paved roads within JBA, not including vehicular travel lanes associated with

the active airfield and taxiways. These roads provide access to administrative, operations, housing,

industrial, medical, recreation, and airfield areas. Based on the most recent evaluation available, the

overall pavement condition of roads and parking lots on JBA is adequate, and the majority are in good

condition (USAF 2016). The base’s roadway network generally forms a series of east-west and north-south

roads bounded by the perimeter roads (North, East, South, and West Perimeter roads) which are the

primary roadways within the JBA boundary that carry and distribute traffic throughout the base. In total,

these four primary perimeter roads form a two-lane, 8.2-mile loop around the base.

Hangar 14 is located off East Perimeter Road and is accessible via Main, Pearl Harbor, and North Gates.

Main Gate is operated 7 days per week, 24 hours per day, and is accessible from MD 337 via Robert M.

Bond Road, and accounts for over 90% of vehicles accessing JBA. Pearl Harbor Gate is operated 7 days per

week, 24 hours per day, is accessible from Dower House Road via Pennsylvania Avenue, and is the only

gate used for commercial traffic as well as serving as a primary access to the east side of the base. North

Gate is accessible from the north via Suitland Parkway; however, North Gate is not currently utilized. All

gate access hours may be altered as needed in response to local or global events.

Main Gate

Main Gate, located at the northeast area of the base, is typically

accessible 24 hours a day but hours may be altered in response to local

and global events, as needed. Main Gate is the primary access point for

JBA. Main Gate receives the greatest A.M. peak-hour demand of all

gates on base at 1,181 vehicles (USAF 2016). Main Gate operates at a

capacity that would not constrain future development and has excess

capacity during peak A.M. hours. Processing rate of Main Gate is 1,400

vehicles per hour (vph) with a headroom of 219 vph.

Although it has adequate capacity, Main Gate does not meet AT/FP

requirements per UFC 4010-01, resulting in a degraded condition rating

(USAF 2016). However, design projects that would improve the

configuration of the Main Gate were included in the JBA IDP’s list of

necessary projects and would improve traffic flow and security conditions (USAF 2016).

The JBA Main Gate is accessible 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.



Page 3-28

Pearl Harbor Gate

Pearl Harbor Gate provides direct access to the eastern end of the base. While specific data on vehicle

processing rate, peak-hour demand, and headroom are not available for Pearl Harbor Gate – which

experiences delays when the commercial traffic cannot be processed fast enough – the general capacity

of all gates on base is considered sufficient and physical conditions are considered good (USAF 2016).

Redesign, repair, and reconstruction of Pearl Harbor Gate was included in the JBA IDP’s list of short-

range (1-5 years) projects and would include improved traffic flow for both personal and commercial

vehicles (USAF 2016).

North Gate

North Gate is currently out of service. When in use, the standard North Gate processing rate is 350 vehicles

per hour per lane (vphpl) when single processing (one guard per lane). The two lanes at the North Gate

are sufficient to meet vehicle demand with a single processing system in place (Gannett Fleming 2009).

However, North Gate does not meet AT/FP requirements per UFC 4010-01, resulting in a degraded

condition rating. Improvements to North Gate to meet AT/FP requirements have been identified as a

planning constraint but no specific capital improvement project has been identified (USAF 2016).

Roadways and Intersections

The existing capacity and conditions of the on-base roadway network are considered satisfactory and do

not present constraints to future development (USAF 2016). Vehicles accessing Hangar 14 from Pearl

Harbor Gate would travel Pearl Harbor Drive before turning right (i.e., northbound) onto East Perimeter

Road. Vehicles accessing Hangar 14 from North Gate would travel south from Patrick/Fetchet Avenue to

East Perimeter Road.

Level of service (LOS) is a measure of the operational conditions on a roadway or at an intersection. LOS

ranges from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (i.e., free flow, little delay) and

LOS F representing the worst conditions (i.e., congestion, long delays). LOS A, B, or C is typically considered

a good operating condition. A roadway congested during peak traffic periods would be represented with

a LOS D, E, or F.

Table 3-9 lists on-base roadways and intersections near the proposed site and in the area, their morning

and evening peak hour traffic volumes, and their estimated existing LOS.



Page 3-29

Table 3-8. On-Base Roadway Conditions and LOS

Intersection A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volume

P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

A.M. LOS P.M. LOS

East Perimeter Road and Pearl Harbor Drive

590 507 B B

North Perimeter Road and Patrick Avenue

953 791 B A

Fetchet Avenue and East Perimeter Road

864 691 C D

Parking

JBA includes approximately 80,000 square feet of facility parking space on base (USCG 2019). One

measure used to determine adequacy of parking capacity is that lots should not be more than 90% full.

Parking utilization on JBA is typically 60% during daytime hours and 53% during evening hours. Parking

areas are present outside of and adjacent to Hangar 14. An automated security fence surrounds the

perimeter of the parking lot adjacent to Hangar 14, involving a “double gate” system where vehicles

entering and exiting the parking lot must wait for the first gate to close behind them before proceeding

through the second gate, a process that can take anywhere between 30 seconds to 1 minute per vehicle.

3.6.2.2 Off-Base Transportation

Roadways and Intersections

The Capital Beltway (I-95/I-495) is located along the northwest side of the base and serves as the principal

highway providing access to and from the base at three interchanges in proximity to the base: Branch

Avenue (MD 5), Allentown Road (MD 337), and Pennsylvania Avenue (MD 4).

The following roadways are located along or in proximity to the perimeter of JBA: Suitland Parkway

(MD 337) and Forestville Road to the north; Marlboro Pike and Dower House Road to the east; Allentown

Road to the west; and Old Alexandria Ferry Road and Woodyard Road (MD 223) to the south. These roads

connect the base to regional arterial highways, as well as adjacent properties and neighborhoods.

To access Pearl Harbor Gate, vehicles exit from Pennsylvania Avenue (MD 4) to Dower House Road and

travel south before turning onto Pearl Harbor Drive. To access North Gate, vehicles exit from Suitland



Page 3-30

Parkway (MD 337). Table 3-10 lists off-base roadways and intersections near the proposed site and in the

area, their morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes, and their estimated existing LOS.

Table 3-9. Off-Base Roadway Conditions and LOS

Intersection

A.M. Peak Hour

Traffic Volumes

Mid-Day Peak Hour

Traffic Volumes

P.M. Peak Hour

Traffic Volumes

A.M. LOS P.M. LOS

Suitland Parkway and Pennsylvania Avenue 6,576 -- 6,520 F F

Pennsylvania Avenue and Dower House Road 5,072 -- 1,927

Pennsylvania Avenue NB: F

Pennsylvania Avenue NB: C

Pennsylvania Avenue SB: A

Pennsylvania Avenue SB: A

Dower House Road and Pearl Harbor Drive 585 -- 851 B D

Note: LOS ratings derived from 2009 TMP and represent conditions prior to improvements suggested under TMP were made. Roadway conditions and LOS may have been improved since surveyed.

NB = northbound; SB = southbound Sources: Gannet Fleming 2009, 2013.

Air, Rail, and Public Transportation

The commercial airport located nearest to the base is DCA, which is 15 miles away in Arlington, Virginia,

and averages 874 flights per day. Other nearby airports include BWI and IAD. The closest Amtrak station

is 14 miles away at Union Station in Washington, DC. Three public agencies provide transit service to the

area surrounding JBA: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority via the Metrorail and Metrobus

systems, the Maryland Transit Administration, and Prince George’s County via TheBus service. The Branch

Avenue Metrorail station (approximately 3 miles from JBA’s Main Gate) provides rail service and transfers.

Several bus routes have stops within proximity of JBA’s Main Gate; however, North Gate and Pearl Harbor

Gate are in comparatively remote areas of the base and are not conducive to alternate transportation

modes. An on-base shuttle service is provided only for the west side of the Base in the triangular area

bounded by Perimeter Road, Arnold Avenue, and Menoher Drive with stops at Main Gate, Building 1535,

the base hospital, Gateway Inn, the Pax Terminal, and the commissary (Gannett Fleming 2009). The typical

wait between shuttle buses is 40-minute headway (USAF 2010).



Page 3-31

3.7 SAFETY


The primary safety concerns at a military airfield such as JBA include explosives safety, potential for

bird/wildlife aircraft strikes, and AT/FP.

The DoD and USAF have established explosive safety setback requirements (DoD 6055.09-M and Air Force

Manual [AFMAN] 91-201) for munitions facilities and other facilities/land uses involving the presence or

proximity of explosives at military installations. The requisite size of setback areas, known as Quantity-

Distance (QD) arcs, are based on the types and quantities of explosive materials at a subject facility and

types of surrounding facilities including Inhabited Building Distances (IBD), Public Traffic Route Distance

(PTRD), Intraline Distance (ILD), and Intermagazine Distance (IMD).

Five mishap classification have been defined by the USAF and correspond to similar classes employed by

USCG. Class A mishaps result in a fatality or permanent total disability; total cost in excess of $2 million

for injury, occupational illness, and property damage; or destruction or damage beyond repair to military

aircraft. Class B mishaps result in a permanent partial disability; total cost in excess of $500,000 but less

than $2 million for injury, occupational illness, and property damage; or hospitalization of fire or more

personnel. Class C mishaps result in total damages between $50,000 and $499,999, and Class D mishaps

result in total damages between $20,000 and $49,999. The fifth mishap category, Class E, includes

occurrences that do not meet reportable mishap classification criteria, but are deemed important to

investigate and/or report for mishap prevention.

JBA Instruction (JBAI) 91-212, dated 15 April 2014, identifies JBA as being located in an area of high bird-

strike potential as it is located within the Atlantic Migratory Flyway with several wildlife refuges in the

local flying area. The FAA compiles bird/wildlife strike data for commercial and military airfields

throughout the United States.

The DoD has developed AT/FP standards which are designed to reduce the likelihood of mass casualties

from terrorist attacks. UFC 4-010-01, DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings, outlines

various planning, construction, and operational standards to address potential terrorist threats while the

IDP outlines measures to address these issues at JBA. Key elements of AT/FP standards include the

establishment of minimum setbacks and other security standoff distances between mass gathering

facilities and potentially non-secure adjacent uses (e.g., parking lots, areas outside of security fences, etc.).



Page 3-32


3.7.2.1 Explosives Safety

Currently, the only established QD arc in proximity to Hangar 14 is maintained to address hazards

associated with explosive potential at two Combat Aircraft Parking Areas for the 113 WG on the southeast

portion of the East Flightline ramp, each of which generates an IBD of 400 ft with a 240 ft PTRD. The south-

westernmost portion of Hangar 14 is located within the northern extent of the 400 ft IBD associated with

the 113 WG facility.

3.7.2.2 Aircraft Mishap

USAF-wide rotary wing aircraft mishap statistics include reporting for H-1 and H-60 aircraft over a 5-year

averages of zero Class A and 1.2 Class B mishaps over 29,181 flight hours for the H-1 and 0.40 Class A and

0.60 Class B mishaps over 22,760 flight hours for the H-60 (USAF 2020a, 2020b). The USCG reported a

similar 5-year average of 0.8 Class A and 0.6 Class B mishaps for Fiscal Year 2011 to through 2015 for the

MH-65D aircraft over a greater average of 50,000 flight hours per year (USCG 2016). Recent mishaps at

JBA include the loss and safe ejection of the pilot of an F-16.

3.7.2.3 Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazards

The FAA’s Wildlife Strike database for JBA includes 70 incidents

dating back to 2014, only one of which involved a rotary-wing

aircraft (FAA 2020). Existing measures to reduce wildlife

attractants at JBA include active and passive bird dispersal

procedures, habitat modification, and discouraging wildlife

feeding.

3.7.2.4 Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection

Hangar 14 and the adjacent parking lot are located within the security perimeter fencing for JBA. The

nearest secured access gate to Hangar 14 is the Pearl Harbor/Commercial (West) Gate located

approximately 1,400 feet to the east of the facility via Pearl Harbor Drive; however, the Main Gate on the

west side of JBA – approximately 3 road miles from the hangar – serves as the primary controlled access

point for the base.

Bird cannons are used to frighten birds away from the airfield as part of JBA’s BASH Program.



Page 3-33

3.8 SOCIOECONOMICS


Socioeconomics describes the economy and sociological environment of the ROI surrounding JBA as well

as on base at JBA. An ROI is a geographic area selected as a basis on which social and economic impacts

of project alternatives are analyzed. The ROI for the socioeconomic environment is defined as Prince

George’s County, Maryland based on the likelihood that though dispersed, most direct and indirect social

and economic effects would occur within the county. Socioeconomic data is presented at county, state,

and the national level to characterize a baseline socioeconomic condition for comparison to effects from

implementation of the Proposed Action.


3.8.2.1 Population and Housing

Prince George’s County is the second-most populous county in the State of Maryland (Maryland

Demographics 2020). The ROI’s population increased by approximately 5.2 percent (45,298 persons)

between 2010 and 2019 which was similar to the growth rates of the state and nation, where the

population increased by 4.7 percent and 6.3 percent respectively. Maryland’s population is projected to

increase by approximately 10.56 percent (638,580 persons), and the United States by approximately 9.49

percent (31,160,477) by 2030 (Table 3-11) (U.S. Census Bureau 2019).

Table 3-10. Population Trends

Geographic Area 2010 Population 2019 Population 2030 Projected Population

Projected Change in Population

2019-2030 Prince George’s

County 864,029 909,327 944,550 3.87 percent

Maryland 5,773,794 6,045,680 6,684,260 10.56 percent

United States 309,300,000 328,239,523 359,400,000 9.49 percent Note: Prince George’s County Total Civilian Labor force is approximately 504,423 persons. The total population includes non-civilian personnel.

Source: US Census Bureau 2019; Maryland Department of Commerce 2019.

JBA is bordered by a highly urbanized area to the west and a semirural area to the east that is transitioning

to suburban residential and commercial zones as the population continues to expand. Communities in the

vicinity of JBA include Forestville and Morningside to the north and northwest, Camp Springs to the west,



Page 3-34

Clinton to the south, and Rosaryville to the southeast and east (The Maryland-National Capital Park and

Planning Commission 2020). The population of communities around JBA in recent years has grown and

projections indicate this trend will continue. Immediately adjacent to the northeast boundary of JBA is a

major new development, Westphalia, which has projected the construction of 15,000 new residential

units as well as a town center including park space, offices, retail, and entertainment spaces to be built-

out over a 30-year period.

The urbanized setting of the ROI included 333,862 housing units in 2018 and a median gross rent from

2014-2018 of $1,434 (US Census Bureau 2019). Housing occupancy was at 306,694 units from 2013 to

2017, so the ROI has approximately 8 percent of housing units available for occupancy. A healthy vacancy

rate for a county is approximately 7 to 8 percent (The City Lab 2018).

3.8.2.2 Employment, Industry, and Income

The ROI is in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area, which generally experiences a robust economy and

sustained growth. JBA is the second-largest employer in the ROI (behind only the University System of

Maryland), employing approximately 26,709 USAF and Navy personnel (Maryland Department of

Commerce 2016; 2019). In 2016, JBA contributed an estimated economic impact of $4.5 billion to the local

economy and employment compensation of $1.4 billion.

In 2019, the annual average unemployment rate in the ROI was 3.2 percent, lower than Maryland (4.9

percent) and the nation (3.4 percent) (US Department of Labor 2020). The ROI from 2018 to 2019

experienced Maryland’s largest decline of unemployment (0.5 percent). Between 2010 and 2019, the

unemployment rate in the ROI remained steady.

Per capita personal income in the ROI from 2014 to 2018 was $35,869, in comparison to the statewide

average of $40,517, and national average of $33,706 (Table 3-12) (US Census Bureau 2019; The Balance

2019).

Table 3-11. Estimated Per Capita Income (2014-2018) for ROI, State, Nation

Geographic Area Prince George’s County Maryland United States Per Capita Income $35,869 $40,517 $33,760 Source: US Census Bureau 2019; The Balance 2019.



Page 3-35

3.8.2.3 Recreation

JBA has a number of indoor and outdoor recreation and service facilities as part of the base’s MWR

program. Indoor facilities include the Community Activities Center, Youth Center, Child Development

Center, fitness centers, Commissary, and Base Exchange. Outdoor facilities include golf courses,

playgrounds, a lake, swimming pool, tennis courts, basketball courts, and sports fields. The majority of the

recreational facilities are centrally located in the western portion of JBA; however, the golf courses and

lake recreation are in the south/southwestern portion of the base.

3.8.2.4 Police, Fire, and Medical Services

JBA is a limited access facility with its own force protection, law enforcement, fire protection, and health

care services. The primary mission of the JBA 316th Security Forces Squadron is to provide police services

and force protection to the base and to the President of the U.S., U.S. senior leaders, and visiting

dignitaries. The Andrews Fire and Emergency Service employs over 75 civilian and military personnel and

provides services including but not limited to structural firefighting, emergency medical services, natural

disaster response, and fire prevention public education (JBA 2020b).

3.8.2.5 Protection of Children

As children may suffer disproportionately from environmental health risks and safety risks, EO 13045,

Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks, was introduced in 1997 to prioritize

the identification and assessment of environmental health risks and safety risks that may affect children

and to ensure that Federal agencies’ policies, programs, activities, and standards address environmental

health risk and safety risks to children. Data used for the environmental justice and protection of children

analyses were collected from 2014-2018, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

Schools and day care centers are locations where the potential for a child to be exposed to environmental

health risks is increased because higher concentrations of children are located in one place during the

day. The ROI includes 190 public schools (121 elementary, 36 middle school/combined, 24 high school,

and 9 charter) (Maryland Department of Commerce 2019). JBA includes a base Child Development Center

and Education & Training Center.


Page 4-1

SECTION 4

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Potential environmental impacts that could result from implementing the Proposed Action or

No-Action Alternative are identified and evaluated in this section. The resource areas analyzed in

detail are listed in Section 1.6, Scope of the Environmental Assessment. In contrast, resources that

would incur no impacts or negligible impacts with implementing the Proposed Action or No-

Action Alternative are not examined in further detail. Resources evaluated are presented

below in the same order described in Section 3, Affected Environment.

As described in Section 2, Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives, the Proposed

Action includes the beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW and relocation of its MSF from

CGAS Atlantic City to Hangar 14 at JBA. No physical alterations to Hangar 14 or any part of the

project site are included in the Proposed Action beyond those analyzed under a CATEX previously

issued for those actions. Alternatives to the Proposed Action were considered; however, none of

these alternatives would satisfy the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action and, therefore,

were not carried forward for further analysis. Nevertheless, because CEQ regulations stipulate

that the No-Action Alternative must be analyzed to assess any environmental consequences

that may occur if the Proposed Action is not implemented, the No-Action Alternative has

been carried forward for analysis and provides a baseline against which the Proposed Action can

be compared. (Because any impacts realized at CGAS Atlantic City would be beneficial – except

for negligibly adverse socioeconomics impacts – no detailed impact evaluation was conducted for

this location.)

CEQ regulations (40 CFR §1508.27) specify that significance should be determined in relationship

to both context and intensity (i.e., severity). The assessment of potential impacts and the

determination of their significance is based on the requirements of 40 CFR §1508.27. Three

levels of impact have been identified:

• No impact – No short- or long-term impacts would occur,

• Less than significant impact – A short- or long-term impact would occur, but the impact

would not meet the context and intensity significance criteria for the resources, and

• Significant impact – A short- or long-term impact would occur that meets or exceeds the context and intensity significance criteria for the resource.


Page 4-2

4.1 AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT

4.1.1 Approach to Analysis

The significance of potential impacts to airspace management depends on the degree to which

the proposed aircraft and their operations would affect the structure, use, or management of the

regional military, commercial, and general aviation airspace environment. Significant impacts

could result if the action would: 1) impose major restrictions on air commerce opportunities; 2)

significantly limit airspace access to a large number of users; or 3) require modifications to ATC

systems.

4.1.2 Impacts

4.1.2.1 Proposed Action

JBA Operational Impacts

Under the implementation of the Proposed Action, the USCG HAIW would relocate its MSF and

training from CGAS Atlantic City to JBA, resulting in an increase in the number of operations at JBA

and a corresponding reduction in the number of operations at CGAS Atlantic City. As described in

Section 2.1.2, Flight Operations, the USCG would fly an average of 8 to 10 sorties per day, which

is comparable to the operational tempo of the 1st Helicopter Squadron and would result in 87

additional airport operations daily at JBA (Table 4-1) (JBA 2020a).

Table 4-1. Proposed Daily Aircraft Operations at JBA

Aircraft Daily Operations

Arrivals Departures Closed Pattern1 Total Operations

Based 58.3 58.3 106.5 (213) 329.6 Transient 5.5 5.5 28 (56) 67

Total 63.8 63.8 134.5 (269) 396.6 1 One Closed Pattern = Two Operations Source: JBA 2020a.

Operations associated with the Proposed Action would represent a 28% increase over the existing

conditions at JBA (refer to Section 3.1.2.1, JBA Airspace and Aircraft Operations). Approximately

50% of USCG HAIW proficiency training would occur at the following airfields:

• Manassas Regional Airport, VA – approximately 30 NM to JBA;


Page 4-3

• Easton Newman Field, MD – approximately 40 NM to JBA;

• Stafford Regional Airport, VA – approximately 35 NM to JBA;

• USMC Airfield Quantico, VA – approximately 25 NM to JBA; and

• Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD – approximately 40 NM to JBA.

Each of these remote training locations would experience an average increase of 10 operations

per day.

Existing ATC systems and associated infrastructure (e.g., airfield pavements) have the capability

and the capacity to accommodate this increase in training operations beyond existing conditions

at the base. The available capacity and capability are among the selection criteria applied during

the site selection process that led to the identification of JBA as the most suitable location for the

establishment of the MSF relative to eliminated alternatives discussed in Section 2.5,

Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not require any modification to the current

terminal airspace structure or operational procedures or require any changes to the departure or

arrival route structure of JBA or any affected airport. Because the increased rotary-wing

operations at JBA under the Proposed Action would be within the capacity and capability of the

airfield and infrastructure, the Proposed Action would have a less than significant impact on

airspace management at and around JBA.

Airspace

Beddown of the USCG HAIW would increase air intercept training in the JBA area. The USCG

currently has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the FAA to utilize specific airspace

for air intercept training by personnel who staff the NCRADF. Implementation of the Proposed

Action would result in an additional five (5) air intercept training operations within this specific

airspace, which would be within the existing MOU’s limits. All airspace flight operations would

continue to be conducted per procedures established by the FAA and with the applicable USCG

regulations and orders with the safety of its pilots and people in the surrounding communities as

the primary objective. Strict control and use of established safety procedures would minimize the

potential for safety risks.


Page 4-4

The proposed USCG HAIW aircraft operations would have no significant impact on the use and

management of the JBA Class B airspace or the airspace surrounding public and private airports

in the region. As a result, impacts on airports and airspace under the Proposed Action would not

be significant.

4.1.2.2 No-Action Alternative

If the No-Action Alternative were selected, the USCG would not beddown at JBA, and aircrews and

aircraft would continue to train from CGAS Atlantic City and ferry to the NCRADF to complete

the RWAI mission. Therefore, there would be no aircraft operations impacts associated with the

selection of this alternative. Conditions would remain as described in Section 3.1, Airspace

Management.

4.1.3 Proposed BMPs

Operational impacts from the Proposed Action would be less than significant; therefore, no BMPs

are recommended to further reduce impacts to airspace management at JBA.

4.2 AIRCRAFT NOISE


Noise impact analyses typically evaluate potential changes to existing noise environments that

would result from the implementation of an action. These possible changes may be beneficial if

they reduce the number of sensitive receptors exposed to unacceptable noise levels. Conversely,

impacts may be significant if they introduce unacceptable noise levels or increased exposure to

unacceptable noise levels. Noise associated with an action is compared in the context of existing

noise conditions and the potential change in intensity of noise levels to determine the

magnitude of potential impacts.

A noise impact would be considered significant if the action would cause noise-sensitive areas to

experience an increase in noise of 1.5 dB or more at or above the 65 DNL noise exposure

compared to the No-Action Alternative for the same timeframe. A 3-dB change is typically

necessary for noise increases to be noticeable to humans (Bies and Hansen 1988).


Page 4-5

4.2.2 Impacts


Aircraft Operations

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the beddown of the USCG HAIW and

relocation of the associated MSF at JBA. Under the Proposed Action, the HAIW would fly an

average of 8 to 10 sorties per day, which would result in an additional 87 rotary-wing aircraft

operations at JBA. However, the proposed MH-65D operations would have a minimal noise impact

(i.e., change in intensity of noise) in the context of existing operations at JBA. Implementation of

the Proposed Action would result in a maximum of 1.0-dB increase to local noise conditions

(measured near Columbia Lane, east of JBA) below 65 DNL, which is below the 1.5-dB increase

threshold criteria at or above 65 DNL. Proposed operations would have a negligible effect on the

existing 65+ DNL contours, and the amount of area where the 65+ DNL contours extend beyond

JBA’S property boundary would not be measurably affected (Table 4-2) (Figure 4-1).

The additional MH-65D aircraft operations in designated air intercept-specific training airspace

east of JBA due to the Proposed Action would negligibly impact sensitive receptors below this

training area, given that training occurs above 2,500 feet MSL and no new rotary-winged aircraft

are being introduced. Therefore, noise impacts from aircraft operations related to the Proposed

Action would be less than significant.

Table 4-2. Land Area Affected by DNL Noise Levels Greater than 65 dB

Noise Level (DNL)

Proposed Action Total

(acres)

Proposed Action Off-Base (acres)

Existing Off-Base (acres)

Difference Off-Base (acres)

65-69 1,586 872 842 +30 70-74 991 241 238 +3

75+ 573 8 8 +/-0

Total 3,150 1,121 1.088 +33 Source: JBA 2020a.


If the No-Action Alternative were selected, the USCG HAIW would not beddown the MH-65D and

associated MSF at JBA. Consequently, there would be no operational noise impacts at either JBA


Page 4-6

or CGAS Atlantic City associated with the selection of this alternative. Conditions would remain as

described in Section 3.2, Noise.

4.2.3 Proposed BMPs

Operational impacts from the Proposed Action would be less than significant. No BMPs beyond

those currently implemented by JBA (refer to Section 3.2.2.3) are recommended to reduce aircraft

noise impacts further.

80

75

70

DR

AWN

BY

: SD

CH

ECK

ED B

Y: D

M

80

75

70

LEGEND:

«4 Maryland State Route

Joint Base Andrews Boundary (approximate)

Existing Noise Level (DNL)

¬«4

Proposed Noise Level (DNL):

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-84

85+

3¬«37

§̈¦495 85 75

75

¬«4

¬«5

Hangar 14

65 85

2¬«23

0 1,500 3,000

Feet

UNITED STATES

JOINT BASE ANDREWS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

DATE

SCALE

MAY 2020

1:36,000

COAST GUARD

2020 PROPOSED NOISE CONTOURS

PROJECT NO.

FIGURE

335000012

4-1

K:\AMEC US OFFICES\Santa Barbara\335000012 - JBA\dwg\Figure 4-1 - 2020 Proposed Noise Contours.mxd - stephane.descombes - 4/16/2020 - 8:21:07 AM


Page 4-8

4.3 AIR QUALITY


The CAA Amendments of 1990 require that all Federal agency activities conform to the applicable

SIP concerning achieving and maintaining the attainment of NAAQS and addressing potential air

quality impacts. The USEPA General Conformity Rule requires that a conformity analysis be

performed to demonstrate that an action would not: 1) cause or contribute to any new violation of

any NAAQS in the area; 2) interfere with provisions in the SIP for maintenance or attainment of any

NAAQS; 3) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS; or 4) delay

timely achievement of any NAAQS, any interim emission reduction, goals, or other milestones

included in the SIP for air quality. Provisions in the General Conformity Rule allow exemptions

from performing a conformity determination only if total emissions of individual nonattainment

area pollutants resulting from the action fall below the de minimis (i.e., significant) threshold values.

Concerning the General Conformity Rule, air quality effects would be considered significant if an

action would increase the Regional Emissions Inventory above the de minimis threshold levels

established in 40 CFR §93.153(b) for individual nonattainment or maintenance pollutants. As

described in Section 3.3.2.2, Local Air Quality, the Washington DC-MD-VA area within Prince

George’s County is currently designated by the USEPA as a nonattainment area for the 2015 8-

hour O3 NAAQS and an attainment area for all other NAAQS criteria pollutants (USEPA

2020).

Air emissions associated with USAF aircraft operations are generally estimated using the USAF Air

Conformity Applicability Model (ACAM) under the AFI 32-7040, Clean Air Act Section

176(c), Air Quality Compliance and Resource Management; the Environmental Impact Analysis

Process (32 CFR Part 989); and the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93 Subpart B).

Helicopters are not included in ACAM because helicopters do not have “typical” flight profiles.

Therefore, operational air emissions for the proposed MH-65D operations were calculated using

the 2018 Air Emissions Guide for Air Force Mobile Sources (Air Force Civil Engineer Center [AFCEC]

2018). Applying guidance received from AFCEC subject matter experts, Equations 2-1, 2-2, and 2-

3 within the ACAM were used to calculate the projected air emissions resulting from the Proposed

Action (AFCEC 2020c). The emissions modeling conservatively assumes that training flights would

occur 365 days per year. Standard Time in Mode (TIM) durations was used based on 2003

ACAM Technical Documentation Appendix C (USAF 2003b).


Page 4-9

4.3.2 Impacts


No construction or demolition activities would occur under t h e implementation of the

Proposed Action. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in short-term emissions

related to the use or maintenance of construction equipment.

Under the Proposed Action, the USCG would relocate the MSF from CGAS Atlantic City to JBA

and beddown 8 MH-65D at Hangar 14, in the base’s eastern portion. As described in Section 2,

Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives, there would be approximately 8 to 10 training

sorties (LTOs) per day from Hangar 14 at JBA with the implementation of the Proposed Action. Air

emissions modeling conservatively assumes that training flights would occur 365 days per year.

Operational emissions associated with the proposed beddown (e.g., helicopter training flights)

are presented in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3. Proposed Action Annual Emissions and NAAQS Thresholds

Pollutant HAIW MH-65D Annual

Emissions (tpy) de minimis

Thresholds (tpy) Significant

Impact?

CO 21.22 100 No

NO2 10.39 100 No

SO2 1.62 100 No

PM2.5 0.29 100 No

PM10 0.31 100 No

VOC 16.55 100 No

Note: NOx and VOC emissions are O3 precursors.

Source: AFCEC 2018.

As described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, the Washington DC-MD-VA area is in nonattainment for

8-hour O3 and is in attainment for all other criteria pollutants. JBA, and its tenant commands,

would maintain compliance with all applicable Federal, state, and local regulations related to

stationary source emissions, including NESHAP (see Appendix C for applicable local regulations).

With regard to O3 precursors, implementation of the Proposed Action would result in an increase

of 10.39 tpy of NO2emissions and 16.55 tpy of VOC emissions (refer to Table 4-3). Because annual

operational emissions would be below the de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants – and of


Page 4-10

particular importance for O3 precursors given NAAQS attainment status in the region – air quality

impacts associated with the Proposed Action would be less than significant over the short- and

long-term.


Under the No-Action Alternative, the USCG HAIW would not be relocated to JBA, and the proposed

beddown of the MH-65D at JBA would not occur. Consequently, there would be no operational

emissions at JBA. Long-term operational emissions associated with rotating aircraft between the

existing MSF at CGAS Atlantic City and the NCRADF would remain the same. Operational air

emissions at JBA would stay, as described in Section 3.3, Air Quality. Therefore, the No-Action

Alternative would have no short- or long-term impacts on air quality at JBA.

4.3.3 Proposed BMPs


are recommended to reduce air quality impacts further.

4.4 LAND USE


Determination of land use impacts is based on the degree of land use sensitivity in the area. In

general, land use impacts would be considered significant if an action would: 1) be inconsistent

or non-compliant with applicable land use plans or policies; 2) preclude a current land use of

concern from continuing to exist; 3) preclude continued use of an area; or 4) be incompatible with

adjacent or nearby land uses such that the public health or safety is endangered. The potential

impacts on land use were assessed based on whether the Proposed Action would directly or

indirectly conflict with local land-use policies and future development, conflict with adjacent land

uses, or restrict the use of neighboring properties.


Page 4-11

4.4.2 Impacts


The Proposed Action at JBA includes the beddown and relocation of the MSF from CGAS Atlantic

City to Hangar 14, including the associated aircraft operations and training. The Proposed Action

does not include any physical alterations or impacts to Hangar 14 that are not previously

evaluated and authorized. No alterations to the type of land use or area/extent of development

would occur under the Proposed Action. The facility would remain an aircraft hangar, and the

parcel would support related maintenance and operational activities. The Proposed Action

would beddown a new aircraft type to JBA, beyond existing transient activities, consistent with

JBA IDP’s identified necessary improvements to the East Operations District. It would not

introduce any new, incompatible land uses to JBA or the surrounding area. (Refer to Section 4.2,

Noise, for a description of anticipated off-base impacts related to noise exposure.) Therefore,

long-term impacts of the Proposed Action would be less than significant with regard to land use

at and in the vicinity of JBA.


Selection of the No-Action Alternative would not relocate the USCG to JBA, and a small portion

of Hangar 14 would continue to be utilized by the Navy and USMC. At the same time, the

remainder of the facility would be unoccupied. The selection of the No-Action Alternative would

create any inconsistencies with the JBA IDP as no changes would occur at the installation.

Therefore, the No-Action Alternative would have no short- or long-term impacts on land use at

JBA.

4.4.3 Proposed BMPs

Operational impacts resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Action would be less

than significant; therefore, no BMPs are recommended to further reduce impacts to land use.


Page 4-12

4.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES


Numerous federal, state and local laws regulate the storage, handling, disposal, and

transportation of hazardous materials and wastes; the primary purpose of these laws is to protect

public health and the environment. The severity of potential impacts associated with hazardous

substances is based on their toxicity, ignitability, and corrosivity. Impacts related to hazardous

materials and wastes would be considered significant if the storage, use, transportation, or

disposal of hazardous substances substantially increases the human health risk or environmental

exposure. Impacts of identified contaminated sites would be considered significant if an action

disturbed or created additional contamination resulting in adverse effects to human health or

the environment.

4.5.2 Impacts


The Proposed Action would relocate the existing HAIW MSF to Hangar 14 at JBA. Hazardous waste

streams generated by the proposed beddown, operation, and maintenance of the MH-65D

aircraft (e.g., used oil, used filters, oily rags, etc.) would be consistent with existing JBA waste

streams and would be handled consistent with the existing Hazardous Wastes Management Plan

(HWMP). No special handling requirements or development of any SWPPP measures beyond

existing practices would be necessary to ensure compliance with all applicable federal, state, and

local regulations. Further, ongoing and future implementation of BMPs established in the base’s

existing SWPPP, HWMP, and related guidance documents would continue to ensure that JBA

complies with all applicable laws and regulations.

Any changes in hazardous materials storage or personnel training requirements that may be

triggered by the relocation of the HAIW MSF to JBA would be minimal. In the event of any new

waste streams, or new procedures required for managing hazardous materials and wastes

associated with the Proposed Action, the HWMP would be updated, and changes would be

cascaded to all appropriate personnel. Generation of hazardous wastes at JBA is not expected to

increase substantially following the relocation of the HAIW, and JBA operates a strong resource

recovery program, having received a Meeting or Exceeding rating (green) for its waste

reduction


Page 4-13

sustainability development indicator (USAF 2016). Additionally, the Proposed Action would

neither affect nor be affected by any new ERP sites (i.e., there are no active sites near Hangar 14).

Therefore, the Proposed Action implementation would not result in significant impacts related

to hazardous materials or wastes.


Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change to hazardous materials and wastes

generation, storage, or management. No hazardous materials and wastes associated with the

HAIW would be used, stored, or disposed of at JBA under the No-Action Alternative; therefore,

the selection of this alternative would have no impact on this resource area at the base.

4.5.3 Proposed BMPs

All practices involved with implementation and operation of the Proposed Action would be

required to comply with existing BMPs included in the base’s HWMP and SWPPP, including

properly managing, storing, transporting, and disposing of hazardous materials and wastes, and

taking all necessary precautions to prevent spills of hazardous materials (including oils and

hazardous wastes) in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

No additional BMPs are needed to address hazardous materials and wastes impacts associated

with the implementation of the Proposed Action.

4.6 TRANSPORTATION


Potential impacts to transportation and circulation are assessed with respect to anticipated

disruption or improvement of current transportation patterns and systems, deterioration or

improvement of existing LOS, and changes in existing levels of transportation safety. Beneficial or

adverse impacts may arise from changes in daily or peak-hour traffic volumes created by

installation workforces and population changes or changes in on-base parking availability.

Adverse impacts on roadway capacities would be significant if roads with no history of exceeding

capacity began to operate at or above their final full design capacity if LOS of existing roadways

worsened as a direct result of implementing the Proposed Action, or if the Proposed Action would

reduce available parking or increase parking demand such that the base’s parking needs would

not be met.


Page 4-14

4.6.2 Impacts


Under the Proposed Action, the addition of the USCG HAIW to JBA would increase the number

of personnel assigned to the base by approximately 250; however, it is anticipated that only 80 of

this additional personnel would be on the ground any given time. The Proposed Action would not

involve demolition or construction of any facilities; therefore, no short-term effects of re-routed

traffic patterns or other access limitations are anticipated. Long-term effects of the Proposed

Action would result from negligible changes in vehicle traffic volumes on nearby roadways

and base access gates, related to the addition of up to 80 daily commuters.

Direct off-base effects resulting from implementing the Proposed Action would be associated

with USCG HAIW personnel commuting to and from JBA and Hangar 14. While some off-base

intersections operate at LOS D or lower (e.g., Suitland Parkway and Pennsylvania Avenue,

Pennsylvania Avenue and Dower House Road, Dower House Road and Pearl Harbor Drive), the

addition of 80 new commuter vehicles would contribute approximately an additional 1-2% of

vehicle trips on these roadways; therefore, impacts to existing conditions would be negligible.

Direct on-base effects resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Action would include

small changes in daily and peak-period traffic volumes on roadways in the vicinity of

Hangar 14, particularly at the intersection of Pearl Harbor Drive and East Perimeter Road, given

its proximity to the primary access point for the hangar’s parking lot. During its operation, the

MSF located at Hangar 14 would generate approximately an additional 80 vehicle trips during

the A.M. and P.M. peak-hour travel periods. Some queuing could result at Main Gate and Pearl

Harbor Gate and intersections near Hangar 14 during peak-hour traffic periods because of

commuting personnel. That would constitute a minor change in both on- and off-base traffic.

However, as described in Section 3.6, Transportation and Circulation, Main Gate, and Pearl Harbor

Gate, all roadways and intersections on base are generally in good condition and operate within

their design capacity. Other than during peak P.M. hours on Fetchet Avenue and East

Perimeter Road, on-base roadways have a rating of LOS C or better. Therefore, the existing

transportation infrastructure would support the anticipated increase in vehicle traffic associated

with the Proposed Action.


Page 4-15

The addition of 80 new commuter vehicles entering the parking lot adjacent to Hangar 14 could

cause delays and vehicle queuing on East Perimeter Road as vehicles must wait for the automated

security gates to open and close behind them (i.e., there is a built-in “pause” between vehicles

entering and exiting the parking lot). To address potential congestion at this access point, JBA is

considering relocating the security fencing along the airfield, behind (i.e., west of) the parking lot.

This relocation would allow vehicles to enter the parking lot without first passing through security,

effectively reducing vehicle congestion. Personnel would then walk through a secured gate before

entering the hangar (see Section 5.1.2, Cumulative Projects at JBA). In the interim, potential

congestion along East Perimeter Road due to security fencing could be mitigated by stationing

Military Police and/or security personnel at the open security gate during peak commuting hours.

Military Police and/or security personnel would check credentials before allowing vehicles to

enter. Such mitigation would reduce wait times and thereby expedite vehicle access. With these

measures in place, the Proposed Action would not significantly impact any access gates or nearby

roadways and intersections. Utilization of existing parking capacity on JBA typically remains

around 53-60%; therefore, the available inventory of parking spaces at the base can

accommodate the anticipated increase of up to 80 vehicles associated with the proposed MSF

at Hangar 14 (Andrews AFB 2010). Parking availability adjacent to Hangar 14 is robust and

adequate to accommodate an additional 80 commuter vehicles. Finally, implementation of the

Proposed Action would have no appreciable effect on air, rail, or public transportation systems

described in Section 3.6, Transportation and Circulation.


Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no changes to vehicular transportation patterns

or parking demand on or in the base’s vicinity. As a result, no impacts on transportation would

result from the selection of this alternative.

4.6.3 Proposed BMPs

Operational impacts from the Proposed Action would be less than significant. No BMPs beyond

those summarized in Section 4.6.2.1 (e.g., stationing of security personnel at the hangar’s access

point during peak commute hours) are recommended to further reduce transportation impacts

both on- and off-base.


Page 4-16

4.7 SAFETY


If the implementation of an action (i.e., the Proposed Action or No-Action Alternative) would

substantially increase risks associated with explosives safety, flight safety, or AT/FP protection

capability at an installation, it would represent a significant impact. For example, an action

involving an increase in incompatible land uses within QD arcs, whether from locating new uses

within existing QD arcs or the creation of new QD arcs around new explosive storage or use

locations without appropriate management practices, the safety of personnel and material would

be compromised.

If the implementation of an action would substantially increase risks associated with aircraft

mishap potential, BASH strikes, or flight safety relevant to the public or the environment, it

would represent a significant impact. For example, if an action involved an increase in air

operations such that mishap potential would increase significantly, air safety would be

compromised. Further, if implementation of an action would disrupt or decrease the AT/FP

capability and capacity at an installation, a significant impact would potentially occur.

4.7.2 Impacts


Under the Proposed Action, the USCG would beddown and operate the HAIW at Hangar 14,

including relocating the MSF to Hangar 14 from CGAS Atlantic City and flight training operations

departing from and returning to Hangar 14 as described in Section 2.1, Proposed Action.

Explosives Safety

As described in Section 3.7, Safety, one QD arc associated with the neighboring 113 WG combat

aircraft parking area intersects with the southern end of Hangar 14 and its adjacent aircraft apron

where the proposed MSF would be located. This portion of Hangar 14 is currently (temporarily)

occupied by the USMC VMR Andrews and 113 WG while their home facilities at JBA are being

renovated. Relocation of the MSF to JBA and beddown of MH-65D aircraft inside and outside of

the hangar would result in similar staffing levels within Hangar 14 (which is currently [temporarily]

occupied by USMC and 113 WG personnel. Because Hangar 14 would continue to operate as an


Page 4-17

aircraft hangar with associated maintenance and support activities for the USCG HAIW, the

Proposed Action would not introduce any new land uses, including incompatible uses, within the

existing QD arc associated with the 113 WG facility to the south. Therefore, the Proposed Action

would have a less than significant, long-term impact related to explosives safety at JBA.

Aircraft Mishap

Under the Proposed Action, the total number of aircraft and associated air operations at JBA

would increase (refer to Section 4.1, Airspace Management). Like all existing flying operations,

including rotary-wing aircraft, at JBA, proposed USCG HAIW operations would adhere to

established flight safety guidelines and protocols. However, as described in Section 3.9, Safety,

mishap rates between USCG MH-65D aircraft are similar to USAF-wide rotary-wing aircraft mishap

rates. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have less than significant, long-term impacts

related to aircraft mishaps’ potential to occur at JBA.

Bird-Aircraft Strike Hazard

Under the Proposed Action, additional aircraft (i.e., 8 MH-65D aircraft) would be added to the

inventory of aircraft currently operated from JBA by the USAF, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, ANG,

Maryland State Police, and others. It is anticipated that adding these 8 aircraft would result in an

additional 8 to 10 additional training sorties per day in the total flight volume at and in the vicinity

of the JBA airfield. Of the 70 BASH incidents recorded by the FAA at JBA since 2014, only one

incident involved a helicopter; therefore, daily training sorties at JBA associated with the beddown

of the USCG HAIW would be expected to represent a small proportion of potential BASH incidents

at JBA. Further, all aircraft operations in the airfield, including USCG HAIW operations, would

comply with existing JBA operational directives and regulations. Additionally, BASH incident

management techniques would continue as outlined in JBAI 91-212, Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike

Hazard Program. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have less than significant long-term

impacts on aircraft safety-related to BASH strike incidents.

Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection

The beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW at Hangar 14 at JBA would not necessitate

additional AT/FP measures beyond the existing secured environment at JBA including the secured

gate access to the base and interior security fencing. Additional personnel attached to the USCG


Page 4-18

HAIW would be accommodated by the existing security infrastructure at JBA which is performing

satisfactorily and anticipated to undergo future improvements as outlined in the base’s IDP

(USAF 2016). Therefore, the Proposed Action would have less than significant long-term impacts

on AT/FP capabilities and conditions at JBA.


Under the No-Action Alternative, the USCG MSF would remain at CGAS Atlantic City.

Therefore, there would be no change to the existing use of Hangar 14, and no new uses would

be located within the existing IBD and PTRD QD arcs around the 113 WG facility south of Hangar

14. Further, because the beddown of the HAIW would not occur at JBA under the No-Action

Alternative, no additional flight training activities and air traffic, in general, would occur at JBA.

There would be no potential for increased BASH strikes related to USCG operations. Further,

the installation would continue to operate with AT/FP standoff setbacks as required by DoD and

USAF regulations and would not be altered under the No-Action Alternative. Therefore, safety

conditions at JBA would remain as described in Section 3.7, Safety, and there would be no impact

related to safety conditions for the public or military personnel and facilities under the No-Action

Alternative.

4.7.3 Proposed BMPs

Operational impacts resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Action would be less

than significant with regard to existing safety conditions and programs at JBA. No BMPs are

necessary or recommended to further reduce impacts related to safety.

4.8 SOCIOECONOMICS


Changes in socioeconomic conditions likely to result from the addition of approximately 250

personnel under the Proposed Action are presented in the following sections. The

consideration of effect was focused on economic and residential relocation effects. Per EO

13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, health and

safety impacts with the potential to disproportionately impact children were evaluated by

identifying the location of areas conducive to youth activities and congregation and their

proximity to the location of potential direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Action.


Page 4-19

4.8.2 Impacts


Implementation of the Proposed Action would increase approximately 250 personnel at JBA,

including officers, enlisted personnel, civilians, and contractors. The Proposed Action would result

in about 80 personnel working onsite on any given day as MSF personnel would be based and

located at JBA with a personnel rotation to the NCRADF. On-base housing at JBA cannot support

additional USCG personnel at this time (i.e., the 1,115 base housing units are at 96.43%

occupancy). However, USCG personnel may be eligible for housing at Joint Base Anacostia

Bolling or in one of the 310 on-base lodging rooms (262 Visiting Quarters and 50 Temporary

Lodging Facility) at JBA. The Proposed Action would result in a negligible increase in housing

demand in the ROI. The economic impacts associated with an increased population size would

be minimal due to the scale of existing and ongoing development (e.g., in the context of the

proposed 15,000 housing units in Westphalia) in the Metropolitan Washington, DC area in

comparison to the relatively small addition of approximately 250 personnel and their families.

Therefore, the Proposed Action would have less than significant impacts on socioeconomics at

JBA and elsewhere within the ROI.

Under the Proposed Action, there would be no change to the existing on-base recreation services

available at JBA. While the beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW at JBA would add

approximately 250 personnel to the base, this increase in personnel would not be significant

enough in the context of the total number of installation personnel to overtax existing

recreational facilities. Under the Proposed Action, there would be no change to the existing

police, fire, or medical services either by an interruption in physical response capability or

overwhelming demand for these services associated with bedding down and operation.

Therefore, the Proposed Action would have less than significant impacts on recreation, police,

fire, and medical services at JBA.

Under the Proposed Action, beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW at JBA would occur wholly

within existing base boundaries, specifically the Airfield and East Operations Districts, except for

training sorties that would transit to and from training locations discussed in Section 4.1, Airspace


Page 4-20

Management. Because activities would occur within the base boundary and in established

training airspaces, the Proposed Action would neither have a physical effect on housing where

children may live, including on-base housing, the on-base childcare facility, or local schools nor

would it increase environmental risks to children related to Air Quality or Hazardous Materials

and Wastes (refer to Sections 4.3, Air Quality, and 4.5, Hazardous Materials and Wastes).

Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in any increased hazards to children, and the

Proposed Action would have a less than significant impact on the safety of children.


Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would result in no change to the demographics,

employment, or income potential of JBA’s ROI in the short- or long-term. Impacts related to the

Protection of Children would not occur. The No-Action Alternative would result in ongoing high

transit times and costs associated with rotating aircraft between the existing MSF at CGAS Atlantic

City and the NCRADF. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative would not have a short- or long-term

impact on socioeconomics at JBA.

4.8.3 Proposed BMPs


are recommended to reduce socioeconomic effects further.

4.9 POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation measures are used to reduce the adverse effects of implementing projects to below

the level of significance. Because no significant adverse effects would result from implementing

the Proposed Action, no mitigation measures would be required; however, BMPs would be

implemented as identified in this EA.


Page 5-1

SECTION 5

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts result from “incremental impacts of an individual action when combined with

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in an affected area. Cumulative

impacts generally result from minor, but collectively substantial, actions undertaken over a period

of time by various agencies (e.g., federal, state, or local) or persons” (40 CFR §1508.7). In

accordance with NEPA, a discussion of cumulative impacts resulting from projects proposed,

under construction, recently completed, or anticipated to be implemented in the near future is

required.

5.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

5.1.1 Approach to Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Cumulative effects may occur when there is a relationship between an action and other actions

expected to occur in a similar location or during a similar time period. Actions overlapping with or

in close proximity to the Proposed Action can be reasonably expected to have more potential for

cumulative effects on shared resources than potential actions that may be geographically

separated. Similarly, actions that coincide temporally would tend to offer a greater potential for

cumulative effects. CEQ regulations require that potential cumulative impacts consider past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (CEQ 1997).

Per CEQ guidelines for considering cumulative effects under NEPA (CEQ 1997), this cumulative

impact analysis includes three primary considerations to:

1. Determine the scope of the cumulative analysis, including relevant resources, and

geographic extent;

2. Conduct the cumulative effects analysis; and

3. Determine the cumulative impacts to relevant resources.

The Proposed Action is limited to the beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW at JBA and

relocation of the RWAI MSF from CGAS Atlantic City to Hangar 14 at JBA. No physical changes to

Hangar 14 are included in the Proposed Action as these issues were analyzed under a previous

CATEX. As such, potential impacts associated with the Proposed Action would occur over the long-

term given the proposed permanent assignment of the USCG HAIW to JBA.


Page 5-2

5.1.2 Cumulative Projects at JBA

As an active military installation, JBA and its tenant organizations undergo changes in mission and

training requirements in response to changing defense policies, current threats, and tactical and

technological advances and, as a result, require new construction, facility improvements,

infrastructure upgrades, and ongoing maintenance and repairs. Previous known or proposed

construction and upgrade projects identified in the JBA IDP (2016) are listed in Table 5-1 and are

included in this analysis. However, future requirements could change and alter the reality of

cumulative effects. NEPA analysis will be conducted for future Proposed Actions as necessary.

For the purpose of this EA, a review of recently completed, in-progress, and planned construction

and demolition projects was conducted. The projects described below have been completed or

are currently planned for development at JBA in the next 10 years.

5.1.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not involve any outer physical alterations of

Hangar 14 at JBA, the NCRADF, or CGAS Atlantic City. Still, it would involve the beddown and

operation of the USCG HAIW at JBA. Under the Proposed Action, relocation of the MSF to Hangar

14 would occur following the Hangar 14 renovations, with the final design phase beginning in

Fiscal Year 2021.

The following resource analyses address potential impacts associated with cumulative project

activities in addition to the Proposed Action at JBA. No significant cumulative impacts would result

from implementing the Proposed Action when evaluated in conjunction with the project

identified above in Section 5.1.2, Cumulative Projects at JBA.


Page 5-3

Table 5-1. Cumulative Projects at and in the Vicinity of JBA

Horizon Project # Description Planning District

Completed AJXF 111517 Replace Taxiway Sierra Airfield

AJXF 106000 Construct Taxiway North of ACA Facility B – 2489

East Operations

Short Range

(1-5 years)

AJFX 111516 Replace/Upgrade Taxiway Whiskey, Demolish Pad 14

Airfield

AJXF 092300 Construct New Hydrant Fuel System East Operations

AJXF 15153801

Mill/Overlay North Perimeter Road

Base-wide

TBD

Construction Associated with Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization EIS including relocation of Hazardous Cargo Pad

Airfield

N/A

Improve Dower House and Woodyard Road Intersection – Maryland Department of Transportation

Off-base

N/A I-495 and I-275 Improvements – Maryland Department of Transportation

Off-base

TBD Relocate East Runway 800 feet to west and 400 feet to south

Airfield

TBD Build New East Taxiway for Relocated East Runway

Airfield

TBD

Relocate FAA Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range and Tactical Air Navigation System (VORTAC)

Airfield

Medium Range

(6-10 years)

TBD

Relocate FAA Airport Surveillance Radar

Airfield

N/A Maryland Route 4 and Suitland Interchange and NuStar Pipe Relocation

Off-base

Note: On-base projects located within the Airfield and East Operations District are considered here due to likely proximity of effects

5.1.3.1 Airspace Management

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the beddown and operation of the USCG

HAIW at JBA including training and maintenance operations of 8 MH-65D helicopters. Recent

changes affecting airspace management included changes related to the transition of the

1st Helicopter Squadron from UH-1N to MH-139 aircraft, initially via an increase in aircraft


Page 5-4

inventory (from 22 to 29 UH-1N) and eventually to replacement with MH-139 in approximately

2027. It is anticipated that by 2030, the Squadron will have an aircraft inventory of 30 MH-139 at

JBA. (The plus-up in the aircraft inventory and related expansion of pavements or facilities would

likely require preparation of standalone NEPA-compliant documentation before full

implementation.) Future airfield improvements including the westward relocation of the East

Runway and associated taxiways, relocation of the existing VORTAC, and improvements related

to the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization project would update and improve airfield and

airspace management at JBA. Therefore, the Proposed Action along with the other identified

cumulative projects, and compliance with USAF and FAA regulations, would not contribute

substantially to any potential cumulative impacts to airspace management at JBA.

5.1.3.2 Noise

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the introduction of additional noise-

generating aircraft to the JBA noise environment, which would result in minor expansion of the

noise contours in the vicinity of the JBA airfield (refer to Section 4.2, Aircraft Noise). While other

cumulative projects have the potential to result in alterations to the local noise environment,

including aircraft changes proposed by the 1st Helicopter Squadron and the future westward

relocation of the East Runway and associated taxiways that would likely result in a greater

proportion of the JBA noise contours within the installation boundaries, existing JBA “good

neighbor” policies and other guidance included in the AICUZ Program would reduce the potential

for disproportionate or adverse off-base noise impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Action along with

the other identified cumulative projects would not contribute substantially to any potential

cumulative impacts to aircraft noise impacts at JBA.

5.1.3.3 Air Quality

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a long-term increase in air emissions

related to beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW aircraft at JBA but this increase would be

relatively minor compared to the total air emissions at JBA and would not generate even 10% of

the 100 tpy de minimis threshold for any single criteria pollutant (refer to Section 4.3, Air Quality).

While the Proposed Action would not include any short-term construction-related emissions,

other cumulative projects such as the relocation of the East Runway and associated taxiways,


Page 5-5

planned Maryland Department of Transportation improvements to off-base roadways, and other

construction project involving ground disturbance would create short-term air quality impacts

related to construction emissions and fugitive dust generation. Future changes to aircraft

inventory at JBA would result in long-term shifts in the air emissions of the base aircraft inventory;

however, replacement of aging airframes may result in beneficial impacts base-wide operations

emissions as more efficient aircraft with lower emissions output are put into service (i.e.,

modernized powerplants for the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization project). Therefore, the

Proposed Action would not contribute substantially to any potential cumulative impacts to

regional air quality.

5.1.3.4 Land Use

The proposal to locate the HAIW at JBA was the outcome of a robust and informed planning

process, and implementation of the Proposed Action would not introduce any incompatible land

uses or require the re-designation of any existing land uses at JBA given the Proposed Action’s

restriction to the East Operations and Airfield Districts and consistency with existing and future

land use designations set forth in the JBA IDP. Other cumulative projects in the East Operations

and Airfield Districts, including the relocation of the East Runway and associated taxiways, would

also remain consistent with existing and future land use designations depicted in the IDP.

Therefore, the Proposed Action and other identified cumulative projects would not contribute

substantially to any potential impacts or land use conflicts at JBA.

5.1.3.5 Hazardous Materials and Wastes

Implementation of the Proposed Action would require the use of hazardous materials and

generation of hazardous wastes, including POLs that are already typical throughout the Airfield

and East and West Operations Districts of the installation that supports aircraft operations and

maintenance. Further, the use of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous wastes at

Hangar 14 by the USCG HAIW would follow the existing process streams at JBA. Other cumulative

projects at JBA, including the reconstruction of the hangar and relocation of the Hazardous

Cargo Pad as part of the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization project, would result in

rerouting handling of hazardous materials on the west side of the airfield; however, all

alterations to waste streams (volume and routing) would be made in compliance with applicable

USEPA and USAF policies and existing JBA plans and procedures. Therefore, the Proposed Action


Page 5-6

along with other identified cumulative projects would not contribute any potential impacts

related to the handling of hazardous materials or the generation of hazardous wastes.

5.1.3.6 Transportation

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any physical alterations to the existing

on- and off-base traffic patterns and roadways within the vicinity of Hangar 14 and JBA as a whole.

The Proposed Action would result in additional personnel utilizing the on- and off-base roadways

and on-base gate access infrastructure. However, this increase in traffic demand would not

reduce the LOS of any surrounding roadway (refer to Section 4.6, Transportation and Circulation).

Other cumulative projects, including the Maryland Department of Transportation, plans to

improve primary and secondary roadways in the vicinity of JBA as well as planned improvements to

various JBA access gate facilities would increase the area’s, and JBA’s, capacity to accommodate

additional personnel and projected growth in the region. Therefore, the Proposed Action, along

with other cumulative projects, would not create a significant incremental disruption or impact

to on- or off-base traffic patterns.

5.1.3.7 Safety

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any physical alterations to the existing

physical development at JBA, including security infrastructure and planning. Other cumulative

projects at JBA, including the reconstruction of the hangar and relocation of the Hazardous

Cargo Pad as part of the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization project, would result in changes in

airfield safety capabilities, including explosives safety. Additionally, planned improvements to

North and Pearl Harbor Gates will improve AT/FP capabilities at JBA. Minor increases in total

airfield traffic related to 8-10 daily USCG HAIW training sorties may result in a negligible increase

in BASH strike hazards’ potential. However, the existing JBA BASH Program would continue to

limit the potential for BASH incidents for both fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft. Therefore, the

Proposed Action and other cumulative projects would not create a significant cumulative impact

on safety at JBA.


Page 5-7

5.1.3.8 Socioeconomics

Under the Proposed Action, approximately 250 USCG personnel, and families, would move from

CGAS Atlantic City to JBA, which would result in a limited long-term increase in demand for

housing and services both on- and off-base. This small increase in base personnel relative to the

greater than 20,000 existing personnel would not result in a significant impact on the local

socioeconomics. A majority of the identified cumulative projects include improvements to

existing facilities (e.g., relocation of the East Runway) that may not result in an increased

demand for additional personnel. Therefore, the Proposed Action, along with other cumulative

projects, would not create a significant cumulative impact on socioeconomics, including housing,

income, protection of children within Prince George’s County, Maryland.

5.1.4 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

CEQ regulations (40 CFR §1502.16) specify that environmental analyses must address the

relationship between short-term impacts on the environment and the effects that these impacts

may have on the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the affected

environment. Special attention should be given to impacts that narrow the range of beneficial

uses of the environment in the long-term or pose a long-term risk to human health or safety. A

short-term use of the environment is generally defined a direct consequence of any action in its

immediate vicinity. Changes to long-term productivity generally refer to negative impacts to the

long-term quality of the land, air, or water.

The Proposed Action would involve the beddown and operation of USCG HAIW aircraft at an

existing hangar (Hangar 14) within the East Operations area of JBA which is itself a largely

developed portion of installation as a whole and represents one of the largest military installations

on the United States East Coast. The base is characterized by an airfield surrounded by various

aircraft support and maintenance structures, administrative areas, recreational areas, and

residential and commercial areas but no existing agricultural lands.

No croplands, pasturelands, or wetlands would be modified or affected as a result of

implementing the Proposed Action, and, consequently, the productivity of the area would

not be degraded.


Page 6

SECTION 6

LIST OF PREPARERS

This EA was prepared for the USCG and USAF, under the direction of USCG CEU Cleveland and USAF 316th Wing CES/CEIE, by Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood). Members of Wood’s professional staff are listed below:

Project Management Diana Sosa, Task Order Manager

B.S. Civil Engineer M.S Civil Engineer

Doug McFarling, EA Project Manager

B.A. Environmental Studies

Matt Sauter, Deputy Project Manager M.S. Paleontology

Nick Meisinger, Quality Assurance / Quality Control

B.S. Environmental Science

Aaron Goldschmidt, Senior Regulatory Specialist

M.A. Geography

Technical Analysts

Brian Cook, Airspace Management and Noise Specialist

B.A. Biology

Sydnie Margallo, Air Quality Specialist B.S. Environmental Management and Protection

Ashlyn Navarro, Environmental Analyst

B.A. Environmental Studies

Hannah Thomas, Environmental Analyst B.A. Environmental Studies

Production Stephane Descombes, GIS and Graphic Production


Page 7

SECTION 7

PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED/COORDINATED

William Burris, GS-13 Restoration Program Manager Joint Base Andrews, Maryland JBLE Installation Support Team Air Force Civil Engineering Center

Steve Richards, GS-13 Chief of Environmental Management 11 CES/CEIE

John Bullough, GS-12 Air Program Manager 11 CES/CEIE

Josh Miller, GS-12 Civil Engineering – Tanks Program Manager 11 CES/CEIE

Ryan Soens, GS-12 NEPA Coordinator 11 CES/CEIE

Kim White, GS-12 P2 Program Manager 11 CES/CEIE

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Washington Airports District Office 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210 Dulles, VA 20166

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field Office 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD 21401

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460

Maryland State Clearinghouse Maryland Office of Planning, Room 1104 301 West Preston Street Baltimore, MD 21201-2365 Environmental Review Unit Maryland Department of Natural Resources Tawes State Office Building B-3 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401 Maryland Department of the Environment Office of the Secretary 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21230 Maryland Historical Trust 100 Community Place, 3rd Floor Crownsville, MD 21032-2023 Prince George’s County Department of Planning 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Room 4150 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 National Capital Parks-East 1900 Anacostia Drive SE Washington, DC 20020 National Capital Planning Commission North Lobby, Suite 500 401 9th Street NW Washington, DC 20004 County Executive Prince George’s County County Administration Building, Room 5032 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, MD 20772


Page 8

SECTION 8

REFERENCES

American Community Survey (ACS). 2019. 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved 13 April 2020.

Air Force Civil Engineering Command (AFCEC). 2018. Air Emissions Guide for Air Force Mobile Sources.

Bies and Hansen. 1988. Engineering Noise Control.

Branch, M.C. and R.D. Beland. 1970. Outdoor Noise in the Metropolitan Environment.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy

Act. Accessed 23 March 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/site/production/files/2 015-02/documents/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf

Department of Defense (DoD). 2012. DoD Manual 6055.09-M, DoD Ammunition, and Explosives

Safety Standards: General Explosives Safety Information and Requirements.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2018. FAA Order 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures.

FAA. 2020. FAA Wildlife Strike Database for Joint Base Andrews (KADW). Retrieved 8 April 2020.

Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August.

Finegold, L.S., C.S. Harris, H.E. VonGierke. 1994. Community Annoyance and Sleep Disturbance:

Update Criteria for Assessing the Impacts of General Transportation Noise on People. Noise Control Engineering Journal. Jan-Feb.

Gannett Fleming 2009. Joint Base Andrews Transportation Management Plan. September.

Gannett Fleming 2013. Joint Base Andrews Traffic Engineering Study Final. January.

Joint Base Andrews (JBA). 2014. Joint Base Andrews Instruction 91-212, Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard Program.

JBA. 2017. Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Study.

November.

JBA. 2020a. Noise modeling utilizing NOISEMAP based on the 2017 Joint Base Andrews Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Study and interviews with Commander Zachary Mathews, U.S. Coast Guard Alert Detachment Supervisor. March.


Page 8-

JBA. 2020b. Andrews Fire and Emergency Services. Retrieved from: https://www.jba.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/336878/andrews-fire-emergency- services-meeting-the-needs-of-joint-base-andrews-since-1/ on 12 April 2020.

Maryland Demographics. 2020. Maryland Counties by Population. Retrieved from: https://www.maryland-demographics.com/counties_by_population

Maryland Department of Commerce. 2016. FY 2016 Economic Impact Analysis of Maryland’s Military Installations. Accessed 12 April 2020.

Maryland Department of Commerce. 2019. Brief Economic Facts – Prince George’s County, Maryland. Accessed 12 April 2020.

Maryland Department of Transportation. 2018. Traffic Volume Map, 2018, Annual Average Daily

Traffic, Prince George’s County. Transmitted to Wood via the Internet (https://www.roads.maryland.gov/Traffic_Volume_Maps/Traffic _Volume Maps.pdf). 7 April 2020.

Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. 2020. Westphalia Sector Plan

Overview. Retrieved from: https://www.mncppc.org/648/Westphalia-Sector-Plan-Overview on 12 April 2020.

The Balance. 2019. Income Per Capita, with Calculations, Statistics, and Trends. Retrieved from:

https://www.thebalance.com/income-per-capita-calculation-and-u-s-statistics-3305852 on 12 April 2020

The City Lab. 2018. Vacancy: America’s Other Housing Crisis. Retrieved from:

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/07/vacancy-americas-other-housing-crisis/565901

Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC). UFC 4-010-01, DoD Minimum Anti-Terrorism Standards for Buildings.

US Air Force (USAF). 1992. Air Force Procedure for Predicting Noise around Airbases: Noise

Exposure Model (NOISEMAP) Technical Report.

USAF. 1994. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 31-101, Physical Security Program.

USAF. 2003a. SELCalc2 Flyover Noise Calculator. U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright- Patterson Air Force Base. May.

USAF. 2003b. 2003 Air Conformity Applicability Model (ACAM) Technical Documentation

Appendix C.

USAF. 2009. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7062, Air Force Comprehensive Planning Program.

USAF. 2010. Andrews Air Force Base Travel Demand Management Plan. November.

USAF. 2012. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 13-201, Airspace Management.

2

http://www.jba.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/336878/andrews-fire-emergency-

http://www.maryland-demographics.com/counties_by_population

http://www.roads.maryland.gov/Traffic_Volume_Maps/Traffic

http://www.mncppc.org/648/Westphalia-Sector-Plan-Overview

http://www.thebalance.com/income-per-capita-calculation-and-u-s-statistics-3305852

http://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/07/vacancy-americas-other-housing-crisis/565901


Page 8-

USAF. 2015. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7063. Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Program.

USAF. 2016. Joint Base Andrews Installation Development Plan. Prepared by Michael Baker International.

USAF. 2017. Air Force Manual (AFMAN) 91-201, Explosives Safety Standards.

USAF. 2018. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, Joint Base Andrews – Naval Air

Facility Washington.

USAF. 2020a. H-1 Flight Mishap History, Fiscal Year 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Aviation/Aircraft%20Statistics/H-1.pdf on 20 April 2020.

USAF. 2020b. H-60 Flight Mishap History, Fiscal Year 2019. Retrieved from:

https://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Aviation/Aircraft%20Statistics/H-60.pdf on 20 April 2020.

USAF 2020c. Personal communication with Austin Naranjo (Air Quality Subject Matter Expert

[SME] regarding the approach to analyzing potential air quality impact using ACAM when profiles do not exist for aircraft involved in the Proposed Action.

US Census Bureau. 2019. Quick Facts. Retrieved from:

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/princegeorgescountymaryland#

US Coast Guard (USCG). Annual Safety Report, Fiscal Year 2015. Health Safety & Work-Life Service Center, Safety, and Environmental Health Division. Aviation Safety Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Portals/10/CG- 1/cg113/docs/pdf/Annual_Safety_Report_FY15.pdf?ver=2017-02-23-152407-600

USCG. 2019. Site Survey Report for the Beddown of United State Coast Guard Helicopter Aerial

Intercept Wing at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. 20 June.

US Department of Statistics. 2020. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Accessed 12 April 2020.

3

http://www.safety.af.mil/Portals/71/documents/Aviation/Aircraft%20Statistics/H-1.pdf



http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/princegeorgescountymaryland

http://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Portals/10/CG-

Appendix A Intergovernmental Review and Public Noticing

Introduction

Appendix A contains agency coordination and consultation correspondence pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. Additionally, this appendix includes correspondence with the Maryland State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as well as correspondence with the Maryland Department of the Environment regarding Federal Consistency with the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP).

Table of Contents Notice of Availability .............................................................................................................. A-1

Intergovernmental Review Letter .......................................................................................... A-2

SHPO Consultation Letter ..................................................................................................... A-5

Coastal Consistency Negative Determination ...................................................................... A-7

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE

PROPOSED BEDDOWN AND OPERATION OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD HELICOPTER AIR INTERCEPT WING AT HANGAR 14, JOINT BASE ANDREWS, MARYLAND

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has completed a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for a proposal to beddown and operate the USCG Helicopter Air Intercept Wing (HAIW) at Hangar 14, Joint Base Andrews (JBA), Maryland in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S. Code §§4221 et seq.) and the regulations of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508). Further, because the USCG would be a tenant of the U.S. Air Force (USAF) at JBA, the EA has been prepared in accordance with USAF Environmental Impact Assessment Process Regulations codified at 32 CFR Part 989, and Air Force Instruction 32-7061 as promulgated in 32 CFR Part 989, Environmental Impact Analysis Process. The USCG proposes to relocate and beddown the existing HAIW from USCG Air Station Atlantic City to Hangar 14 at JBA including 8 MH-65D Dolphin aircraft along with associated personnel and Mission Support Facility while retaining the existing Alert Hangar located at Ronal Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). Beddown and operation of the HAIW at JBA would include conducting operations in support of the USCG’s rotary-wing air intercept mission within the National Capital Region originating from the existing Alert Hangar at DCA and ongoing pilot proficiency training and aircraft maintenance and mission administration originating from Hangar 14 at JBA. The proposed beddown and operation of the HAIW at JBA would reduce transit times for aircrews moving between the existing Mission Support Facility at USCG Air Station Atlantic City and Alert Hangar at DCA, a distance of 184 miles compared to the 10 mile separation of JBA and DCA. Further, beddown and operation of the USCG HAIW at JBA would allow the unit to achieve Full Operational Capacity thereby allowing the unit to complete its mission without drawing personnel and aircraft from other USCG air stations from more distant locations such as Savannah, Detroit, and New Orleans. This Draft EA serves as a concise public document that provides evidence and analysis for determining whether a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate or whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary. The EA presents the purpose and need for the action, a description of the proposed action and alternatives, a description of the affected environment, and an analysis of environmental consequences. The EA also documents cumulative impacts from projects in the vicinity that are proposed, under construction, recently completed, or anticipated to be implemented in the near future. No significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Draft EA. This notice announces the availability of the Draft EA for public review online at www.andrews.af.mil. Individuals may request a copy of the Draft EA from, or may provide comments to Mr. Ryan Soens, 316 CES/CEIE, at 3466 North Carolina Avenue, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762 or via electronic mail at [email protected]. Comments must be received no later than Wednesday, January 20, 2021.

CZMA Consistency Determination for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW USCG Project #05-2604207 Task Order 70Z08320FPAC07200

Page 1

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Consistency Determination

This document provides Maryland with a Consistency Determination under CZMA Section 307(c)(1) and

(2) and 15 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 930, Subpart C, for the proposed beddown and

operation of the US Coast Guard (USCG) Helicopter Aerial Intercept Wing (HAIW) at Joint Base Andrews-

Naval Air Facility Washington (JBA). The information in this Consistency Determination is provided

pursuant to 15 CFR §930.39.

This Consistency Determination represents an analysis of the Proposed Action considering established

Maryland Coastal Resources Management (CRM) Program Enforceable Policies and Programs. Submittal

of this Consistency Determination reflects JBA’s commitment to comply, to the maximum extent

practicable, with those Enforceable Policies and Programs. JBA has determined that the effects of the

Proposed Action would be less than significant on land and water uses and natural resources of Maryland’s

Coastal Zone and is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the

CRM.

PROPOSED ACTION DESCRIPTION

Project Location

JBA is located approximately 4.5 miles

southeast of Washington, DC, in southern

Prince George’s County, Maryland, and

occupies 6.9 square miles of land. The site for

the Proposed Action is Hangar 14, located on

the eastern side of the base’s airfield.

Project Description

The Proposed Action comprises the beddown

and operation of the USCG HAIW and aircraft

operation and pilot proficiency training in the

established regional airspace system along

Hangar 14 is located on the eastern airfield of JBA. The hangar would provide office space and support and

maintenance facilities for MH-65D Dolphin Helicopters in support of the NCRADF RWAI mission.

A-7

CZMA Consistency Determination for Proposed Beddown and Operation for USCG HAIW


Page 2

with relocation of the HAIW Mission Support Facility (MSF) to JBA. Implementation of the Proposed Action

would ensure on-demand Rotary Wing Air Intercept (RWAI) capability for presidential protection missions

and national security events within the National Capital Region (NCR).

Public Participation

A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) has been published, announcing

the availability of the Draft EA for public and agency review, and an electronic copy of the EA has been

made available on JBA’s website.

Other Consultations

Per the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800), findings

of effect and request for concurrence were transmitted to the Maryland Historic Trust (MHT). JBA also

initiated consultation with other regulatory agencies via distribution of an Intergovernmental Review

Letter.

SITE LOCATION Site Location Map

The location of the Proposed Action is shown in Figure 1-2 of the EA.

BASIS OF DETERMINATION

The Proposed Action in the EA would be fully consistent with Maryland’s Enforceable Coastal Policies,

which are implemented by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). The Proposed Action

would be implemented in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies governing erosion

and sediment control and stormwater management, which would ensure that the actions would be

undertaken in a manner consistent with the applicable Maryland Coastal Program enforceable policies.

No adverse or beneficial effects on Maryland’s coastal resources would be expected from implementing

the Proposed Action in the EA.

Maryland’s Enforceable Coastal Policies are divided into three general sections: general policies, coastal

resources, and coastal uses. The general policies are further divided into core, water quality, and flood

hazards policies. Consistency of the Proposed Action in the EA with each of the applicable enforceable

policies is summarized below.

A-8



Page 3

GENERAL POLICIES

Core Policies

Policy: It is State policy to maintain that degree of purity of air resources which will protect the health,

general welfare, and property of the people of the State. MDE (C9) Md. Code Ann., Envir. §§ 2-102 to -103.

As noted in Section 4.3 of the EA, as the host at JBA the U.S. Air Force (USAF) would continue to comply

with all applicable air pollution control regulations when implementing the Proposed Action. Section 4.3

of the EA contains a discussion of the projected air emissions associated with the Proposed Action. There

would be no new construction or expansion of the hangar’s existing footprint, and the HAIW MSF would

result in operational emissions that would be below the de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants – and

of particular importance for ozone (O3) precursors given the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) attainment status in the region. Therefore, air quality impacts associated with the Proposed

Action would be less than significant over the short- and long-term.

The Proposed Action is expected to comply with all air emission requirements and will follow the National

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). If regulated material is found within the work

area such as lead and asbestos, best management practices (BMPs) outlined JBA’s Environmental

Protection Standards for contractors, which includes managing, storing, transporting, and disposing of

hazardous materials and wastes will be followed.

Policy: The environment shall be free from noise which may jeopardize health, general welfare, or property,

or which degrades the quality of life. MDE (C9) COMAR 26.02.03.02.

Section 4.2 of the EA provides a discussion of the noise environment and a discussion of the expected

noise-related impacts associated with the implementation of the Proposed Action in the EA. Noise

associated with the Proposed Action would be virtually non-existent because no new construction would

be required and USCG HAIW operations would be consistent with existing conditions at JBA.

Policy: Soil erosion shall be prevented to preserve natural resources and wildlife; control floods; prevent

impairment of dams and reservoirs; maintain the navigability of rivers and harbors; protect the tax base,

the public lands, and the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the State, and to enhance

their living environment. MDA (C4) Md. Code Ann., Agric. § 8 - 102(d).

Because there is no new construction and would be no ground disturbance associated with the Proposed

Action, this Policy is N/A.

A-9



Page 4

Policy: Controlled hazardous substances may not be stored, treated, dumped, discharged, abandoned, or

otherwise disposed anywhere other than a permitted controlled hazardous substance facility or a facility

that provides an equivalent level of environmental protection. MDE (D4) Md. Code Ann., Envir. § 7 -265(a).

All personnel involved with the implementation the Proposed Action (e.g., maintenance personnel) would

be required to comply with JBA’s Environmental Protection Standards, which includes managing, storing,

transporting, and disposing of hazardous materials and wastes, and taking all necessary precautions to

prevent spills of hazardous materials (including oils and hazardous wastes) in accordance with all

applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

Water Quality

Policy: No one may add, introduce, leak, spill, or emit any liquid, gaseous, solid, or other substance that

will pollute any waters of the State without State authorization. MDE (A5) Md. Code Ann., Envir. §§ 4- 402,

9-101, 9-322.

The EA discusses compliance with laws, regulations, and policies related to the use, storage, and disposal

of hazardous wastes and materials in Section 4.5. All personnel involved with the implementation of the

Proposed Action (e.g., maintenance personnel) would be required use, manage, store, transport, and

dispose of hazardous materials and wastes; and take all necessary precautions to prevent spills of

hazardous materials (including oils and hazardous wastes) in accordance with JBA’s Environmental

Protection Standards and federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

Policy: All waters of the State shall be protected for water contact recreation, fish, and other aquatic life

and wildlife. Shellfish harvesting and recreational trout waters and waters worthy of protection because

of their unspoiled character shall receive additional protection. MDE (A1) COMAR 26.08.02.02.

As described in Section 1.6 of the EA, the Proposed Action would not have the potential to impact water

resources of any kind; therefore, this policy is N/A.

Policy: Before constructing, installing, modifying, extending, or altering an outlet or establishment that

could cause or increase the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the State, the proponent must hold

a discharge permit issued by the Department of the Environment or provide an equivalent level of water

quality protection. MDE (D6) Md. Code Ann., Envir. § 9 -323(a).



A-10



Page 5

Policy: The use of best available technology is required for all permitted discharges into State waters, but

if this is insufficient to comply with the established water quality standards, additional treatment shall be

required and based on waste load allocation. MDE (D4) COMAR 26.08.03.01C.



Flood Hazards

The Flood Hazards Policies are not relevant to the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would not create

additional flooding upstream or downstream and would not have any impact on water quality or other

environmental factors.

COASTAL RESOURCES

Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Are a

The Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area Policies are not relevant to the Proposed Action.

The Proposed Action would not occur in or have the potential to affect a Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal

Bays Critical Area.

Tidal Wetlands


resources of any kind; therefore, Tidal Wetlands Policies are not relevant to the Proposed Action and

these policies are N/A.

Nontidal Wetlands

The Proposed Action would not occur in a nontidal wetland. Further, as described in Section 1.6 of the EA,

the Proposed Action would not have the potential to impact water resources of any kind; therefore,

Nontidal Wetlands Policies are N/A.

A-11


Page 6

Forests

The Forest Conservation Act and its implementing regulations, as approved by NOAA, are enforceable

policies. Generally, before developing an area greater than 40,000 square feet, forested and

environmentally sensitive areas must be identified and preserved whenever possible. If these areas cannot

be preserved, reforestation or other mitigation is required to replace the values associated with them. This

policy does not apply in the Critical Area. DNR (C5) Md. Code Ann., Nat. Res. §§ 5-1601 to -1613; COMAR

08.19.01-.06.

As described in Section 1.6 of the EA, the Proposed Action would take place in a previously developed

area and would not have the potential to impact biological resources of any kind; therefore, this policy is

N/A.

Historic and Archaeological Sites

As described in Section 1.6 of the EA, the Proposed Action would not affect or otherwise involve an

archaeological historic property or an archeological site under State control, and would not have the

potential to impact cultural resources of any kind; therefore, the Historic and Archaeological Sites Policies

are N/A.

Living Aquatic Resources

As described in Section 1.6 of the EA, the Proposed Action would not cause or contribute to an individual

or cumulative effect that degrades aquatic diversity or any living aquatic resources; therefore, this policy

is N/A.

COASTAL USES

Mineral Extraction

The Proposed Action does not require mineral extraction; therefore, the Mineral Extraction Policies are

not relevant to the Proposed Action.

Electrical Ge ne ration and Trans mis s ion

The Proposed Action does not include the development of power plants, transmission lines, or cooling

water intake structures, therefore, the Electrical Generation and Transmission Policies are not relevant to

the Proposed Action.

A-12


Page 7

Tidal Shore Eros ion Control

The Proposed Action would not occur in or near any tidal shores; therefore, Tidal Shore Erosion Control

Policies are not relevant to the Proposed Action.

Oil and Natural Gas Facilities

The Proposed Action does not include any oil or natural gas facilities; therefore, the Oil and Natural Gas

Facilities Policies are not relevant to the Proposed Action.

Dredging and Disposal of Dredged Mate rial

The Proposed Action would not require any dredging; therefore, the Dredging and Disposal of Dredged

Material Policies are not relevant to the Proposed Action.

Navigation

The Proposed Action would not occur in proximity to navigable waters; therefore, the Navigation Policies

are not relevant to the Proposed Action.

Coastal Transportation

The Proposed Action is a non-transportation project; therefore, Coastal Transportation policies are not

relevant.

Agriculture

The Proposed Action would not occur on or near agricultural lands; therefore, the Agriculture Policies are

not relevant to the Proposed Action.

Development

Any development shall be designed to minimize erosion and keep sediment onsite. MDE (C4) COMAR

26.17.01.08.

As described in Section 1.6 of the EA, implementation of the Proposed Action would not involve ground-

disturbing activities that would result in increased erosion potential; therefore, this policy is N/A.

Development must avoid and then minimize the alteration or impairment of tidal and nontidal wetlands;

minimize damage to water quality and natural habitats; minimize the cutting or clearing of trees and other

woody plants; and preserve sites and structures of historical, archeological, and architectural significance

and their appurtenances and environmental settings. MDE/DNR/CAC (D6) Md. Code Ann., Envir. §§ 4-402,

A-13



Page 8

5-907(a), 16-102(b); Md. Code Ann., Nat. Res. §§ 5-1606(c), 8-1801(a); Md. Code Ann., Art. 66B § 8.01(b);

COMAR 26.24.01.01(A).


resources of any kind; therefore, Tidal and Nontidal Wetlands Policies – and other policies related to water

quality and quantity – are not relevant to the Proposed Action.

Any proposed development may only be located where the water supply system, sewerage system, or solid

waste acceptance facility is adequate to serve the proposed construction, taking into account all existing

and approved developments in the service area and any water supply system, sewerage system, or solid

waste acceptance facility described in the application and will not overload any present facility for

conveying, pumping, storing, or treating water, sewage, or solid waste. MDE (C9) Md. Code Ann., Envir. §

9-512.

There are no new facilities associated with the Proposed Action, and any new utilities (or extensions of

existing utility systems) would be water and energy efficient and would not overload any present facility

used for conveying, pumping, storing, or treating water, sewage, or solid waste.

Local citizens shall be active partners in planning and implementation of development. MDP (D6) Md. Code

Ann., St. Fin. & Proc. §§ 5-7A-01 to -02.

Public participation opportunities with respect to the EA and decision making on the Proposed Action are

guided by 32 CFR Part 989. The EA and FONSI will be made available to the public for review and comment

for 30 days.

Sewage Treatment

The Proposed Action does not require special water treatment; therefore, the Sewage Treatment Policies

are not relevant to the Proposed Action.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based upon the following information, data, and analysis, JBA finds that the proposed operation and

construction of the USCG HAIW MSF at Hangar 14 is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with

the enforceable policies of the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program. The table below

summarizes how the Proposed Action would affect each of the enforceable policies outlined within the

CZMA Consistency Determination.

A-14



Page 9

Enforceable Policy Consistent to the Maximum

Extent Practicable? Core Policies Yes

Water Quality N/A Flood Hazards N/A Critical Areas N/A

Tidal Wetlands N/A Nontidal Wetlands N/A

Forests N/A Historic and Archaeological Sites Policies N/A

Living Aquatic Resources N/A Mineral Extraction N/A

Electrical Generation and Transmission N/A Tidal Shore Erosion Control N/A

Oil and Natural Gas Facilities N/A Dredging and Disposal of Dredged Materia l N/A

Navigation N/A Transportation N/A

Agriculture N/A Development N/A

Sewage Treatment N/A

Pursuant to 15 CFR §930.41, the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program has 60 days from the

receipt of this letter in which to concur with or object to this Consistency Determination, or to request an

extension under 15 CFR §930.41(b). Maryland’s concurrence will be presumed if its response is not

received by JBA on the 60th day from receipt of this determination. The State’s response should be sent

to:

Mr. Ryan A. Soens

Environmental Engineer

316 CES/CEIE

3466 North Carolina Avenue

Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762

A-15

Appendix B Native American Consultation

Introduction

Appendix B contains the includes correspondence with federally recognized Native American tribes regarding the proposed beddown of a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Helicopter Aerial Intercept Wing (HAIW) at Joint Base Andrew’s (JBA’s) Hangar 14.

Table of Contents Native American Consultation Letters ................................................................................... B-1

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 316TH WING (AFDW)

JOINT BASE ANDREWS, MARYLAND 20762

Lt Col Stewart Rountree, USAF

Installation Tribal Liaison Officer

1500 West Perimeter Road

Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762-4803

,

Delaware Nation

P.O. Box 825

Anadarko Oklahoma 73005

Dear M ,

I hope my correspondence finds you and your tribal members well. The Delaware Nation

was identified as a federally recognized Native American tribe that might have a connection to

the area of Joint Base Andrews (JBA) and has potential interest in the undertakings that are

proposed on base. It is our understanding that you will review the Area of Potential Effect and

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 evaluation to help determine if the area

might have cultural significance or possible remains.

With this in mind, I have enclosed information on the proposed undertaking: the

beddown of a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Helicopter Aerial Intercept Wing (HAIW) at JBA’s

Hangar 14, including 8 MH-65D Dolphin aircraft. Importantly, the physical changes at the base

necessary to support the proposed bed down are limited to interior renovations of an existing

hangar (i.e., there would be no expansion of facilities or changes to the hangar’s footprint). This

hangar is currently in use by Marine Transport Squadron Andrews (VMR Andrews) and the

113th Fighter Wing (113 FW). This area has been repeatedly disturbed during initial

development of Hangar 14 and subsequent site improvements. As such, the focus of this

consultation is the introduction of new maintenance and operational activities associated with the

USCG HAIW, including closed Visual Flight Rule (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)

patterns at JBA and aircraft intercept training at JBA and surrounding airspace in the Washington

D.C. region. Operations associated with the Proposed Action would be similar to existing UH-

N1 and MH-139 operations at JBA and would have a negligible impact on the ambient noise

environment. Regardless of the comparatively benign nature of the Proposed Action, we want to

ensure the Delaware Nation has an opportunity to engage in consultation with the U.S. Air Force

(USAF) on this proposed undertaking.

We request a response as to whether the Delaware Nation would like to engage in

consultation regarding the USCG’s HAIW so that we may have documentation for our records,

and to help facilitate a way forward. Please be assured that regardless of the Delaware Nation’s

decision regarding consultation on the HAIW, the USAF will fully comply with all applicable

laws and regulations in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological or funerary

objects and/or human remains.

America’s Airmen B-1

2

The USAF is dedicated to fulfilling its legal and regulatory obligations to engage in

government-to-government consultation with the Delaware Nation. We will continue to provide

project-specific information and requests for future assistance identifying any historic properties

of religious and cultural significance related to construction projects or addressing remains which

may be encountered during construction. Please provide a response within 30 days from the date

of this letter to Mr. Ryan Soens, 316 CES/CEIE, 3466 North Carolina Avenue, Joint Base

Andrews, Maryland 20762 or via e-mail to [email protected]. If no response is received

from the Delaware Nation within 30 days of this letter, it will be taken as agreement with this

action. If you need further information, please contact Mr. Soens at (202) 409-8231.

I look forward to having future correspondence with you to enhance the relationship

between the base and the Delaware Nation. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

STEWART L. ROUNTREE, Lt Col, USAF

Deputy Commander, 316th Mission Support Group

Enclosures:

ROUNTREE.STEWART.L.1246726724

Digitally signed by ROUNTREE.STEWART.L.1246726724 Date: 2020.11.10 10:13:30 -05'00'

B-2







Mr. Chester L. Brooks, Chief

Delaware Tribe of Indians

5100 Tuxedo Boulevard

Bartlesville Oklahoma 74006-2838

Dear Mr. Brooks,

I hope my correspondence finds you and your tribal members well. The Delaware Tribe

of Indians was identified as a federally recognized Native American tribe that might have a

connection to the area of Joint Base Andrews (JBA) and has potential interest in the undertakings

that are proposed on base. It is our understanding that you will review the Area of Potential

Effect and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 evaluation to help determine

if the area might have cultural significance or possible remains.




necessary to support the proposed bed down are limited to interior renovations of an existing











ensure the Delaware Tribe of Indians ha an opportunity to engage in consultation with the U.S.

Air Force (USAF) on this proposed undertaking.

We request a response as to whether the Delaware Tribe of Indians would like to engage

in consultation regarding the USCG’s HAIW so that we may have documentation for our

records, and to help facilitate a way forward. Please be assured that regardless of the Delaware

Tribe of Indians’ decision regarding consultation on the HAIW, the USAF will fully comply

with all applicable laws and regulations in the event of an inadvertent discovery of

archaeological or funerary objects and/or human remains.


2


government-to-government consultation with the Delaware Tribe of Indians. We will continue to

provide project-specific information and requests for future assistance identifying any historic

properties of religious and cultural significance related to construction projects or addressing

remains which may be encountered during construction. Please provide a response within 30

days from the date of this letter to Mr. Ryan Soens, 316 CES/CEIE, 3466 North Carolina

Avenue, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762 or via e-mail to [email protected]. If no

response is received from the Delaware Tribe of Indians within 30 days of this letter, it will be

taken as agreement with this action. If you need further information, please contact Mr. Soens at

(202) 409-8231.


between the base and the Delaware Tribe of Indians. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,



Enclosures:



B-4







Mr. Ray Halbritter

Oneida Indian Nation

New York 13421

Dear Mr. Halbritter,

I hope my correspondence finds you and your tribal members well. The Oneida Indian

Nation was identified as a federally recognized Native American tribe that might have a

connection to the area of Joint Base Andrews (JBA) and has potential interest in the undertakings

that are proposed on base. It is our understanding that you will review the Area of Potential

Effect and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 evaluation to help determine

if the area might have cultural significance or possible remains.




necessary to support the proposed beddown are limited to interior renovations of an existing











ensure the Oneida Indian Nation has an opportunity to engage in consultation with the U.S. Air

Force (USAF) on this proposed undertaking.

We request a response as to whether the Oneida Indian Nation would like to engage in

consultation regarding the USCG’s HAIW so that we may have documentation for our records,

and to help facilitate a way forward. Please be assured that regardless of the Oneida Indian

Nation’s decision regarding consultation on the HAIW, the USAF will fully comply with all

applicable laws and regulations in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological or

funerary objects and/or human remains.


2


government-to-government consultation with the Oneida Indian Nation. We will continue to

provide project-specific information and requests for future assistance identifying any historic

properties of religious and cultural significance related to construction projects or addressing

remains which may be encountered during construction. Please provide a response within 30

days from the date of this letter to Mr. Ryan Soens, 316 CES/CEIE, 3466 North Carolina

Avenue, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762 or via e-mail to [email protected]. If no

response is received from Oneida Indian Nation within 30 days of this letter, it will be taken as

agreement with this action. If you need further information, please contact Mr. Soens at (202)

409-8231.


between the base and the Oneida Indian Nation. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,



Enclosures:



B-6







M , Chair

Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin

P.O. Box 365

Oneida Wisconsin 54115-0365

Dear M ,

I hope my correspondence finds you and your tribal members well. The Oneida Tribe of

Indians of Wisconsin was identified as a federally recognized Native American tribe that might

have a connection to the area of Joint Base Andrews (JBA) and has potential interest in the

undertakings that are proposed on base. It is our understanding that you will review the Area of

Potential Effect and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 evaluation to help

determine if the area might have cultural significance or possible remains.




necessary to support the proposed beddown are limited to interior renovations of an existing











ensure the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin has an opportunity to engage in consultation

with the U.S. Air Force (USAF) on this proposed undertaking.

We request a response as to whether the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin would like

to engage in consultation regarding the USCG’s HAIW so that we may have documentation for

our records, and to help facilitate a way forward. Please be assured that regardless of the Oneida

Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin’s decision regarding consultation on the HAIW, the USAF will

fully comply with all applicable laws and regulations in the event of an inadvertent discovery of

archaeological or funerary objects and/or human remains.


2


government-to-government consultation with the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin. We will

continue to provide project-specific information and requests for future assistance identifying

any historic properties of religious and cultural significance related to construction projects or

addressing remains which may be encountered during construction. Please provide a response

within 30 days from the date of this letter to Mr. Ryan Soens, 316 CES/CEIE, 3466 North

Carolina Avenue, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland 20762 or via e-mail to [email protected].

If no response is received from the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin within 30 days of this

letter, it will be taken as agreement with this action. If you need further information, please

contact Mr. Soens at (202) 409-8231.


between the base and the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,



Enclosures:



B-8

America’s Airmen

Enclosure 1: Location of Joint Base Andrews

B-9

America’s Airmen

Enclosure 2: Proposed Project Location on JBA

B-10

Appendix C Air Quality Modeling

Introduction

Appendix C contains the air quality modeling for the proposed beddown of a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Helicopter Aerial Intercept Wing (HAIW) at Joint Base Andrew’s (JBA’s) Hangar 14.

Air emissions associated with U.S. Air Force (USAF) aircraft operations are generally estimated using the USAF Air Conformity Applicability Model (ACAM) in accordance with the Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7040, Clean Air Act Section 176(c), Air Quality Compliance and Resource Management; the Environmental Impact Analysis Process (32 CFR Part 989); and the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93 Subpart B). Helicopters are not included in ACAM because helicopters do not have “typical” flight profiles. Therefore, operational air emissions for the proposed MH-65D operations were calculated using the 2018 Air Emissions Guide for Air Force Mobile Sources (Air Force Civil Engineer Center [AFCEC] 2018). Applying guidance received from AFCEC subject matter experts, Equations 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 within the ACAM were used to calculate the projected air emissions resulting from the Proposed Action (AFCEC 2020c). The emissions modeling conservatively assumes that training flights would occur 365 days per year. Standard Time in Mode (TIM) durations were used based on the 2003 ACAM Technical Documentation Appendix C (USAF 2003b).

Table of Contents Air Quality Modeling Calculations ......................................................................................... C-1

E(Pol)Mode lb/yrNO x SO x CO VOC PM 10 PM 2.5 CO2e TIM min/flight2.3 1.07 54 41.31 0.12 0.11 3214.59 NFlights flight/yr

N FFR NFlights TIM 60 min/hr2 127 3650 8 FFR lb/hr

1000 lb/103 lb

EF(Pol) lb/103 lbN 1/1

2000 2000lbs/ton

NO x 0.077893SO x 0.036237CO 1.8288VOC 1.399032PM 10 0.004064PM 2.5 0.003725CO2e 108.8674

Notes: Assumed standard TIMs for helicopters based on the 2003 ACAM Technical Document

Engine ‐ Turbomeca Arriel 2C2‐CG

Helicopter: MH‐65D

Variable Abbreviations

E(Pol) Mode

Number of flights within airspace

Total Annual Emissions (pollutant)

Minutes to hours conversionFuel flow rate per engine

Pounds to 103 pounds conversion

Pollutant emission factor

Time in mode (flight idle)

lbs to tons conversion

lb/cycle

For 1 Helicopter

Number of engines aircraftE(Pol)Mode = (TIM/60) X (FFR/1000) X EF(Pol) X (FERF[Pol]/100) X N Equation 2‐1, AF Mobile Emissions Guide Sept 2017

Emission Factors ‐Flight Idle (lb/1000lb fuel)

C-1

E(Pol)Mode lb/yrNO x SO x CO VOC PM 10 PM 2.5 CO2e TIM min/flight6 1.07 8.3 6.65 0.18 0.17 3214.59 NFlights flight/yr

N FFR NFlights TIM 60 min/hr2 267 3650 6.8 FFR lb/hr

1000 lb/103 lb


2000 2000lbs/ton



E(Pol)Mode = (TIM/60) X (FFR/1000) X EF(Pol) X (FERF[Pol]/100) X N Number of engines aircraft

For 1 Helicopterlbs to tons conversion

E(Pol) Mode

lb/cycle

Number of flights within airspaceMinutes to hours conversionFuel flow rate per engine


Equation 2‐1, AF Mobile Emissions Guide Sept 2017 Pollutant emission factor





Emission Factors ‐Flight Idle (lb/1000lb fuel) Total Annual Emissions (pollutant)

C-2

E(Pol)Mode lb/yrNO x SO x CO VOC PM 10 PM 2.5 CO2e TIM min/flight9 1.07 3.7 3.06 0.25 0.23 3214.59 NFlights flight/yr

N FFR NFlights TIM 60 min/hr2 430 3650 6.8 FFR lb/hr

1000 lb/103 lb


2000 2000lbs/ton



E(Pol)Mode = (TIM/60) X (FFR/1000) X EF(Pol) X (FERF[Pol]/100) X N Number of engines aircraft

For 1 Helicopterlbs to tons conversion

E(Pol) Mode

lb/cycle

Number of flights within airspaceMinutes to hours conversionFuel flow rate per engine


Equation 2‐1, AF Mobile Emissions Guide Sept 2017 Pollutant emission factor





Emission Factors ‐Flight Idle (lb/1000lb fuel) Total Annual Emissions (pollutant)

C-3

Equation 2‐2

NO x 0.078 0.363 0.877 1.318SO x 0.036 0.065 0.104 0.205CO 1.829 0.502 0.361 2.692VOC 1.399 0.402 0.298 2.100PM 10 0.004 0.011 0.024 0.039PM 2.5 0.004 0.010 0.022 0.036CO2e 108.867 194.547 313.315 616.730

Equation 2‐3

NO x 1.318 3650 4,811.479 2.406 100 NoSO x 0.205 3650 749.283 0.375 100 NoCO 2.692 3650 9,824.861 4.912 100 NoVOC 2.100 3650 7,664.044 3.832 100 NoPM 10 0.039 3650 143.534 0.072 100 NoPM 2.5 0.036 3650 132.973 0.066 100 NoCO2e 616.730 3650 2,251,063.795 1,125.532 N/A No

Notes: Assuming 10 cycles per day (consistent with Base‐provided materials) and 365 days per year for a conservative analysis

de minimis Thresholds (tons/year)

Significant Impact?

E(Pol) Mode

Ground Idle (lb/cycle)

Approach (lb/cycle)

Take‐off (lb/cycle)Total E(Pol)LTO

(lb/cycle)

E(Pol) Mode

E(Pol)LTO(lb/cycle)

NCLTO (cycles/year) E(Pol)LTO (lb/year)E(Pol)LTO

(tons/year)

C-4

draft environmental assessment for beddown and …

Documents