DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. for Construction and Operation of a Work Facilities Complex at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland

Transcription

1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for Construction and Operation of a Work Facilities Complex at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland February 2018

2 This page intentionally left blank.

3 Designation: Title of Proposed Action: Project Location: Lead Agency for the EA: Affected Region: Action Proponent: Point of Contact: Abstract Environmental Assessment Construction and Operation of a Work Facilities Complex Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland Department of the Navy St. Mary s County, Maryland Date: February 2018 Naval Air Station Patuxent River Jennifer Steele Naval Facilities Engineering Comment (NAVFAC) Washington 1314 Harwood Street SE Washington, DC address: navfacwashnepa@navy.mil The Department of the Navy has prepared this Environmental Assessment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations and Navy regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Naval Air Station Patuxent River is proposing to develop a consolidated administrative and mission-support complex for the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD). The complex will include multiple administrative and mission-support buildings, as required by NAWCAD, with the intent of establishing a consolidated location to meet current and future needs. This Environmental Assessment evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with two action alternatives and the No Action Alternative on a full range of resource areas, including a more detailed analysis of the following resources: air quality, water resources, geological resources, cultural resources, biological resources, infrastructure, and hazardous materials and wastes. Abstract-i Abstract

4 This page intentionally left blank. Abstract-ii Abstract

5 ES.1 Proposed Action Executive Summary Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River proposes to develop a consolidated administrative and missionsupport complex for the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. This complex (i.e., the Work Facilities Complex) would include five administrative and mission-support buildings and associated infrastructure, as required by NAWCAD, with the intent of establishing a consolidated location for current and future needs. The complex would be constructed in phases. The buildings would each be approximately 18,000 square feet. There would be a total of 600 parking spaces, including approximately 25 handicap-accessible spaces. Concrete sidewalks would be constructed from the parking spaces to the building. Approximately 576 people would work at the proposed Work Facilities Complex. Approximately 120 of these would be new personnel expected to transfer to NAS Patuxent River from outside the installation. The remainder would be transferred from numerous facilities at NAS Patuxent River. ES.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of the Proposed Action is to address land-use incompatibilities, aging and inadequate infrastructure, and lack of facility space at NAS Patuxent River. Currently, some personnel who work in similar programs, such as the NAWCAD program, are scattered throughout the installation, making collaboration more difficult. The Proposed Action would address land-use incompatibilities by consolidating administrative and mission-support functions for NAWCAD programs. Concentrating airfield operations and Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) functions within the mission-control portion of the operating site would enable NAS Patuxent River to fulfill mission requirements in an efficient and secure environment. Many of the buildings at NAS Patuxent River were built during World War II and are deteriorating. Many of these structures have steam heat, which, over the years, has led to steam leaks. These leaks have softened the wood floor, often resulting in termites, mold, and, eventually, a weakened floor. In some structures, the floor deterioration was so severe that the buildings became uninhabitable. The Proposed Action would address aging and inadequate infrastructure by constructing modern, efficient buildings that have enough space for the current and future needs of NAWCAD programs. The lack of space at the installation has resulted in some personnel working in temporary trailers, which are now 15 years old. Under the Proposed Action, these personnel would move out of the trailers and into permanent buildings. The Proposed Action is needed to address some of the infrastructure inefficiencies at NAS Patuxent River that hamper mission performance. The Proposed Action is also needed to provide capabilities for training and equipping combat-capable naval forces to deploy worldwide. In this regard, the Proposed Action furthers the Navy s execution of its congressionally mandated roles and responsibilities under 10 United States Code section Increasing efficiency at NAS Patuxent River directly affects both mission performance and operating requirements. ES-1 Executive Summary

6 ES.3 Alternatives Considered Alternatives were developed for analysis based upon the following reasonable alternative screening factors: Site must have a minimum of nine acres available for development of buildings, pavement, and stormwater management facilities. Site must be free of developmental constraints, which include airfield operations, weapons storage and operations, and restricted areas. Buildings should be located adjacent to facilities with similar functions (i.e., RDT&E) to increase efficiency. The Navy is considering two action alternatives that meet the purpose of, and need for, the Proposed Action and a No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not implement the Proposed Action. Personnel would continue to work in outdated buildings and trailers. Under the Peary Road Alternative (the Preferred Alternative), the Navy would implement the Proposed Action at the Peary Road site. The buildings would be set close to Peary Road, and vehicular access would be provided via two entrances off Peary Road. Communications service would be provided from Building 534 (east of the project site), electrical and sanitary utilities would be connected to an existing line south of Peary Road, and waterlines would be connected to an existing watermain along the northern side of Peary Road. Under the Shaw Road Alternative (Alternative 2), the Navy would implement the Proposed Action at the Shaw Road site. The buildings would be set close to Shaw Road, and vehicular access would be provided via three entrances. Communications and utility lines would be connected to existing infrastructure adjacent to Shaw Road. ES.4 Summary of Environmental Resources Evaluated in the Environmental Assessment Council on Environmental Quality regulations, the National Environmental Policy Act, and Navy instructions for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act specify that an Environmental Assessment (EA) should address those resource areas potentially subject to impacts. In addition, the level of analysis should be commensurate with the anticipated level of environmental impact. Important existing resources that were analyzed in the EA include biological resources since the alternative sites include forests, and water resources given that wetlands are either adjacent to or within the alternative sites. The project site is adjacent to Maryland s coastal zone; therefore, a federal Coastal Consistency Determination will be submitted to the Maryland Department of the Environment. The following resource areas have been addressed in this EA: air quality, water resources, geological resources, cultural resources, biological resources, infrastructure, and hazardous materials and wastes. Because potential impacts were considered to be negligible or nonexistent, the following resources were not evaluated in detail in this EA: land use, visual resources, airspace, noise, transportation, public health and safety, socioeconomics, and environmental justice. ES-2 Executive Summary

7 ES.5 Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives Table ES-1 provides a tabular summary of the potential impacts on the resources associated with each of the alternative actions analyzed. ES.6 Public Involvement The Navy has prepared a Draft EA to inform the public of the Proposed Action and to allow the opportunity for public review and comment. The review period began with a Notice of Availability published in The Enterprise on February 21, The Draft EA is available for review on a Navy website ( until March 23, The Navy has consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office and received concurrence that the Proposed Action would have no adverse effect on historic properties on January 2, In addition, a federal Coastal Consistency Determination will be prepared and submitted to the Maryland Department of the Environment. The Navy will also coordinate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Maryland Department of Planning as the State Clearinghouse, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, St. Mary s County Department of Land Use and Growth Management, and the St. Mary s County Commissioner. ES-3 Executive Summary

8 Table ES-1 Summary of Potential Impacts on Resource Areas Resource Area No Action Alternative Peary Road Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Air Quality No change in baseline condition. No Short-term, minor increases in emissions significant impacts. during construction, and long-term, minor increases from 120 additional personnel. No significant impacts. Water Resources Geological Resources Cultural Resources Biological Resources Infrastructure Hazardous Materials and Wastes No change in baseline condition. No significant impacts. No change in baseline condition. No significant impacts. No planned change in baseline condition. No significant impacts. No change in baseline condition. No significant impacts. Minor, long-term impacts from continued degradation of facilities. No significant impacts. No change in baseline condition. No significant impacts. Short- and long-term, minor, adverse impacts from construction and an increase in impervious surfaces. No significant impacts. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts from construction activities. No significant impacts. No adverse effects on archaeological resources or aboveground resources. No significant impacts. Minor, adverse impacts from construction activities and the permanent loss of vegetation and habitat. No significant impacts. Long-term, beneficial impacts from upgrading and improving utilities and facilities. Minor increase in demand on utilities from new personnel. No significant impacts. Hazardous materials and wastes would be handled in accordance with regulations. No significant impacts. Shaw Road Alternative (Alternative 2) Short-term, minor increases in emissions during construction, and long-term, minor increases from 120 additional personnel. No significant impacts. Moderate, adverse impacts from direct impacts on wetlands. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts from construction activities. No significant impacts. No adverse effects on archaeological resources or aboveground resources. No significant impacts. Minor, adverse impacts from construction activities and the permanent loss of vegetation and habitat. No significant impacts. Long-term, beneficial impacts from upgrading and improving utilities and facilities. Minor increase in demand on utilities from new personnel. No significant impacts. Hazardous materials and wastes would be handled in accordance with regulations. No significant impacts. ES-4 Executive Summary

9 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for Construction and Operation of a Work Facilities Complex Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ES-1 ES.1 Proposed Action... ES-1 ES.2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action... ES-1 ES.3 Alternatives Considered... ES-2 ES.4 Summary of Environmental Resources Evaluated in the Environmental Assessment... ES-2 ES.5 Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives... ES-3 ES.6 Public Involvement... ES-3 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS... V 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION Introduction Background Location Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action Scope of Environmental Analysis Relevant Laws and Regulations Public and Agency Participation and Intergovernmental Coordination PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Proposed Action Screening Factors Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis No Action Alternative Peary Road Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Shaw Road Alternative (Alternative 2) Alternatives Considered but not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis Building Renovation Facilities Dispersed across Installation Lease Off-Installation Facilities Best Management Practices Included in the Proposed Action i Table of Contents

10 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Air Quality Regulatory Setting Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Water Resources Regulatory Setting Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Geological Resources Regulatory Setting Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Cultural Resources Regulatory Setting Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Biological Resources Regulatory Setting Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Infrastructure Regulatory Setting Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Hazardous Materials and Wastes Regulatory Setting Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Summary of Potential Impacts on Resources CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Definition of Cumulative Impacts Scope of Cumulative Impacts Analysis Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Past Actions Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ii Table of Contents

11 4.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis Air Quality Water Resources Geological Resources Cultural Resources Biological Resources Infrastructure Hazardous Materials and Wastes OTHER CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT Consistency with Other Federal, State, and Local Laws, Plans, Policies, and Regulations Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity REFERENCES LIST OF PREPARERS DISTRIBUTION LIST iii Table of Contents

12 List of Figures Figure 1-1 Location Map Figure 2-1 Site Alternatives on Naval Air Station Patuxent River Figure 2-2 Peary Road Alternative Figure 2-3 Shaw Road Alternative Figure 3-1 Floodplains at Naval Air Station Patuxent River Figure 3-2 Wetlands at Peary Road Alternative Site Figure 3-3 Wetlands at Shaw Road Alternative Site Figure 3-4 Soils and Prime Farmland at Peary Road Site Figure 3-5 Soils and Prime Farmland at Shaw Road Site Figure 3-6 Peary Road Site Area of Potential Effect Figure 3-7 Shaw Road Site Area of Potential Effect List of Tables Table 2-1 Best Management Practices Table 3-1 Southern Maryland Intrastate Air Emissions Inventory (2014) Table 3-2 Naval Air Station Patuxent River Air Emissions Inventory Table 3-3 Peary Road Alternative Estimated Construction and Annual Operations Emissions Table 3-4 Threatened and Endangered Species Found or Having the Potential to Be Found at Naval Air Station Patuxent River Table 3-5 Summary of Potential Impacts on Resource Areas Table 4-1 Cumulative Action Evaluation Table 5-1 Principal Federal and State Laws Applicable to the Proposed Action Appendices Appendix A Public and Agency Participation and Intergovernmental Coordination Materials... A-1 Appendix B Air Quality Emissions Calculations... B-1 iv Table of Contents

13 Abbreviations and Acronyms Acronym Definition Acronym Definition ACM asbestos-containing material GHG greenhouse gas APE Area of Potential Effect HAP hazardous air pollutant BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act IRP Installation Restoration Program BMP best management practice LBP lead-based paint CEQ CFR Council on Environmental Quality Code of Federal Regulations MBTA MDE Migratory Bird Treaty Act Maryland Department of the Environment CO CO 2 CO 2e CZMA carbon monoxide carbon dioxide carbon dioxide equivalent Coastal Zone Management Act MIHP MSAT NAAQS Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties Mobile Source Air Toxin National Ambient Air Quality Standards CZMP DERP DoD DPS Coastal Zone Management Program Defense Environmental Restoration Program Department of Defense Distinct Population Segment NAS NAVAIR NAVFAC NAWCAD Naval Air Station Naval Air Systems Command Naval Facilities Engineering Command Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division EA EFH EO Environmental Assessment essential fish habitat Executive Order NEPA NHPA National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act ERP ESA FPPA Environmental Restoration Program Endangered Species Act Farmland Protection Policy Act NO 2 NO x NOAA nitrogen dioxide nitrogen oxide National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration v Abbreviations and Acronyms

14 Acronym Definition Acronym Definition NPDES NRHP National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System National Register of Historic Places SO 2 tpy U.S. sulfur dioxide tons per year United States OPNAV PCB PM 2.5 PM 10 Office of the Chief of Naval Operations polychlorinated biphenyl particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter U.S.C. USACE UCLASS USEPA USFWS United States Code U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service RDT&E Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation VOC volatile organic compound SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer vi Abbreviations and Acronyms

15 1.1 Introduction 1 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River proposes to develop a consolidated administrative and missionsupport complex for the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) at the Main Base of NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. This complex (the Work Facilities Complex) would include five administrative and mission-support buildings and associated infrastructure, as required by NAWCAD, with the intent of establishing a consolidated location for future needs. The action would be constructed in phases. The Navy has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and Navy regulations for implementing NEPA. 1.2 Background NAS Patuxent River was commissioned in 1943 in response to World War II, to consolidate many air testing facilities that were established during pre-world War II years. Currently, NAS Patuxent River is home to NAWCAD and Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) headquarters. Apart from NAWCAD, there are three squadrons at NAS Patuxent River and over 50 tenant organizations. The mission of NAWCAD at NAS Patuxent River is to support NAVAIR in providing the warfighter with absolute combat power through technologies that deliver dominant combat effects and matchless capabilities. NAS Patuxent River also serves as the Navy s principal research, development, test, evaluation, engineering, and fleet support activity for naval aircraft, engines, avionics, aircraft support systems, and ship/shore/air operations. The Work Facilities Complex is part of a larger effort to modernize, reorganize, and consolidate operational support facilities for NAWCAD Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E) programs. Funding for the facilities would be provided by RDT&E or the Navy Working Capital and would utilize the Lab Revitalization Program authority for the revitalization and recapitalization of laboratories (10 United States Code [U.S.C.] section 2805). The Work Facilities Complex would facilitate the required RDT&E operations and support functions at NAS Patuxent River, while integrating the existing station infrastructure systems to the greatest extent possible. 1.3 Location NAS Patuxent River is in Southern Maryland in St. Mary s County, approximately 70 miles southeast of the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). St. Mary s County is on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay and consists of a peninsula surrounded by tidal water on all but the northwestern boundary (see Figure 1-1). NAS Patuxent River occupies a small and broad headland peninsula at the confluence of the Patuxent River and the Chesapeake Bay. The installation is bounded by the Patuxent River to the north, Chesapeake Bay to the east, and the town of Lexington Park to the south and west. The size of the installation is 6,348 acres. 1-1 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

16 Work Facilities Complex DRAFT EA Figure 1-1 February 2018 Location Map 1-2 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

17 1.4 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of the Proposed Action is to address land-use incompatibilities, aging and inadequate infrastructure, and lack of facility space at NAS Patuxent River. Currently, some personnel who work in similar programs, such as the NAWCAD program, are scattered throughout the installation, making collaboration more difficult. The Proposed Action would address land-use incompatibilities by consolidating administrative and missionsupport functions for NAWCAD programs. Concentrating airfield operations and RDT&E functions within the mission-critical portion of the operating site would enable NAS Patuxent River to fulfill mission requirements in an efficient and secure environment. Many of the buildings at NAS Patuxent River were built during World War II and are deteriorating. Many of these structures have steam heat, which, over the years, has led to steam leaks. These leaks have softened the wood floor, often resulting in termites, mold, and, eventually, a weakened floor. In some structures, the floor deterioration was so severe that the buildings became uninhabitable. The Proposed Action would address aging and inadequate infrastructure by constructing modern, efficient buildings that have enough space for the current and future needs of NAWCAD programs. The lack of space at the installation has resulted in some personnel working in temporary trailers, which are now 15 years old. Under the Proposed Action, these personnel would move out of the trailers and into permanent buildings. The Proposed Action is needed to address some of the infrastructure inefficiencies at NAS Patuxent River that hamper mission performance. These inefficiencies are caused by the building deterioration that, in some instances, has led to health and safety hazards and required personnel to work in different facilities. The Proposed Action is also needed to provide capabilities for training and equipping combatcapable naval forces to deploy worldwide. In this regard, the Proposed Action furthers the Navy s execution of its congressionally mandated roles and responsibilities under 10 U.S.C. section Increasing efficiency at NAS Patuxent River directly affects both mission performance and operating requirements. 1.5 Scope of Environmental Analysis 10 U.S.C. section 5062: The Navy shall be organized, trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations at sea. It is responsible for the preparation of naval forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war except as otherwise assigned and, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of the peacetime components of the Navy to meet the needs of war. This EA includes an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. The environmental resource areas analyzed in detail in this EA include air quality, water resources, geological resources, cultural resources, biological resources, infrastructure, and hazardous materials and wastes. The study area for each resource analyzed may differ due to how the Proposed Action interacts with, or affects, the resource. For instance, the study area for geological resources may only include the construction footprint of a building, whereas the study area for air quality could expand outward to include the entire airshed. 1-3 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

18 1.6 Relevant Laws and Regulations The Navy has prepared this EA based upon federal and state laws, statutes, regulations, and policies that are pertinent to the implementation of the Proposed Action, including the following: NEPA (42 U.S.C. sections h), which requires an environmental analysis for major federal actions that have the potential to significantly impact the quality of the human environment CEQ Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts ) Navy regulations for implementing NEPA (32 CFR part 775), which provides Navy policy for implementing CEQ regulations and NEPA Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. section 7401 et seq.) Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. section 1251 et seq.) Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. section 1451 et seq.) National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. section et seq.) Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. section 1531 et seq.) Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (16 U.S.C. section 1801 et seq.) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. section ) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. section d) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. section 9601 et seq.) Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (42 U.S.C. sections ) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. section 136 et seq.) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. section 6901 et seq.) Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. sections ) Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C et seq.) Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Lowincome Populations EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments EO 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade A description of the Proposed Action s consistency with these laws, policies, and regulations is in Chapter Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

19 1.7 Public and Agency Participation and Intergovernmental Coordination The CEQ regulations direct agencies to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures. The Navy has prepared a Draft EA to inform the public of the Proposed Action and to allow the opportunity for public review and comment. The review period began with a Notice of Availability published in The Enterprise on February 21, The Draft EA is available for review on a Navy website ( until March 23, The Navy has consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office and received concurrence that the Proposed Action would have no adverse effect on historic properties on January 2, In addition, a Coastal Consistency Determination will be prepared and submitted to the Maryland Department of the Environment. The Navy will also coordinate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Maryland Department of Planning as the State Clearinghouse, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, St. Mary s County Department of Land Use and Growth Management, and the St. Mary s County Commissioner. All agency correspondence is in Appendix A. 1-5 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

20 This page intentionally left blank. 1-6 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

21 2.1 Proposed Action 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives The Navy proposes to develop a consolidated administrative and mission-support complex for the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD). The complex would include administrative and missionsupport buildings, as required by NAWCAD, with the intent of establishing a consolidated location for current and future needs. The complex would be constructed in phases. The Work Facilities Complex would include five buildings and the associated infrastructure. The pad sites would be a maximum of 130 feet by 100 feet each for two-story structures. The building pads would be graded flat and close to the existing grade. The buildings would each be approximately 18,000 square feet. There would be a total of 600 parking spaces, including approximately 25 handicap-accessible spaces. Concrete sidewalks would be constructed from the parking spaces to the building. Approximately 576 people would work at the proposed Work Facilities Complex. Approximately 120 of these would be new personnel expected to transfer to Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River from outside the installation. The remainder would be transferred from numerous facilities at NAS Patuxent River. 2.2 Screening Factors Regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provide guidance on the consideration of alternatives to a federally proposed action and require rigorous exploration and objective evaluation of reasonable alternatives. Only those alternatives determined to be reasonable that meet the purpose and need require detailed analysis. Potential alternatives that meet the purpose and need were evaluated against the following screening factors: Site must have a minimum of nine acres available for development of buildings, pavement, and stormwater management facilities. Site must be free of developmental constraints, which includes airfield operations, weapons storage and operations, and restricted areas. Buildings should be located adjacent to facilities with similar functions (i.e., Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation [RDT&E]) to increase efficiency. 2.3 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis Based on the reasonable alternative screening factors and meeting the purpose of, and need for, the Proposed Action, two action alternatives were identified (see Figure 2-1) and will be analyzed within this Environmental Assessment (EA), in addition to the No Action Alternative, as further described below No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur. As a result, personnel would continue to work in outdated buildings and trailers. The No Action Alternative would not address landuse incompatibilities, aging and inadequate infrastructure, or lack of facility space; therefore, it would not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. However, as required by NEPA, the No Action Alternative is carried forward for analysis in this EA. It will be used to analyze the consequences of not undertaking the Proposed Action, not simply conclude that no impact would occur, and will serve to establish a comparative baseline for analysis. 2-1 Proposed Action and Alternatives

22 Work Facilities Complex Figure 2-1 DRAFT EA February 2018 Site Alternatives on Naval Air Station Patuxent River 2-2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

23 2.3.2 Peary Road Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Under the Peary Road Alternative (the Preferred Alternative), the Proposed Action would be implemented at the Peary Road site (see Figure 2-2), to include five buildings and the associated infrastructure, as described in Section 2.1. The project site would be approximately 13 acres. The buildings would be set close to Peary Road, and vehicular access would be provided via two entrances off Peary Road. Communications service would be provided from Building 534 (east of the project site), electrical and sanitary utilities would be connected to an existing line south of Peary Road, and waterlines would be connected to an existing watermain along the northern side of Peary Road. Limits of disturbance for utilities across Peary Road are depicted in Figure 2-2. The proposed facilities would house RDT&E personnel working for NAWCAD. The Peary Road location is adjacent to an RDT&E laboratory; therefore, constructing the Work Facilities Complex at this location would help consolidate similar land uses and aid in increasing efficiency at NAS Patuxent River. Personnel would be relocated from the following facilities: approximately 100 people from Buildings 435, 437, 440, 2272, and 506 approximately 155 people from Trailer 3261 approximately 81 people from Trailer 3262 approximately 80 people from Building 1668 approximately 40 people from other buildings scattered across the installation approximately 120 new people Stormwater management facilities would be constructed to control runoff from buildings, parking areas, and sidewalks. This would include facilities to remove contaminants and sedimentation from runoff (i.e., bioswale and micro-bioretention), underdrains, and roof downspouts. All runoff from impervious areas would be treated. Erosion- and sediment-control measures would be provided in accordance with Maryland Department of the Environment standards to prevent silt, dust, and construction debris from leaving the immediate construction site. The erosion and sediment controls likely would consist of perimeter silt-fencing, vegetative stabilization, stabilized construction entrance, and sediment traps Shaw Road Alternative (Alternative 2) Under the Shaw Road Alternative (Alternative 2), the Proposed Action would be implemented at the Shaw Road site (see Figure 2-3), to include five buildings and the associated infrastructure, as described in Section 2.1. The project site would be approximately 24 acres. The buildings would be set close to Shaw Road, and vehicular access would be provided via three entrances. Communications and utility lines would be connected to existing infrastructure adjacent to Shaw Road. Stormwater management and erosion- and sediment-control measures would be implemented, as described in Section This alternative would require wetland permitting and mitigation or the facilities would need to be designed around the wetland areas. 2-3 Proposed Action and Alternatives

24 Work Facilities Complex DRAFT EA Figure 2-2 February 2018 Peary Road Alternative 2-4 Proposed Action and Alternatives

25 Work Facilities Complex DRAFT EA Figure 2-3 February 2018 Shaw Road Alternative 2-5 Proposed Action and Alternatives

26 2.4 Alternatives Considered but not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis Only two alternatives meet the screening criteria presented in Section 2.2. The following alternatives were considered, but were not carried forward for detailed analysis in this EA because they did not meet the purpose and need for the project or satisfy the reasonable alternative screening factors presented in Section 2.2. Site locations at NAS Patuxent River with developmental constraints (e.g., airfield operations, weapons storage and operations, and restricted areas) are not included in this section Building Renovation There are no empty buildings at NAS Patuxent River that can be renovated. Renovating buildings that are currently in use would mean that additional temporary structures likely, trailers would be acquired for staff to use as offices. During construction, the trailers and personnel likely would be scattered throughout the installation, given the land constraints. As previously discussed, most of the buildings at NAS Patuxent River were built during World War II; renovating these structures would not be cost-efficient, and personnel would still not be in the appropriate locations. As a result, this alternative was considered but is not being carried forward for detailed analysis in the EA Facilities Dispersed across Installation To address the aging infrastructure and the need to find work spaces for new personnel, staff could be situated in various buildings across the installation. This alternative would not address the land-use incompatibilities and, therefore, would not meet the project purpose and need. This alternative was considered but is not being carried forward for detailed analysis in the EA Lease Off-Installation Facilities Under this alternative, facilities would be leased off the installation to accommodate new personnel and those working in aging infrastructure. However, leasing off-installation buildings would create security issues, and staff likely would have to travel back and forth to the installation. This alternative would not consolidate operations, nor would it create efficiencies and, therefore, would not meet the project purpose and need. This alternative was considered but is not being carried forward for detailed analysis in the EA. 2.5 Best Management Practices Included in the Proposed Action This section presents an overview of the best management practices (BMPs) that are incorporated into the Proposed Action. BMPs are existing policies, practices, and measures that the Navy would adopt to reduce the environmental impacts of designated activities, functions, or processes. Although BMPs mitigate potential impacts by avoiding, minimizing, or reducing/eliminating impacts, BMPs are distinguished from potential mitigation measures because BMPs are (1) existing requirements for the Proposed Action; (2) ongoing, regularly occurring practices; or (3) not unique to this Proposed Action. In other words, the BMPs identified in this document are inherently part of the Proposed Action and are not potential mitigation measures proposed as a function of the NEPA environmental review process for the Proposed Action. Table 2-1 includes a list of BMPs. 2-6 Proposed Action and Alternatives

27 Table 2-1 Best Management Practices Best Management Practice Description Impacts Reduced/Avoided Fugitive dust controls Erosion and sediment control Staging construction site to minimize exposed areas, watering soil for dust suppression, covering exposed dirt or storage piles, and rinsing vehicles before leaving the construction site Perimeter silt-fencing, vegetative stabilization, stabilized construction entrance, and sediment traps Control particulate matter emissions during construction Prevent silt, dust, and debris from leaving the construction site Stormwater management Bioswale and micro-bioretention Control runoff from buildings, parking areas, and sidewalks 2-7 Proposed Action and Alternatives

28 This page intentionally left blank. 2-8 Proposed Action and Alternatives

29 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences This chapter presents a description of the environmental resources and baseline conditions that could be affected by implementing any of the alternatives and an analysis of the potential direct and indirect effects of each alternative. All potentially relevant environmental resource areas were initially considered for analysis in this Environmental Assessment (EA). In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and Department of Navy guidelines, the discussion of the affected environment (i.e., existing conditions) focuses only on those resource areas potentially subject to impacts. In addition, the level of detail used in describing a resource is commensurate with the anticipated level of potential environmental impact. Significantly, as used in NEPA, requires considerations of both context and intensity. Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (e.g., human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of a proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend on the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. Intensity refers to the severity or extent of the potential environmental impact, which can be thought of in terms of the potential amount of the likely change. In general, the more sensitive the context, the less intense a potential impact needs to be in order to be considered significant. Likewise, the less sensitive the context, the more intense a potential impact needs to be in order to be significant. This chapter includes air quality, water resources, geological resources, cultural resources, biological resources, infrastructure, and hazardous materials and wastes. The potential impacts on the following resource areas are considered to be negligible or nonexistent; therefore, they were not analyzed in detail in this EA: Land Use: The proposed facilities would not substantially change existing land use at Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River. The Peary Road site would be consistent with the surrounding uses and the installation mission. The Shaw Road site is partially within the Accident Potential Zone II. Given that only low-intensity office uses are recommended within Accident Potential Zone II, facilities should be sited outside the boundaries of Accident Potential Zone II, to the maximum extent practicable, if the Shaw Road Alternative is selected. There would be no direct or indirect impacts on land use off-installation. Therefore, land use is not analyzed in detail. Visual Resources: The site locations are adjacent to buildings with similar land uses at the installation. The proposed facilities would not change the land use or substantially change visual resources. Visual impacts on historic resources are discussed in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources. Therefore, visual resources are not analyzed in detail. Airspace: The Proposed Action consists of the construction of administrative and mission-support facilities at the installation. The proposed facilities would not obstruct the existing airspace. In addition, there would be no impacts on aircraft operations or the current uses or controls of airspace. Therefore, airspace is not analyzed in detail. Noise: The proposed construction would occur on the installation. The Peary Road site is near the center of the installation; noise from construction would not affect off-installation populations. The Shaw Road site is approximately 2,000 feet from off-installation populations; therefore, noise from construction 3-1 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

30 would decrease to below ambient levels for off-installation populations. The proposed operations would consist of office work. Approximately 120 additional personnel would commute to NAS Patuxent River under the Proposed Action, which is an increase of 0.5 percent above the estimated 22,000 personnel currently working at the installation (Navy, 2012). No short- or long-term impacts on the noise environment are expected. Therefore, noise is not analyzed in detail. Transportation: Construction traffic on NAS Patuxent River would use a 1,000-foot stretch on Peary Road (Peary Road Alternative) or Shaw Road (Shaw Road Alternative), neither of which is heavily traveled (Navy, 2016). It is not expected that the construction of the Work Facilities Complex would affect traffic. All three access control points for NAS Patuxent River are along Maryland Highway 235. Gate 1 at Buse Road is open all day, 7 days a week, while the other two gates (Gate 2 at Cedar Point Road and Gate 3 at Shaw Road) open early in the morning and remain open through the evening rush hour (Navy, 2012). According to the Maryland Department of Transportation, annual average daily traffic counts on Maryland Highway 235 near Gates 1, 2, and 3 are, respectively, 33,040, 16,830, and 8,950 vehicles (Maryland Highway Administration, 2017). The Proposed Action would result in 120 additional personnel; as a worst case, which assumes all new personnel arrive in single occupancy vehicles, this would be 240 new trips each workday along Maryland Highway 235. Under the Peary Road Alternative, assuming all personnel would use Gate 2, this would be a 1.4 percent increase in average annual daily traffic. Under the Shaw Road Alternative, assuming all new personnel would use Gate 3, this would be a 2.7 percent increase in average annual daily traffic. Given these small increases in average annual daily traffic, the proposed personnel increase is expected to be a negligible increase in off-installation traffic gaining access to NAS Patuxent River. It is anticipated that on-installation roadways (Cedar Point Road to Millstone Road to Peary Road, and Shaw Road) would be able to absorb the 0.5 percent increase in personnel (above the estimated 22,000 personnel currently working at NAS Patuxent River). The proposed Work Facilities Complex would provide parking for increased personnel; some administrative and engineering centers oninstallation have parking shortages, such as in Building 2272 (Navy, 2012). The additional parking provided at the Work Facilities Complex could alleviate parking shortages at other facilities once personnel have relocated. Short- and long-term impacts on traffic are expected to be negligible. Therefore, transportation is not analyzed in further detail. Public Health and Safety: Public Safety administers the physical security, law enforcement, fire, and rescue/disaster preparedness program and is responsible for protecting life and property at NAS Patuxent River (Navy, 2012). Construction and operational activities associated with the Proposed Action would be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Longterm operations under the Proposed Action would be office-related and would not affect police, fire, or emergency response. No impacts would be expected on public health and safety. Therefore, public health and safety are not analyzed in detail. Socioeconomics: The Proposed Action would result in short-term, minor expenditures from construction activities, and a long-term increase in 120 personnel working at NAS Patuxent River. Construction activities would have no long-lasting effects on the local economy. The long-term increase in personnel of 0.5 percent above the 22,000 personnel currently at the installation would not be expected to have a noticeable effect on socioeconomic resources. If it is assumed, for estimating purposes, that each of the 3-2 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

31 120 new personnel move to St. Mary s County and bring a family of four (which is a worst-case scenario as these personnel could already live in St. Mary s County or commute in), then the total population in the county could increase by as many as 480 people. The projected population of St. Mary s County for 2020 is 125,150; therefore, the maximum impact under the Proposed Action would represent a 0.4 percent increase in population (Maryland Department of Planning, 2017). This is a negligible increase, and schools and available housing would likely absorb this with no impact. Economic activity and tax revenue from increased employment could have some beneficial effects in St. Mary s County. Overall, the increased personnel would be minor, and the short- and long-term impacts on socioeconomics are expected to be negligible. Therefore, socioeconomics is not analyzed in further detail. Environmental Justice: The Proposed Action would occur entirely within NAS Patuxent River. Impacts associated with construction and operations would not affect any off-installation populations. The Proposed Action has no potential to disproportionately affect minorities or economically disadvantaged populations protected under Executive Order (EO) 12898, Environmental Justice for Low Income and Minority Populations. Therefore, environmental justice is not analyzed in detail. 3.1 Air Quality This discussion of air quality includes criteria pollutants, standards, sources, permitting, and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Air quality in a given location is defined by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere. A region s air quality is influenced by many factors including the type and amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. Most air pollutants originate from human-made sources, including mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, buses), stationary sources (e.g., factories, refineries, power plants), and indoor sources (e.g., some building materials and cleaning solvents). Air pollutants are also released from natural sources such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires Regulatory Setting Criteria Pollutants and National Ambient Air Quality Standards The principal pollutants defining the air quality, called criteria pollutants, include carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), ozone, suspended particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM 10), fine particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5), and lead. CO, SO 2, lead, and some particulates are emitted directly into the atmosphere from emissions sources. Ozone, NO 2, and some particulates are formed through atmospheric chemical reactions that are influenced by weather, ultraviolet light, and other atmospheric processes. Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] part 50) for these pollutants. NAAQS are classified as primary or secondary. Primary standards protect against adverse health effects; secondary standards protect against welfare effects, such as damage to farm crops and vegetation and damage to buildings. Some pollutants have long-term and short-term standards. Shortterm standards protect against acute health effects, while long-term standards protect against chronic health effects. 3-3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

32 Areas that are, and have historically been, in compliance with the NAAQS are designated as attainment areas. Areas that violate a federal air quality standard are designated as nonattainment areas. Areas that have transitioned from nonattainment to attainment are designated as maintenance areas and are required to adhere to maintenance plans to ensure continued attainment. The Clean Air Act requires states to develop a general plan to attain and maintain the NAAQS in all areas of the country and a specific plan to attain the standards for each area designated nonattainment for a NAAQS. These plans, known as State Implementation Plans, are developed by state and local air quality management agencies and submitted to USEPA for approval. In addition to the NAAQS for criteria pollutants, national standards exist for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), which are regulated under Section 112(b) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulate HAP emissions from stationary sources (40 CFR part 61) Mobile Sources HAPs emitted from mobile sources are called Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs). MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health and environmental effects. In 2001, USEPA issued its first MSAT Rule, which identified 201 compounds as being HAPs that require regulation. A subset of six of the MSAT compounds was identified as having the greatest influence on health and included benzene, butadiene, formaldehyde, acrolein, acetaldehyde, and diesel particulate matter. USEPA issued a second MSAT Rule in February 2007, which generally supported the findings in the first rule and provided additional recommendations of compounds having the greatest impact on health. The rule also identified several engine emission certification standards that must be implemented (40 CFR parts 59, 80, 85, and 86; Federal Register Volume 72, No. 37, pp. 8,427 8,570, 2007). Unlike the criteria pollutants, there are no NAAQS for benzene and other HAPs. The primary control methodologies for these pollutants for mobile sources involve reducing their content in fuel and altering the engine operating characteristics to reduce the volume of pollutant generated during combustion General Conformity The USEPA General Conformity Rule applies to federal actions occurring in nonattainment or maintenance areas when the total direct and indirect emissions of nonattainment pollutants (or their precursors) exceed specified thresholds. St. Mary s County is unclassified or in attainment for all criteria pollutants; consequently, the General Conformity Rule does not apply to this project. Therefore, a Record of Non-Applicability is not required Permitting Title V (Operating Permit) The Title V Operating Permit Program consolidates all Clean Air Act requirements applicable to the operation of a source, including requirements from the State Implementation Plan, preconstruction permits, and the air toxics program. It applies to stationary sources of air pollution that exceed the major stationary source emission thresholds, as well as other nonmajor sources specified in a particular regulation. The program includes a requirement for payment of permit fees to finance the operating permit program whether implemented by USEPA or a state or local regulator. Navy installations subject to Title V permitting shall comply with the requirements of the Title V Operating Permit Program, which are detailed in 40 CFR part 70, and all specific requirements contained in their individual permits. 3-4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

33 Greenhouse Gases GHGs are gas emissions that trap heat in the atmosphere. These emissions occur from natural processes and human activities. Scientific evidence indicates a trend of increasing global temperature over the past century due to an increase in GHG emissions from human activities. The climate change associated with this global warming is predicted to produce negative economic and social consequences across the globe. The USEPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule on September 22, GHGs covered under the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule are carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and other fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride and hydro fluorinated ethers. Each GHG is assigned a global warming potential. The global warming potential is the ability of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. The global warming potential rating system is standardized to CO 2, which has a value of one. The equivalent CO 2 (CO 2e) rate is calculated by multiplying the emissions of each GHG by its global warming potential and adding the results together to produce a single, combined emissions rate representing all GHGs. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of mobile sources and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions as CO 2e are required to submit annual reports to USEPA. To reduce energy consumption, reduce GHGs, reduce dependence on petroleum, and increase the use of renewable energy resources, the Navy has implemented a number of renewable energy projects. The Navy has established fiscal year 2020 GHG emissions reduction targets of 34 percent from a fiscal year 2008 baseline for direct GHG emissions and 13.5 percent for indirect emissions. Examples of Navy-wide GHG reduction projects include energy-efficient construction, thermal and photovoltaic solar systems, geothermal power plants, and the generation of electricity with wind energy. The Navy continues to promote and install new renewable energy projects Affected Environment NAS Patuxent River is in St. Mary s County, Maryland, which is within the Southern Maryland Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR section ). St. Mary s County has been designated by the USEPA as unclassified/attainment for all criteria pollutants (USEPA, 2017). The installation is within an ozone transport region. The ozone transport region was established by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and includes Connecticut; Delaware; Maine; Maryland; Massachusetts; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New York; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; Vermont; Washington, DC; and portions of the Northern Virginia suburbs. Because St. Mary s County is designated as unclassified/attainment for all criteria pollutants, a General Conformity evaluation is not required. The most recent emissions inventory for the Southern Maryland Intrastate Air Quality Control Region is shown in Table 3-1. Volatile organic compound (VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NO x) emissions are used to represent ozone generation because they are precursors of ozone. NAS Patuxent River maintains a Title V permit (Permit No ). Air emissions from the installation are primarily produced from fuel-burning equipment (e.g., boilers, generators, and jet engine test cells), storage tanks, painting operations, degreasers, gasoline filling stations, and abrasive blasting (MDE Air and Radiation Management Administration, 2015). Recent annual criteria pollutant emissions for NAS Patuxent River are shown in Table Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

34 Table 3-1 Southern Maryland Intrastate Air Emissions Inventory (2014) Location VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) NOx (tpy) SO2 (tpy) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy) Calvert County 6,447 10,047 1, , St. Mary s County 10,805 18,662 3, , Southern Maryland 17,252 28,709 5, ,742 1,249 Intrastate Total Source: USEPA, Key: VOC = volatile organic compound; CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxides; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = suspended particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns on diameter; tpy = tons per year. Table 3-2 Naval Air Station Patuxent River Air Emissions Inventory Year VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) NOx (tpy) SO2 (tpy) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy) Sources: NAVFAC Washington, 2016a; Churilla, Key: VOC = volatile organic compound; CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = suspended particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter; tpy = tons per year Environmental Consequences Effects on air quality are based on estimated direct and indirect emissions associated with the action alternatives. The study area for assessing air quality impacts is the air basin in which the project is located, the Southern Maryland Intrastate Air Quality Control Region. Estimated emissions from a proposed federal action are typically compared with the relevant national and state standards to assess the potential for increases in pollutant concentrations. Air Quality Potential Impacts: No Action: No change in baseline condition. No significant impacts. Peary Road Alternative: Shortterm, minor increases in emissions during construction, and long-term, minor increases from 120 additional personnel. No significant impacts No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would Shaw Road Alternative: Impacts not occur. There would be no change in baseline air the same as those described for emissions. The existing facilities are World War II-era facilities Peary Road Alternative. No that require maintenance and repairs, which result in significant impacts. negligible air emissions while equipment is operating. No significant impacts on air quality or air resources would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative. 3-6 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

35 Peary Road Alternative Potential Impacts Under the Peary Road Alternative, short-term, minor air emissions would result from the operation of construction equipment during site preparation and construction activities. Long-term, minor air emissions would result from an increase in personnel commuting to and from NAS Patuxent River. Estimated construction and commuter emissions are shown in Table 3-3. No other stationary sources or long-term sources of air pollutants are planned under this alternative. Activities in 2019 are anticipated to generate the highest emissions under the Peary Road Alternative, which would represent only minor regional increases within the Southern Maryland Intrastate Air Quality Control Region. Table 3-3 Peary Road Alternative Estimated Construction and Annual Operations Emissions 2019 Highest Year (Construction Activities, New Personnel) 2020 (Construction Activities, New Personnel) 2021 and Beyond (New Personnel) Percent of Emissions in Southern Maryland Intrastate in 2019 (refer to Table 3-1) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) NOx (tpy) SO2 (tpy) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy) % 0.03% 0.1% 0.003% 0.6% 0.3% Key: VOC = volatile organic compound; CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxides; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = suspended particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns on diameter; tpy = tons per year. Air quality impacts from construction would occur from combustion emissions due to the use of fossil fuel-powered equipment and fugitive dust emissions (i.e., PM 10 and PM 2.5) during earth-moving activities, construction, and the operation of equipment on bare soil. Fugitive dust emissions were calculated based on the total size of disturbance, which is approximately 13 acres (ADTEK Engineers, Inc., 2017a). It is anticipated that construction could start as early as the beginning of fiscal year 2019 and would take an estimated 18 months to complete (Steele, 2017a). However, to provide a conservative approach for the air analysis, it was assumed that most construction, including grading the entire site, construction of four facilities, and roughly a third of the parking and sidewalks would occur in calendar year The fifth building, remaining parking and sidewalks, stormwater facilities, and landscaping would be completed in the first six months of Equipment usage was based on similar construction projects to estimate project combustion and fugitive dust emissions. Direct emissions from construction activities include equipment combustion for on-site construction vehicles and ground disturbance. Indirect emissions from construction activities include equipment combustion from truck deliveries and construction workers commuting to and from the site. Appendix B contains more detailed information about the project inputs and assumptions used in estimating air emissions. An additional 120 personnel would transfer to NAS Patuxent River under the Peary Road Alternative, resulting in an indirect, long-term, minor increase in vehicle air emissions. It is unknown where the new personnel would be relocating from, though many may already live and work in the Southern Maryland Intrastate Air Quality Control Region. If all the additional 120 personnel would be new additions to the 3-7 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

36 region, which assumes a maximum impact, air emissions would still be minor, as shown in Table 3-3. It is assumed these personnel would transition to NAS Patuxent River in 2019; therefore, the increased commuter emissions are reflected for 2019, 2020, and 2021 and beyond. General Conformity St. Mary s County is in attainment for all criteria air pollutants; therefore, a General Conformity applicability analysis is not required. Greenhouse Gases Implementation of the Peary Road Alternative would contribute directly to emissions of GHGs from the combustion of fossil fuels. Construction and clearing activities would generate approximately 1,205 tons (1,092 metric tons) of CO 2e during 2019, which is the year with the heaviest construction activities. Increased commuter emissions, if all personnel are new within the region, would generate approximately 617 tons (560 metric tons) of CO 2e each year beginning in These limited emissions would be a negligible contribution to regional emissions. No other stationary sources or long-term sources of air pollutants are planned under this alternative. Approximately 13 acres of forest would be removed at the Peary Road site. As described in Section , this alternative would remove primarily upland pine forest and scrub/shrub vegetation. Globally, a substantial pool of carbon is stored in woody biomass and the organic matter on forest floors (USEPA, 2015). Forest removal would have indirect, long-term, adverse impacts on GHGs by removing the carbon that is stored in the trees as well as removing a natural source for converting atmospheric CO 2 to oxygen through photosynthetic processes. The loss of 13 acres of forest would be negligible in the context of remaining forest resources in the region. Therefore, implementation of the Peary Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on air quality Shaw Road Alternative (Alternative 2) Potential Impacts Air emissions from implementation of the Shaw Road Alternative would be comparable to the Peary Road Alternative. The general project sites and building and parking sizes would be similar in size, resulting in construction-related air emissions roughly equivalent to those shown in Table 3-3. Longterm air emissions associated with the increased 120 personnel would be the same as those shown for the Peary Road Alternative in Table 3-3. Implementation of the Shaw Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on air quality. 3.2 Water Resources Water resources are natural and man-made sources of water that are available for use by, and for the benefit of, humans and the natural environment. This discussion of water resources includes groundwater, surface water, wetlands, and floodplains. Marine waters and shorelines are not addressed in this section because they would not be affected by the Proposed Action. Groundwater is water that flows or seeps downward and saturates soil or rock, supplying springs and wells. Groundwater is used for water consumption, agricultural irrigation, and industrial applications. Groundwater properties are often described in terms of depth to aquifer, aquifer or well capacity, water quality, and surrounding geologic composition. Sole-source aquifer designation provides limited protection of groundwater resources that serve as drinking water supplies. 3-8 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

37 Surface water resources generally consist of wetlands, lakes, rivers, and streams. Surface water is important for its contributions to the economic, ecological, recreational, and human health of a community or locale. A Total Maximum Daily Load is the maximum amount of a substance that can be assimilated by a water body without causing impairment. A water body can be deemed impaired if water quality analyses conclude that exceedances of water quality standards occur. Wetlands are jointly defined by USEPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Floodplains are areas of low-level ground present along rivers, stream channels, large wetlands, or coastal waters. Floodplain ecosystem functions include natural moderation of floods, flood storage and conveyance, groundwater recharge, and nutrient cycling. Floodplains also help to maintain water quality and are often home to a diverse array of plants and animals. In their natural vegetated state, floodplains slow the rate at which the incoming overland flow reaches the main water body. Floodplain boundaries are most often defined in terms of frequency of inundation (i.e., the 100-year and 500-year flood). Floodplain delineation maps are produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and provide a basis for comparing the locale of the Proposed Action to the floodplains Regulatory Setting The Safe Drinking Water Act is the federal law that protects public drinking water supplies throughout the nation. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, USEPA sets standards for drinking water quality. Groundwater quality and quantity are regulated under several statutes and regulations, including the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Clean Water Act establishes federal limits, through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, on the amounts of specific pollutants that can be discharged into surface waters to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the water. The NPDES program regulates the discharge of point (i.e., end of pipe) and nonpoint sources (i.e., stormwater) of water pollution. The Maryland NPDES stormwater program requires construction site operators engaged in clearing, grading, and excavating activities that disturb one acre or more to obtain coverage under an NPDES Construction General Permit for stormwater discharges. Construction or demolition that necessitates an individual permit also requires preparation of a Notice of Intent to discharge stormwater and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that is implemented during construction. As part of the 2014 Final Rule for the Clean Water Act, titled Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Point Source Category, activities covered by this permit must implement nonnumerical erosion and sediment controls and pollution prevention measures. Wetlands are currently regulated by USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as a subset of all Waters of the United States. Waters of the United States are defined as (1) traditional navigable waters, (2) wetlands adjacent to navigable waters, (3) non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow perennially or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months), and (4) wetlands that directly abut such tributaries under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, and are regulated by USEPA and USACE. The 3-9 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

38 Clean Water Act requires that Maryland establish a Section 303(d) list to identify impaired waters and establish Total Maximum Daily Loads for the sources causing the impairment. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits for the discharge of dredge or fill into wetlands and other Waters of the United States. Any discharge of dredge or fill into Waters of the United States requires a permit from USACE. Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act establishes stormwater design requirements for development and redevelopment projects. Under these requirements, federal facility projects larger than 5,000 square feet must maintain or restore, to the maximum extent technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property regarding the temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow. EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires that federal agencies adopt a policy to avoid, to the extent possible, long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with destruction and modification of wetlands and to avoid the direct and indirect support of new construction in wetlands whenever there is a practicable alternative. EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the longand short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development unless it is the only practicable alternative. Flood potential of a site is usually determined by the 100-year floodplain, which is defined as the area that has a one percent chance of inundation by a flood event in a given year. Through the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), Congress established national policy to preserve, protect, develop, restore, or enhance resources in the coastal zone. The CZMA encourages coastal states to properly manage use of their coasts and coastal resources, prepare and implement coastal management programs, and provide for public and governmental participation in decisions affecting the coastal zone. To this end, CZMA imparts an obligation upon federal agencies whose actions or activities affect any land, water use, or natural resource of the coastal zone to be carried out in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of federally approved state coastal management programs. As a federal agency, the Navy is required to determine whether its proposed activities would affect the coastal zone. This takes the form of a consistency determination, a negative determination, or a determination that no further action is necessary. The site alternatives are adjacent to Maryland s coastal zone; therefore, a Coastal Consistency Determination will be submitted to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) for this project Affected Environment The following discussions provide a description of the existing conditions for water resources at NAS Patuxent River Groundwater The primary confined groundwater aquifers around NAS Patuxent River are the Aquia, which is at a depth of approximately 500 feet below mean sea level, and the Piney Point-Nanjemoy, which is at a depth of approximately 200 feet below mean sea level. Increased domestic and industrial groundwater pumping in the area has contributed to declining water levels in the Aquia aquifer since 1952, with a similar trend occurring in the Piney Point-Nanjemoy aquifer (Navy, 2005). Unconfined groundwater 3-10 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

39 occurs at shallow depths on NAS Patuxent River. The depth to unconfined groundwater varies with the season and soil types Surface Water NAS Patuxent River is situated on approximately 2.5 miles of the Chesapeake Bay shoreline, which is the largest estuary in the United States. The Patuxent River is a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, of which NAS Patuxent River occupies approximately five miles of the lower Patuxent River shoreline. There are four main tidal water bodies on NAS Patuxent River: Pine Hill Run, Goose Creek, Pearson Creek, and Harper s Creek. Pine Hill Run and Goose Creek occupy a combined 165 acres on NAS Patuxent River, and both ebb and flow into the Bay with the current. Pearson and Harper s Creeks are tidal creeks composing 172 acres that flow into the Patuxent River. In addition, there are six freshwater ponds (i.e., Sewell, Sacawaxhit, Holton, Gardiner s, Richneck, and Calvert Ponds) and several miles of intermittent and perennial streams (Navy, 2012). Stormwater management is important for healthy aquatic resources and water quality. There are several stormwater management facilities within the project site associated with the storm sewer system. NAS Patuxent River updated its Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in 2014, which includes best management practices (BMPs) to reduce and prevent pollutants in stormwater runoff associated with the installation from entering water bodies (Navy, 2017) Wetlands Several broad wetland types at the installation include forested wetlands, scrub/shrub wetlands, saline marshes, freshwater tidal marshes, nontidal marshes, and open water/emergent wetlands. A total of 998 acres of wetlands are on NAS Patuxent River (Navy, 2017). Projects affecting wetlands require a Section 404 permit approved by MDE and USACE Floodplains The Federal Emergency Management Agency defines floodplains by the likelihood that a given area will be flooded in a year: a 100-year floodplain is an area that has a 1 percent chance of flooding in any given year, and a 500-year floodplain has a 0.2 percent chance annually. The 100-year floodplain includes some land areas that are flooded by small, often dry watercourses. The 100-year floodplain encompasses the major water bodies on and adjacent to NAS Patuxent River. These include the Patuxent River, Chesapeake Bay, Pine Hill Run, Harper s Creek, Pearson Creek, and Goose Creek (Navy, 2012). Floodplains are protected through EO 11988, Floodplain Management, which instructs federal agencies to restore and preserve floodplains and to reduce the risk of flood-related loss by not building within the limits of the 100-year floodplain (Navy, 2012). Floodplains at NAS Patuxent River are shown in Figure Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

40 Work Facilities Complex Figure 3-1 DRAFT EA February 2018 Floodplains at Naval Air Station Patuxent River 3-12 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

41 Coastal Zone Management The project site is adjacent to Maryland s coastal zone. The Peary Road site is approximately 2,600 feet from the Patuxent River, and the Shaw Road site is approximately 400 feet from Pine Hill Run; both the Patuxent River and Pine Hill Run are direct tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. This means that activities conducted near installation shorelines are deemed reasonably likely to affect use of lands, waters, or natural resources of the coastal zone beyond the boundaries of federal property. Such activities must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of Maryland s Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) in accordance with the federal CZMA. Maryland s CZMP addresses coastal hazards, growth management, habitat and living resources, nonpoint source pollution, nontidal wetlands, provision of public access, and tidal wetlands, and it encompasses several state laws and regulatory programs. A memorandum of understanding between the State of Maryland and the Department of Defense (DoD), signed May 2013, outlines the application and implementation of certain enforceable policies of Maryland s CZMP as they relate to federal actions (State of Maryland and Department of Defense, 2013) Environmental Consequences In this EA, the analysis of water resources looks at the potential impacts on groundwater, surface water, wetlands, and floodplains. Groundwater analysis focuses on the potential for impacts on the quality, quantity, and accessibility of the water. The analysis of surface water quality considers the potential for impacts that may change the water quality, including both improvements and degradation of current water quality. The impact assessment of wetlands considers the potential for impacts that may change the local hydrology, soils, or vegetation that support a wetland. The analysis of floodplains considers if any new construction is proposed within a floodplain or may impede the functions of floodplains in conveying floodwaters No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur, and there would be no change in baseline water resources. Therefore, no significant impacts on water resources would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative Peary Road Alternative Potential Impacts The study area for the analysis of impacts on water resources associated with the Peary Road Alternative includes the project site. The Peary Road site is primarily forest, and implementation of the Peary Road Alternative would remove an estimated 13 acres of trees. According to the Stormwater Management Concept Submission to MDE, the limits of site disturbance would be acres, and 0.13 acre of that area is existing impervious surface that would be removed and replaced in-kind for utility line installation. A net increase of 7.22 acres of impervious surfaces would be added within the limits of disturbance, including parking and buildings (ADTEK Engineers, Inc., 2017b) Water Resources Potential Impacts: No Action Alternative: No change in baseline condition. No significant impacts. Peary Road Alternative: Shortand long-term, minor, adverse impacts from construction and an increase in impervious surfaces. BMPs would be implemented to reduce shortterm impacts. No significant impacts. Shaw Road Alternative: Moderate, adverse impacts from direct impacts on wetlands. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

42 The Peary Road Alternative would result in short-term, minor, adverse impacts on water resources from construction. However, these impacts would be minimized through BMPs and implementation of an MDE-approved erosion- and sediment-control plan prior to construction, and would cease upon completion of the construction activities. BMPs would be used to protect against erosion and sedimentation into receiving water bodies (e.g., appropriate scheduling and sequencing of construction, use of silt-fencing, covering soil stockpiles or watering exposed areas) and potential hazardous material spills (e.g., storing and handling all petroleum products in contained areas, ensuring construction equipment is in good working order and not leaking any fluids before operations). These BMPs would reduce the possibility of short-term impacts on wetlands, stormwater, and groundwater. The MDEapproved erosion- and sediment-control plan would show the existing topography of the site, indicate how the topography would be altered, identify site-specific measures to be used to control erosion and minimize or eliminate sedimentation into surface water bodies, and describe how these site-specific measures would be implemented and maintained during construction. The Peary Road Alternative would result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts on water resources. The removal of vegetation as well as the grading of the project site to accommodate construction of the new facilities and parking areas would change the topography of the site, altering existing drainage patterns. Environmental site design would be implemented to the maximum extent practicable to manage stormwater after construction. To meet MDE requirements, stormwater management would be provided to treat 100 percent of the surface water runoff from new impervious surfaces through a combination of structural practices. This would include 23 micro-bioretention facilities and 2 bioswales (ADTEK Engineers, Inc., 2017b). The micro-bioretention facilities would collect stormwater runoff from the proposed driveways, parking lots, and buildings. The bioswales would collect a portion of the runoff from the driveways and parking lots. All stormwater facilities would filter and treat the water, then direct it to stormwater network structures. In addition, shrubs and trees cleared as part of this project would be mulched at the site and then used in the plant beds. Disturbed areas would be stabilized with Maryland-certified sod and would include planting regionally native shrubs, grasses, perennials, and groundcover. Two wetlands are adjacent to the project site. These wetlands, one to the southwest and a second to the north, are shown on Figure 3-2. To protect these wetlands, the limits of disturbance from construction activities would not extend within a 25-foot buffer around each area. Stormwater facilities, as described in the previous paragraph, would be installed between impervious surfaces and the 25-foot buffer. The project site is not located within the 100-year or the 500-year floodplain (see Figure 3-1). Therefore, there would be no impact on the floodplain, and floodwaters within the floodplain would not be impeded. Furthermore, stormwater management features described above would increase retention of surface water flows during storm events. The Navy determined that the Peary Road Alternative is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with Maryland s CZMP and would not result in significant impacts on state coastal resources (refer to Appendix A). In accordance with Section 307 of the CZMA, the Navy will submit a Coastal Consistency Determination to MDE. The Navy would implement the Peary Road Alternative in a manner that is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the State s Critical Area policies. Implementation of the Peary Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on water resources Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

43 Work Facilities Complex Figure 3-2 DRAFT EA February 2018 Wetlands at Peary Road Alternative Site 3-15 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

44 Shaw Road Alternative (Alternative 2) Potential Impacts The study area for the analysis of impacts on water resources associated with the Shaw Road Alternative includes the project site. Approximately 15 acres of forest would be cleared for the proposed project, and there would be approximately 14 acres of new impervious surfaces. The removal of vegetation as well as the grading of the project site to accommodate construction of the buildings and parking areas would change the topography of the site and alter existing drainage patterns to a minor extent. Approximately 2.2 acres of wetlands (which includes wetlands plus a 25-foot buffer around the wetlands) are within the Shaw Road site, as shown in Figure 3-3. In addition, there are wetlands to the southeast and to the south, which includes Pine Hill Run. Pine Hill Run is approximately 400 feet south of the project site. As previously discussed, any discharge of dredge or fill into Waters of the United States, which includes wetlands, requires a permit from USACE. Implementation of the Shaw Road Alternative would require a wetlands permit and mitigation, and would result in moderate, adverse impacts on water resources. Should this alternative be chosen, the Navy would mitigate for these impacts in accordance with permitting stipulations established during Section 404 consultations with MDE and USACE. During construction, BMPs and an erosion- and sediment-control plan would minimize the migration of sedimentation into Pine Hill Run and the wetlands adjacent to the project site. In the long term, environmental site design would be implemented to the maximum extent practicable to manage stormwater after construction. To meet MDE requirements, stormwater facilities would be provided to treat 100 percent of the surface water runoff from the new impervious surfaces through a combination of structural practices similar to those discussed for the Peary Road Alternative (e.g., micro-bioretention facilities and bioswales). These facilities would be installed between impervious surfaces and water resources adjacent to the project site. The Shaw Road site is not located within the 100-year or the 500-year floodplain (see Figure 3-1). Therefore, there would be no impact on the floodplain, and floodwaters within the floodplain would not be impeded. Furthermore, stormwater management features described above would increase retention of surface water flows during storm events. As discussed above, the Shaw Road site contains approximately 2.2 acres of wetlands (which includes wetlands plus a 25-foot buffer around the wetlands, and Pine Hill Run is approximately 400 feet from the project boundary. In accordance with Section 307 of the CZMA, the Navy will submit a Coastal Consistency Determination to the MDE. The Navy would implement a 10 percent pollutant-reduction calculation, provide replanting at a 1:1 ratio to the maximum extent practicable for any clearing required within 1,000 feet of Maryland s tidal waters or vegetated tidal wetlands, and provide offsets in the form of planting for any new development activities occurring within 100 feet of tidal waters or vegetated tidal wetlands. Implementation of the Shaw Road Alternative would result in moderate, adverse impacts on water resources Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

45 Work Facilities Complex Figure 3-3 DRAFT EA February 2018 Wetlands at Shaw Road Alternative Site 3-17 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

46 3.3 Geological Resources This discussion of geological resources includes topography, geology, and soils of a given area. Topography is typically described with respect to the elevation, slope, and surface features found within a given area. The geology of an area may include bedrock materials, mineral deposits, and fossil remains. The principal geological factors influencing the stability of structures are soil stability and seismic properties. Soil refers to unconsolidated earthen materials overlying bedrock or another parent material. Soil structure, elasticity, strength, shrink-swell potential, and erodibility determine the ability for the ground to support structures and facilities. Soils are typically described in terms of their type, slope, physical characteristics, and relative compatibility or limitations regarding particular construction activities and types of land use Regulatory Setting Consideration of geologic resources extends to prime or unique farmlands. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) was enacted in 1981 to minimize the loss of prime farmland and unique farmlands as a result of federal actions. The implementing procedures of the FPPA require federal agencies to evaluate the adverse effects of their activities on farmland, which includes prime and unique farmland and farmland of statewide and local importance, and to consider alternative actions that could avoid adverse effects Affected Environment The following discussions provide a description of the existing conditions for each of the categories under geological resources at NAS Patuxent River Topography The topography at NAS Patuxent River has a low relief, rising gradually from the Chesapeake Bay shoreline westward to an elevation of 120 feet above mean sea level. Most of the installation, including the Peary Road site, is fairly level at 40 feet above mean sea level. The hilliest area is the southwestern section of the installation. The Shaw Road site is lower in elevation at approximately 20 feet above mean sea level. The present topography is drastically different from the original landscape, which was regraded when the Navy acquired the property in the 1940s (Navy, 2010a) Geology NAS Patuxent River is in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, which is composed of a wedge of sedimentary rocks that increase in thickness toward the Atlantic Ocean. The Chesapeake Bay and Patuxent River are prominent features of the Coastal Plain near NAS Patuxent River. The geological deposits underlying the installation are thick, unconsolidated beds of sand, silt, clay, and gravel laid down as marine deposits. Because these formations are entirely sedimentary in nature, they are extremely vulnerable to erosion (Navy, 2010a) Soils There are 23 different soil mapping units at NAS Patuxent River. Soil types found on the installation that the Natural Resources Conservation Service considers to be hydric include Alluvial Land, Bibb, Elkton, Othello, and Tidal Marsh (Navy, 2010a) Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

47 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating reviews were conducted by the NAS Patuxent River Environmental Division and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service in The installation scored below the thresholds for which protection is required for prime and unique farmland soils. Conversion of prime farmland soils are avoided at NAS Patuxent River to the extent possible, but these impacts do not trigger the Office of the Chief of Naval Operation (OPNAV) requirement for an EA (Navy, 2017). In addition, DoD lands are not fully subject to FPPA. At the Peary Road site, the soils are primarily cut-and-fill. These soils are described as areas where grading and similar operations have cut away some of the soil, and the remaining areas are filled with mixed soils or other materials. These areas may also include places where the fill is solid waste and areas that are paved. Other soils at the Peary Road site include Evesboro loamy sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes, and Matapeake silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. Evesboro soils are excessively drained and very deep, and some inclusions are underlain by an impermeable clayey substratum at 50 inches, causing a seasonal moderately-high-water table. Matapeake soils are deep, well-drained soils formed in loamy deposits over older and coarser sediments. Some inclusions are underlain by a discontinuous impermeable iron pan at a depth of 50 to 60 inches (Navy, 2017). Matapeake soils, which compose the entire Shaw Road site, are considered prime farmland under the FPPA. Soils and prime farmland at each of the sites are shown in Figure 3-4 and Figure Environmental Consequences Geological resources are analyzed in terms of drainage, erosion, prime farmland, land subsidence, beach stability and erosion, and seismic activity. The analysis of topography and soils focuses on the area of soils that would be disturbed, the potential for erosion of soils from construction areas, and the potential for eroded soils to become pollutants in downstream surface water during storm events. The analysis also examines potential impacts related to seismic events. BMPs are identified to minimize soil impacts and prevent or control pollutant releases into stormwater. The potentially affected environment for geological resources is limited to lands that would be disturbed by any proposed facility development or demolition No Action Alternative Geological Resources Potential Impacts: No Action: No change in baseline condition. No significant impacts. Peary Road Alternative: Shortterm, minor impacts from ground disturbance during construction and grading. No significant impacts. Shaw Road Alternative: Shortterm, minor impacts from ground disturbance during construction and grading. No significant impacts. Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur, and there would be no change in baseline geology, topography, or soils. Therefore, no significant impacts on geological resources would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative Peary Road Alternative Potential Impacts The study area encompasses the proposed construction and ground-disturbance areas at the Peary Road site Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

48 Work Facilities Complex Figure 3-4 DRAFT EA February 2018 Soils and Prime Farmland at Peary Road Site 3-20 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

49 Work Facilities Complex Figure 3-5 DRAFT EA February 2018 Soils and Prime Farmland at Shaw Road Site 3-21 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

50 Minor, short-term, adverse impacts would be expected due to ground disturbance during construction of the proposed Work Facilities Complex and associated parking areas. To prevent soil erosion during grading and construction activities, the Navy employs soil-erosion and -control BMPs as defined by the MDE Water and Science Administration for all construction projects. In Maryland, land disturbance exceeding either 5,000 square feet or 100 cubic yards requires a state-approved erosion- and sedimentcontrol plan. As shown in Figure 3-4, much of the Peary Road site consists of cut-and-fill soils. Since these soils have been previously disturbed, no significant impacts on soils would be expected under the Peary Road Alternative. Some prime farmlands are present at the proposed Peary Road site, as shown in Figure 3-4. Although DoD lands are not fully subject to FPPA requirements, the amount of prime farmland soil at NAS Patuxent River is still below the thresholds for which protection is required for these soils for non- DoD lands (Navy, 2017). A preliminary geotechnical exploration and assessment of the Peary Road site was conducted in The assessment determined that the subsurface conditions of the site are suitable for the proposed buildings and pad sites and would support the parking areas and utilities. In some instances, minor site grading could uncover soft or loose soils that would need to be undercut and replaced with controlled engineered fill that could be supported on shallow foundations (ADTEK Engineers, Inc., 2017c). The Peary Road Alternative would not significantly alter geological or topographical conditions. Therefore, implementation of the Peary Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on geological resources Shaw Road Alternative (Alternative 2) Potential Impacts The study area encompasses the proposed construction and ground-disturbance areas at the Shaw Road site. Minor, short-term, adverse impacts would be expected due to ground disturbance during construction of the proposed Work Facilities Complex and associated parking areas. To prevent soil erosion during grading and construction activities, the Navy employs soil erosion and control BMPs as defined by the MDE Water and Science Administration for all construction projects. As shown in Figure 3-5, the entirety of the Shaw Road site consists of Matapeake soils. Matapeake soils are also considered prime farmland on NAS Patuxent River, and as such, construction at the Shaw Road site would irreversibly convert approximately 24 acres of prime farmland. NAS Patuxent River has a total of 2,697 acres of prime farmland. Although DoD lands are not fully subject to FPPA requirements, the amount of prime farmland soil at NAS Patuxent River is still below the thresholds for which protection is required for these soils for non-dod lands (Navy, 2017). No significant impacts on soil would be expected under the Shaw Road Alternative. A geotechnical exploration and assessment has not been conducted for the Shaw Road site, but the site is relatively flat, and the Shaw Road Alternative would not significantly alter geological or topographical conditions. Any excavation, grading, and fill activities on the site would result in only minor impacts on the topography. Therefore, implementation of the Shaw Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on geological resources Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

51 3.4 Cultural Resources This discussion of cultural resources includes prehistoric and historic archaeological sites; historic buildings, structures, and districts; and physical entities and human-made or natural features important to a culture, a subculture, or a community for traditional, religious, or other reasons. Cultural resources can be divided into three major categories: Archaeological resources (prehistoric and historic) are locations where human activity measurably altered the earth or left deposits of physical remains. Architectural resources include standing buildings, structures, landscapes, and other builtenvironment resources of historic or aesthetic significance. Traditional cultural properties may include archaeological resources, structures, neighborhoods, prominent topographic features, habitat, plants, animals, and minerals that Native Americans or other groups consider essential for the preservation of traditional culture Regulatory Setting Cultural resources are governed by other federal laws and regulations, including the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of Federal agencies responsibility for protecting historic properties is defined primarily by Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA. Section 106 requires that federal agencies consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Section 110 requires federal agencies to establish in conjunction with the Secretary of the Interior historic preservation programs for the identification, evaluation, and protection of historic properties. Cultural resources also may be covered by state, local, and territorial laws Affected Environment Cultural resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or eligible for listing in the NRHP are historic properties as defined by the NHPA. The list was established under the NHPA and is administered by the National Park Service on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior. The NRHP includes properties on public and private land. Properties can be determined eligible for listing in the NRHP by the Secretary of the Interior or by a federal agency official with concurrence from the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). An NRHP-eligible property has the same protections as a property listed in the NRHP. The historic properties include archaeological and architectural resources. The Navy has conducted inventories of cultural resources at NAS Patuxent River to identify historic properties that are listed or potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP (NAS Patuxent River, 2011). The area of potential effect (APE) for cultural resources is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking (project, activity, program or practice) may cause changes in the character or use of any historic properties present. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of the undertaking and may be different for various kinds of effects caused by the undertaking. For this Proposed Action, the Navy determined that the APE for each alternative is the same as the entire project site, as well as viewscapes toward and from the site. There are no NRHP-eligible or -listed properties immediately adjacent to, or within, either of the APEs associated with the two alternatives (see Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7). Below is a description of the existing conditions regarding archaeological and architectural resources Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

52 Work Facilities Complex DRAFT EA Figure 3-6 February 2018 Peary Road Site Area of Potential Effect 3-24 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

53 Work Facilities Complex DRAFT EA Figure 3-7 February 2018 Shaw Road Site Area of Potential Effect 3-25 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

54 Consultation with the SHPO was initiated in a letter dated March 21, This letter included the draft final report for the Phase I and Phase II survey of the Peary Road site (Klein & McCloskey, 2017). The SHPO concurred with the findings of the report in a letter dated May 16, 2017, and stated that additional archaeological investigations are not warranted within the Peary Road site. The SHPO requested consultation be continued once additional details were available on the extent and configuration of the proposed undertaking. The Navy continued consultation in a letter dated December 4, 2017, requesting concurrence that the proposed undertaking would have no effects on significant cultural properties. The SHPO provided concurrence on January 2, Consultation letters are included in Appendix A Archaeological Resources The site where NAS Patuxent River stands today, between the Patuxent River and the Chesapeake Bay, provided prehistoric populations with abundant resources. As a result, the archaeological heritage of the installation extends back more than 8,000 years. A total of 129 archaeological sites have been identified, although not all archaeological resources have been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. At a minimum distance of 350 feet to the west of the Peary Road site is the Mattapany-Sewall Site, Site 18ST390, which is listed in the NRHP. Six additional archaeological sites have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP across NAS Patuxent River (NAS Patuxent River, 2011). In 2004, a Phase I archaeological survey was conducted for approximately 3,250 acres of the installation. Although much of NAS Patuxent River is highly developed, it retains great potential for, and includes, important archaeological resources Architectural Resources All built resources constructed before 1965 at NAS Patuxent River have been surveyed and evaluated for NRHP eligibility; some of the late Cold War-era resources have also been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Nine resources at NAS Patuxent River are individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and include five hangars built during the 1940s, the 1943 Administration Building, St. Nicolas Church (constructed in 1915) and cemetery, Firehouse No. 2 (1944), and the Frank Knox School (1944). These resources are not within any historic district. One of the NRHP-eligible hangars is Building 115, a radio test hangar, approximately 1,050 feet to the northeast of the Shaw Road APE. Three historic districts at NAS Patuxent River have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and are described below. This includes the Armament Test/Electronics Test/Weapons Test Historic District (originally named the Armament Test Historic District but updated in 2005), the Flight Test/Tactical Test/NAS Operations Historic District, and the Mattapany-Sewall Complex Historic District (NAS Patuxent River, 2011). The Mattapany-Sewall Complex Historic District (Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties [MIHP] No. SM-358), sited on the Patuxent River, roughly between the East Patuxent River Seaplane Basin and the West Patuxent River Seaplane Basin, consists of a circa 1740 house, eight ancillary structures, and the surrounding historic landscape (NAS Patuxent River, 2011). The Armament Test/Electronics Test/Weapons Test Historic District (MIHP No. SM-900) is significant for its association with the primary mission of NAS Patuxent River during World War II and the early Cold War period ( ) and for its resources whose design is specific to, and particularly illustrative of, the testing facilities that supported the activities of the Armament Test Division in these decades (NAS Patuxent River, 2011). This historic district includes a parcel on the Chesapeake Bay and the installation s runways and taxiways. This district is approximately 530 feet from the Shaw Road APE Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

55 The Flight Test/Tactical Test/NAS Operations Historic District (MIHP No. SM-899) is a noncontiguous NRHP-eligible district significant for its association with the primary mission of NAS Patuxent River during World War II and the early Cold War period ( ). According to the NRHP evaluation, the integrity of setting of the Flight Test/Tactical Test/NAS Operations Historic District has been diminished by construction of new buildings adjacent to, and between, district elements (particularly in the East Patuxent River area); and integrity of materials and workmanship remain to varying degrees, as nearly all the components of the district have experienced alterations to the present day (NAS Patuxent River, 2011). Taxiway Alpha, a contributing resource to the Flight Test/Tactical Test/NAS Operations Historic District, is approximately 800 feet to the south of the Peary Road site Traditional Cultural Properties No traditional cultural properties have been identified within the APE at NAS Patuxent River Environmental Consequences Adverse effects would alter any of the characteristics of a historic property in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Analysis of potential impacts on cultural resources considers both direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts may be the result of physically altering, damaging, or destroying all or part of a resource. Indirect impacts may be the result of altering characteristics of the surrounding environment that contribute to the importance of the resource, and introducing visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that are out of character for the period the resource represents (thereby altering the setting), or neglecting the resource to the extent that it deteriorates or is destroyed. Cultural Resources Potential Impacts: No Action Alternative: No planned change in baseline condition. No significant impacts. Peary Road Alternative: No adverse effects on archaeological resources or aboveground resources. No significant impacts. Shaw Road Alternative: No adverse effects on archaeological resources or aboveground resources. No significant impacts No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur. There would be no additional buildings constructed; however, existing buildings potentially could be renovated to accommodate their continued use. The personnel are currently located in Buildings 435, 437, 440, 506, and 2272, which have either been determined ineligible for the NRHP by the SHPO or are less than 50 years old (MIHP No. SM-357). Any changes to these buildings would not have an adverse effect on historic properties. Personnel are also located in Building 1668, which was built in 1972 and has not been evaluated for the NRHP. Any renovations that might occur to Building 1668 would be done to meet the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR Part 68), if it was determined NRHPeligible. There would be no adverse effects under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, implementation of the No Action Alternative would not result in significant impacts on cultural resources Peary Road Alternative Potential Impacts The Peary Road Alternative would involve construction of five buildings and the associated infrastructure. The buildings, both in construction and type, would be consistent with other buildings in the surrounding area. In addition, other buildings along Peary and Millstone Roads are not historic and 3-27 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

56 are also two stories in height. The closest resources listed in, or eligible for, the NRHP (i.e., the Flight Test/Tactical Test/NAS Operations Historic District and the Mattapany-Sewall Complex Historic District) range from 350 feet to just over 1,050 feet from the Peary Road site. The distance between the Peary Road APE and the Mattapany-Sewall Complex Historic District is covered with mature trees and vegetation. Since the proposed buildings are no more than two stories, there is no visibility to the contributing built resources in the Mattapany-Sewall district. Portions of Taxiway Alpha, a contributing resource to the Flight Test/Tactical Test/NAS Operations Historic District, are visible to and from the Peary Road site. There are no aboveground historic properties located within or adjacent to the APE; thus, there would be no direct or indirect effects on aboveground cultural resources. In 1993, a Phase I archaeological survey was conducted for a new water well site within the current Peary Road alternative. This survey identified Site 18ST635 and recommended it potentially eligible (Otter, 1993). As a follow-up to the 1993 survey, a Phase I and Phase II archaeological survey was completed in 2016 for the Peary Road site (Klein & McCloskey, 2017). The objectives of this 2016 survey was to complete Phase I survey of a 0.57-acre area not surveyed by Otter (1993) and to evaluate Site 18ST635 for NRHP eligibility. Visual reconnaissance and subsurface testing for the Phase I survey concluded that there were no artifacts or features in the 0.57-acre area. The Phase II survey consisted of a separate 1.10-acre site that was previously identified as Site 18ST635. The goal of the Phase II survey was to relocate the site, define the boundaries, and identify the artifact concentrations. The lack of artifacts and features determined that the site is unlikely to produce important new information that would not be found elsewhere on the installation. Therefore, Site 18ST635 was not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. As previously mentioned, the SHPO concurred with the findings of this report, which included the findings for both the Phase I and Phase II survey. There would be no adverse effects on archaeological resources or aboveground resources under Section 106 from implementing the Peary Road Alternative. Therefore, implementation of the Peary Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on cultural resources Shaw Road Alternative (Alternative 2) Potential Impacts The Shaw Road Alternative would have the same building specifications and associated infrastructure as described under the Peary Road Alternative. The archaeological APE for this alternative includes the entire Shaw Road site, where there would be ground disturbance. The architectural APE also includes the entire Shaw Road site. The nearest historic resource is the western boundary of the NRHP-eligible Armament Test Historic District, which is approximately 530 feet from the Shaw Road site. A second NRHP-eligible resource is Building 115, a radio test hangar, approximately 1,050 feet to the northeast. There is a large amount of natural screening from mature trees and vegetation between the Shaw Road site and the nearby historic properties. This screening would minimize indirect effects on the viewsheds of these historic properties; thus, the historic district and Building 115 are not included in the APE (Figure 3-7). There are no historic properties within the APE for the Shaw Road Alternative; therefore, there would be no adverse effects on aboveground resources under Section 106. Archaeological survey work is complete for the Shaw Road Alternative. In 1983, Dennis Pogue conducted a Phase I survey of 300 acres at NAS Patuxent River, a portion of which was along Shaw Road (Pogue, 1983). One site was identified within the Shaw Road site, Site 18ST486, and it was recommended not eligible. Much of the Shaw Road site was included in a Phase I survey completed in 2003 that covered over 3,000 acres of the installation (Sara & Bergevin, 2004). Along Shaw Road, this survey identified Site 18ST781, the remains of a late 19th to 20th century dwelling. Due to the lack of integrity and sparse 3-28 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

57 remains, the SHPO concurred that it was not NRHP eligible. A final survey of the area was conducted in 2011 to complete identification efforts for the proposed laboratory facilities (Katz & Shellenhamer, 2011). One site, Site 18ST486, was relocated, originally identified in the 1983 survey, and confirmed not eligible due to a lack of integrity and information potential. There are no eligible archaeological resources within the Shaw Road site (Pogue, 1983; Sara & Bergevin, 2004; Katz & Shellenhamer, 2011). Therefore, implementation of the Shaw Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on cultural resources. 3.5 Biological Resources Biological resources include living, native or naturalized plant and animal species and the habitats within which they occur. Plant associations are referred to generally as vegetation, and animal species are referred to generally as wildlife. Habitat can be defined as the resources and conditions present in an area that support a plant or animal. Within this EA, biological resources are divided into four categories: (1) terrestrial vegetation, (2) terrestrial wildlife, (3) marine vegetation, and (4) marine wildlife. Threatened, endangered, and other special-status species are discussed in their respective categories Regulatory Setting Special-status species, for the purposes of this EA, are those species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and species afforded federal protection under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The purpose of the ESA is to conserve the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend and to conserve and recover listed species. Section 7 of the ESA requires action proponents to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened and endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Critical habitat cannot be designated on any areas owned, controlled, or designated for use by the DoD where an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan has been developed that, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, provides a benefit to the species subject to critical habitat designation. All marine mammals are protected under the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. No marine mammals are near the sites analyzed in this EA. Therefore, the Marine Mammal Protection Act does not apply. Marine vegetation and marine wildlife are not analyzed in detail. Birds, both migratory and most native-resident bird species, are protected under the MBTA, and their conservation by federal agencies is mandated by EO 13186, Migratory Bird Conservation. Under the MBTA, it is unlawful by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, [or] possess migratory birds or their nests or eggs at any time, unless permitted by regulation. The 2003 National Defense Authorization Act gave the Secretary of the Interior authority to prescribe regulations to exempt the Armed Forces from the incidental taking of migratory birds during authorized military readiness activities. The final rule authorizing the DoD to take migratory birds in such cases includes a requirement that the Armed Forces must confer with the USFWS to develop and implement appropriate conservation measures to minimize or mitigate adverse effects of a proposed 3-29 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

58 action if the action will have a significant negative effect on the sustainability of a population of a migratory bird species. Bald and golden eagles are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. This act prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from taking bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act defines take as pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act provides for the conservation and management of the fisheries. Under this Act, essential fish habitat (EFH) consists of the waters and substrate needed by fish to spawn, breed, feed, or grow to maturity Affected Environment The following discussions provide a description of the existing conditions for each of the categories of biological resources at NAS Patuxent River. Threatened and endangered species are discussed in each respective section below with a composite list applicable to NAS Patuxent River provided in Table Terrestrial Vegetation Vegetation includes terrestrial plant as well as freshwater aquatic communities and constituent plant species. NAS Patuxent River supports a wide variety of natural cover types, including mature forests, young woodlands, shrub-dominated land, old fields, marshes, and barren lands. Forests on NAS Patuxent River are classified as general forest types (i.e., bottomland or upland, pine or hardwood) (Navy, 2017). Upland Pine Forest. Pine forests are defined as areas dominated mainly by trees of the genus Pinus, consisting of needle-leaved evergreen species. The main pine species on NAS Patuxent River are loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana). These species are found in almost pure stands, as well as in association with each other. Upland pine forest accounts for 778 acres of the forests on NAS Patuxent River. Bottomland Pine Forest. This forest type consists of needle-leaved evergreen species in areas where the water table is at a depth sufficient to influence the development of oxygen-reducing conditions and create hydric soil and hydrophytic vegetation characteristics. Loblolly pine and associated hardwood species often dominate these areas. This forest type accounts for 27 acres of the forests on NAS Patuxent River. Upland Hardwood Forest. This forest type consists of hardwood tree species in areas where the water table is below a depth where hydric characteristics develop in the soils and plant community. These areas are dominated by chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), white oak (Quercus alba), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), hickory (Carya spp.), and other associated hardwood species. This forest type accounts for 863 acres of the forests on NAS Patuxent River. Bottomland Hardwood Forest. This forest type consists of hardwood tree species in wetland areas. These areas are dominated by sweetgum, red maple (Acer rubrum), tupelo (Nyssa spp.), hornbeam (Carpinus carolinana), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and other associated hardwood species. Bottomland hardwood forest type accounts for 36 acres of the forests on NAS Patuxent River Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

59 Table 3-4 Threatened and Endangered Species Found or Having the Potential to Be Found at Naval Air Station Patuxent River Common Name Scientific Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Birds Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis SE Henslow s sparrow Ammodramus henslowii I Short-eared owl Asio flammeus SE Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda SE Piping plover Charadrius melodus FT SE Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis SE Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi X Gull-billed tern Gelochelidon nilotica SE Mourning warbler Geothlypsis philadelphia SE Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus DL, BGEPA, MBTA Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SE Black skimmer Rynchops niger SE Blackburnian warbler Setophaga fusca DL Least tern Sternula antillarum ST Royal tern Thalasseus maximus SE Mammals Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis FT ST Reptiles Atlantic loggerhead Caretta caretta FT ST Kemp s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii FE SE Amphibians Eastern narrow-mouth toad Gastrophryne carolinensis SE Insects Northeastern beach tiger beetle Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis FT SE Frosted elfin Callophrys irus SE Fish Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum FE SE Atlantic sturgeon (Chesapeake Bay Acipenser oxyrinchus FE SE Distinct Population Segment) Plants Devil s grandmother or Elephantopus tomentosus SE tobaccoweed Guadeloupe cucumber Melothria pendula SE Sandplain flax Linum intercursum ST Seabeach knotweed Polygonum glaucum SE Swamp wedgescale Sphenopholis pensylvanica ST Sources: Navy, 2017; NAVFAC Washington, 2016b; MDNR, 2016a; MDNR, 2016b. Key: BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; DL = Delisted, but under a monitoring program; FT = Federally Threatened; MBTA = Migratory Bird Treaty Act; SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened; I = (State) In Need of Conservation; X = (State) Extirpated Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

60 Mixed Forest. Pine species also occur in combination with hardwood tree species to form mixed forest types. These areas are dominated by the two common pine species in association with chestnut oak, white oak, sweetgum, yellow-poplar, and other associated hardwood species. This mixed forest type accounts for 517 acres of the forests on NAS Patuxent River. Scrub/shrub. Scrub/shrub areas are successional habitats, representing advanced old field communities that are progressing naturally toward young forest habitat. This community type primarily contains shrubs and young trees with some herbaceous vegetation. Old Field. Old field areas are associated with former agricultural areas and abandoned wildlife food patches, developed areas, utility rights-of-way, and recent timber clear-cuts. These disturbed areas contain perennial grasses and composites, with legumes (Fabaceae family) and sedges (Cyperaceae family) as associates. The wetland communities on NAS Patuxent River are discussed in Section The Peary Road and Shaw Road sites are both vegetated with mixed forest. The Peary Road site includes some upland pine forest and some scrub/shrub vegetation. The Shaw Road site includes some loblolly pine stands within the mixed forest (Navy, 2017). No federally listed threatened or endangered plant species are known to occur on NAS Patuxent River. However, five state-listed threatened and endangered plant species have been found on the installation. These species are managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program and include devil s grandmother, or tobaccoweed (Elephantopus tomentosus); sandplain flax (Linum intercursum); Guadeloupe cucumber (Melothria pendula); seabeach knotweed (Polygonum glaucum); and swamp wedgescale (Sphenopholis pensylvanica) (USFWS, 2014; Navy, 2017; Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 2016b). These state-listed plant species are not found within the Peary Road or Shaw Road sites (Navy, 2017) Terrestrial Wildlife Wildlife includes all animal species (i.e., insects and other invertebrates, freshwater fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) focusing on the species and habitat features of greatest importance or interest. The wildlife on NAS Patuxent River varies based on habitat. The wildlife habitats present can be categorized as forest-dependent (deciduous, coniferous, mature, and successional), open-landdependent (mowed, agricultural, old field), freshwater-wetlands-dependent (marshes, forests), salinemarsh-dependent (cordgrass, rush-dominant), and open-water-dependent (freshwater impoundments, estuarine bays, Patuxent River, Chesapeake Bay) communities. Many species of birds and mammals use two or more of these communities; for example, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) use all communities as part of their home range. Conversely, some species are restricted to single communities, such as redback salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) in deciduous forests and grasshopper sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum) in old fields. White-tailed deer and eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) are ubiquitous species on NAS Patuxent River, and the most commonly observed mammals. Mixed oak-pine habitats on the installation, like those found at the two site alternatives, can be expected to support gray fox (Urocyon cineroargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), shorttail shrew (Blarina brevicauda), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), boreal redback vole (Clethrionomys gapperi), and several 3-32 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

61 species of bats, including red bat (Lasiurus borealis), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), and tri-colored bat (Pipistrellus subflavus). Bird species such as pine warbler (Setophaga pinus), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), and common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) would also be expected (Navy, 2017). Three bald eagle nests are located on NAS Patuxent River (Smith, 2018). Golden eagles are not known to nest in the vicinity. Federally threatened terrestrial species that have been documented on NAS Patuxent River include the northeastern beach tiger beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis) and piping plover (Charadrius malodus). A few adult northeastern beach tiger beetles have been observed at NAS Patuxent River, but it is unknown whether they are breeding at NAS Patuxent River or if they were dispersed from other known breeding sites in Calvert County. No larval northeastern beach tiger beetles have been observed at NAS Patuxent River to date, and there is no suitable habitat to support the species. The piping plover was documented in a single migratory record from the 1960s, but the species has not since been observed at NAS Patuxent River. The northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), a federally threatened species, has the potential to occur on NAS Patuxent River, but it has not been observed during mist-netting and acoustical surveys conducted in 2012, 2013, and 2015 (Navy, 2017). Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus), a candidate for listing as threatened, has been observed on NAS Patuxent River in the fields habitat, but occurrences are rare (Navy, 2017). No federally listed species are known to occur on either the Peary Road or Shaw Road site (Navy, 2017) Fish Fish are vital components of the marine ecosystem. They have great ecological and economic aspects. To protect this resource, NOAA Fisheries works with the regional fishery management councils to identify EFH for every life stage of each federally managed species using the best available scientific information. EFH has been described for approximately 1,000 managed species to date. EFH includes all types of aquatic habitat, including wetlands, coral reefs, seagrasses, and rivers all locations where fish spawn, breed, feed, or grow to maturity. Catfish, bluegill, and largemouth bass are found in the upper reach of tidal Pine Hill Run, while common carp, white perch, and other fish associated with tidal creeks are found in the lower reach (Navy, 2017). Pine Hill Run is adjacent to the Shaw Road Alternative. There are no known federal- or state-listed threatened or endangered fish species on NAS Patuxent River property. The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), which is a federally endangered species and a Maryland state-endangered species, is capable of sustaining populations in the Patuxent River and the Chesapeake Bay. NOAA Fisheries listed the Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhyncus) as an endangered species in The Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segment includes NAS Patuxent River (Navy, 2017). Neither sturgeon species is known to occur on or near the Peary Road or Shaw Road sites Environmental Consequences This analysis focuses on wildlife or vegetation types that are important to the function of the ecosystem or are protected under federal or state law or statute Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

62 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur, and there would be no change in baseline conditions of biological resources. Therefore, no significant impacts on biological resources would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative Peary Road Alternative Potential Impacts The study area for the analysis of effects on biological resources associated with the Peary Road Alternative includes the proposed construction footprint at the Peary Road site. Minor, adverse impacts on biological resources would be expected from the Peary Road Alternative. Construction activities would be expected to result in noise and fugitive dust impacts, which would have minor, short-term impacts on wildlife at the Peary Road site. The construction of the new buildings and associated parking areas would result in the permanent loss of vegetation and habitat, causing minor, long-term, adverse impacts on biological resources. Implementation of the Peary Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on biological resources. Vegetation The construction of the five buildings under the Peary Road Alternative would occur on 13 acres within a mixed forest that includes some upland pine forest and some scrub/shrub vegetation (Navy, 2017). The Peary Road Alternative would result in the loss of approximately 13 acres of tree canopy and habitat. This loss would comprise approximately 0.6 percent of the total existing forested areas on NAS Patuxent River (which is approximately 2,221 acres of forest 1 ). Terrestrial Wildlife Biological Resource Potential Impacts: No Action Alternative: No change in baseline condition. No significant impact. Peary Road Alternative: Minor, adverse impacts from construction activities and the permanent loss of vegetation and habitat. No significant impacts. Shaw Road Alternative: Minor, adverse impacts from construction activities and the permanent loss of vegetation and habitat. No significant impacts. Short- and long-term impacts on terrestrial wildlife species could occur from noise and habitat disturbances associated with the Peary Road Alternative construction activities. Increases in noise levels from construction activities would be minor and temporary. As previously mentioned, under the Peary Road Alternative, construction would occur on forested areas, resulting in the loss of 13 acres of forested area. However, other suitable habitat areas are available on NAS Patuxent River, and impacts from habitat removal would be minor. Activities at the Peary Road site could result in short-term impacts from the disturbance of terrestrial wildlife, such as those common species listed in Section , but would not further threaten the existence of any protected species or sensitive habitats on the installation. No impacts on bald eagles would be expected because no nests are near the Peary Road site (Smith, 2018). Installation personnel 1 This acreage was derived from the total of all general forest types on NAS Patuxent River, as described in Section Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

63 would continue to manage habitats according to the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, which addresses protection of rare and listed species. Fish No fish or marine species occur within the study area of the Peary Road Alternative; therefore, there would be no impacts on these resources under this alternative. Threatened and Endangered Species No threatened or endangered plant or animal species are known to occur or likely to occur within the study area of the Peary Road Alternative (Navy, 2017). Therefore, no impacts on threatened or endangered species would be expected under this alternative, and no formal consultation between the U.S. Navy and USFWS or NOAA Fisheries would be required. Implementation of the Peary Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on biological resources Shaw Road Alternative (Alternative 2) Potential Impacts The study area for the analysis of effects on biological resources associated with the Shaw Road Alternative includes the proposed construction footprint at the Shaw Road site. Under the Shaw Road Alternative, impacts would be similar to those described under the Peary Road Alternative. Minor, adverse impacts on biological resources would be expected from noise and fugitive dust created during construction activities, and these impacts would further have minor, short-term impacts on wildlife at the Shaw Road site. Construction of the new buildings and associated parking areas would result in the permanent loss of vegetation and habitat, causing minor, long-term adverse impacts on biological resources. Implementation of the Shaw Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on biological resources. Vegetation The construction of the five buildings under the Shaw Road Alternative would occur within a mixed forest area, which includes some loblolly pine (Navy, 2017). The Shaw Road Alternative would result in the loss of approximately 15 acres of tree canopy and habitat (i.e., 0.7 percent of the existing forest areas on NAS Patuxent River). Terrestrial Wildlife The impacts on terrestrial wildlife would be similar to those described under the Peary Road Alternative. Short- and long-term impacts on terrestrial wildlife species could occur from noise and habitat disturbances associated with Shaw Road Alternative construction activities. Increases in noise levels from construction activities would be minor and temporary. As previously mentioned, under the Shaw Road Alternative, construction would occur on forested areas, resulting in the loss of 15 acres of forested area. However, other suitable habitat areas are available on NAS Patuxent River, and impacts from habitat removal would be minor. No impacts on bald eagles would be expected because the closest nest is approximately 4,500 feet from the Shaw Road site (Smith, 2018), which is well beyond the distance recommended by USFWS for conservation of bald eagles and their nests (USFWS, 2007) Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

64 Fish No marine species occur within the study area of the Shaw Road Alternative. However, fish are present within the adjacent Pine Hill Run, and could be affected by potential soil erosion and runoff during construction activities. The Shaw Road site is approximately 400 feet away from Pine Hill Run. There is a vegetated buffer between the proposed construction site and the tidal creek. On NAS Patuxent River, EFH incorporates all creeks and waterways located on, or adjacent to, the installation (Navy, 2017). Given the proximity to Pine Hill Run, soil erosion and runoff during construction could affect EFH present within the tidal creek. During construction, BMPs for soil erosion and sediment control would be employed as defined by the MDE Water and Science Administration to minimize the migration of sediment into the tidal creek. Stormwater facilities would be constructed similar to those proposed under the Peary Road Alternative (bioretention facilities and bioswales), which would manage stormwater impacts from the increase in impervious surfaces after construction. Therefore, no significant impacts on EFH in Pine Hill Run would be expected. Threatened and Endangered Species No threatened or endangered plant or animal species are known to occur or are likely to occur within the study area of the Shaw Road Alternative (Navy, 2017). Therefore, no impacts on threatened or endangered species would be expected under this alternative. Implementation of the Shaw Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on biological resources. 3.6 Infrastructure This section discusses infrastructure such as utilities (including drinking water distribution, wastewater collection, stormwater management, solid waste management, energy, and communications), and facilities (including buildings, training and testing areas, and housing) Regulatory Setting EO 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, requires federal departments and agencies to enact specific actions and operations outlined within the EO to reduce agency direct GHG emissions by at least 40 percent over the next decade. Improved environmental performance and federal sustainability will be achieved by reducing energy use and cost. Pursuing clean sources of energy will improve energy and water security. OPNAV Instruction E outlines the Secretary of the Navy s vision for shore energy management. The focus of this instruction is establishing the energy goals and implementing strategy to achieve energy efficiency. Antiterrorism force protection standards have been adopted by the DoD through DoD Instruction , dated October The standards require all DoD Components to adopt and adhere to common criteria and minimum construction standards to mitigate antiterrorism vulnerabilities and terrorist threats Affected Environment The following discussions provide a description of the existing conditions for each of the categories under infrastructure at NAS Patuxent River Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

65 Utilities Existing utility systems (i.e., electrical, water, natural gas, sanitary sewer and wastewater, and stormwater) are near the sites analyzed for the Proposed Action. The project sites are adjacent to roadways that tie into the existing utility systems (Navy, 2012). Potable Water The condition of the NAS Patuxent River water supply system is fair to good, and no major improvements have been completed to date because efforts are underway to privatize the system. Water is drawn from three aquifers, and there are 28 wells in operation on the installation. One of the aquifers was thought to be in danger of being depleted by 2035; however, a recent study indicated that this is unlikely. The watermains are constructed from transite, plastic, and ductile iron. There are three water towers on the installation that store potable water (Navy, 2012). Wastewater The on-base wastewater system is operated by the Navy. The wastewater collection system at NAS Patuxent River consists of 37 wastewater lift stations, 25 miles of gravity sewer lines, 7 miles of force mains, 3 bioreactors, and 18 septic systems. NAS Patuxent River s wastewater is treated at a municipal plant outside of NAS Patuxent River that is owned and operated by St. Mary s County Metropolitan Commission. The treatment plant has a total capacity of 6 million gallons per day and currently treats roughly 3 million gallons per day. NAS Patuxent River s wastewater composes 20 percent, or 1.2 million gallons per day, of the treatment plant s capacity (Navy, 2012). Stormwater There are several small stormwater management facilities at NAS Patuxent River. However, much of the installation was built before these facilities were required or deemed necessary. Stormwater and storm sewer lines are located around the project sites. Updates to stormwater management or actions that would affect stormwater management on the installation are vetted through the MDE Water and Science Administration (Navy, 2012). Solid Waste Management NAS Patuxent River began a recycling program in the mid-1990s that is now outsourced to a recycling contractor, Melwood Horticultural Training Center in Upper Marlboro. There is a main recycling station, located off Millstone Road, and three additional satellite recycling stations that recycle about 35 different commodities (Navy, 2012). NAS Patuxent River generates approximately 3,400 tons of solid waste annually. Of this total, 89 percent is incinerated and 11 percent is sent to a landfill (NAVFAC Washington, 2016a). Energy Electric service is privatized at NAS Patuxent River, and is operated by Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative. The current level of service is fair to good, and there is dual redundancy. There are four substations on-base and each has excess capacity to handle future expansion. Each substation has a 69- kilovolt transmission line and new, buried service lines. The electric infrastructure network on-base was upgraded in 2012 to 13.8-kilovolt lines (Navy, 2012). Natural gas at NAS Patuxent River is provided, operated, and maintained by Washington Gas. Washington Gas provides 55 pounds of natural gas each day through a network of 6-inch distribution 3-37 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

66 lines. Natural gas is used for heating in some buildings and in some operations. There are no steam lines at NAS Patuxent River (Navy, 2012). Communications Eleven buildings at NAS Patuxent River contain fiber distribution nodes. Fiber distribution nodes cannot be moved; consequently, the location of new developments and renovations must carefully consider their locations. Fiber-optic lines are located throughout the installation, parallel to the underground electrical lines, along with fiber distribution network lines. Telephone lines are both above- and belowground, but the building connections are belowground (Navy, 2012) Facilities The facilities at NAS Patuxent River were evaluated using the Facility Readiness Evaluation System to calculate an Installation Figure of Merit for each facility. This is a readiness indicator of facility resource availability. The facilities on NAS Patuxent River were evaluated in terms of condition, configuration, and capacity, and given a rating (between 0 and 100). Fifty-five percent of facilities have an adequate Installation Figure of Merit rating, 33 percent have a substandard rating, and 12 percent have an inadequate rating (Navy, 2012). As described in Section 1.4, many of the buildings at NAS Patuxent River were built during World War II and are deteriorating. Over time, steam leaks have softened wood floors in some buildings, often resulting in termites, mold, and, eventually, a weakened floor Environmental Consequences This section analyzes the magnitude of anticipated increases or decreases in public works infrastructure demands considering historic levels, existing management practices, and storage capacity, and evaluates potential impacts on public works infrastructure associated with implementation of the alternatives. Impacts are evaluated by whether they would result in the use of a substantial proportion of the remaining system capacity, reach or exceed the current capacity of the system, or require development of facilities and sources beyond those existing or currently planned No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur, the existing infrastructure would continue to deteriorate, and personnel would continue to work in inadequate buildings and trailers. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would result in minor, long-term adverse impacts on infrastructure; however, these impacts are not expected to be significant. Infrastructure Potential Impacts: No Action Alternative: Minor, long-term impacts on infrastructure as existing facilities continue to deteriorate. No significant impacts. Peary Road Alternative: Longterm, beneficial impacts would result from upgrading and improving utilities and facilities. Minor increase in demand on installation utilities from new personnel. No significant impacts. Shaw Road Alternative: Similar to impacts under the Peary Road Alternative. No significant impact Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

67 Peary Road Alternative Potential Impacts The study area for infrastructure under the Peary Road Alternative includes the Peary Road site and immediately surrounding area. Long-term, beneficial impacts on infrastructure would be expected under the Peary Road Alternative. NAS Patuxent River has aging infrastructure and a lack of facility space. Current NAWCAD administrative and mission-support functions are housed in facilities scattered throughout the installation. Construction of the Work Facilities Complex at the Peary Road site would help land-use incompatibilities on NAS Patuxent River by consolidating NAWCAD functions in modern, efficient buildings. In addition, new utility systems built under the Peary Road Alternative would be water-efficient and conform to requirements identified in EO 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade. The new and upgraded utility systems would result in beneficial effects on the utilities at NAS Patuxent River. An additional 120 personnel are expected to transfer to NAS Patuxent River under the Peary Road Alternative, which would increase the demand placed on utilities. The Peary Road Alternative would provide new, modern facilities for the new and existing personnel, rather than the current arrangement of offices scattered throughout the installation Utilities Potable Water Under the Peary Road Alternative, the proposed buildings would receive domestic water through a dedicated waterline. Water service would be provided from the existing watermain running along the northern side of Peary Road (ADTEK Engineers, Inc., 2017a). An existing watermain that goes through the Peary Road site would remain. Construction activities could result in brief, intermittent interruptions of water service at the immediate project site during connections, but these interruptions would result in negligible impacts on the surrounding areas. Under the Peary Road Alternative, 120 new employees would be expected, which would place additional demand on water at the installation. The personnel increase is approximately 0.5 percent of the current 22,000 personnel at NAS Patuxent River, and new utility systems would be water-efficient and conform to requirements identified in EO 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade. Given this, increases in potable water use associated with the Peary Road Alternative would have negligible effects on NAS Patuxent River water systems. The Work Facilities Complex design would comply with the installation s state water appropriations permit. Implementation of the Peary Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on potable water systems. Wastewater Sanitary services would be provided from an existing line south of Peary Road (ADTEK Engineers, Inc., 2017c). Sanitary sewer gravity pipelines would be installed parallel with the potable waterlines, and would be made of polyvinyl chloride plastic pipe (ADTEK Engineers, Inc., 2017a). Construction activities could result in brief, intermittent interruptions of service at the immediate project site during connections, but these interruptions would result in negligible impacts on the surrounding areas. Under the Peary Road Alternative, 120 employees are expected at NAS Patuxent River, and a minor increase in overall demand on the sanitary sewer systems would be expected in the long term. New utility systems would be water-efficient and conform to requirements identified in EO 13693, Planning 3-39 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

68 for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade. Based on the current use and design capabilities of the St. Mary s County wastewater treatment plant, wastewater associated with the Peary Road Alternative would have negligible effects on regional systems. Implementation of the Peary Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on wastewater systems. Stormwater Under the Peary Road Alternative, bioswale and micro-bioretention stormwater management facilities would be constructed with the first construction phase to control runoff from the building, parking, and sidewalks. Underdrains would be provided in the facilities, and roof downspouts would be used to direct runoff to stormwater management facilities. Storm sewer would be provided from stormwater management facilities and untreated low points to the existing storm sewer system. All runoff from impervious areas would be treated (ADTEK Engineers, Inc., 2017a). As discussed in Section , impervious surfaces at the project site would increase under the Peary Road Alternative. On-site stormwater systems would be designed to meet applicable MDE requirements, low-impact development, and EO requirements and would treat 100 percent of the new impervious surfaces. A stormwater management plan would be sent to the MDE Water and Science Administration for approval (ADTEK Engineers, Inc., 2017c). Therefore, with new stormwater infrastructure at the project site, no significant impacts on stormwater systems would be expected under the Peary Road Alternative. Solid Waste Management Increases in solid waste associated with construction activities would be temporary and would be disposed of in accordance with relevant federal, state, and local regulations. Construction debris would be recycled or reused to the maximum extent possible, and debris that cannot be recycled or reused would be taken off-base to an approved construction and demolition landfill near NAS Patuxent River. Long-term increases associated with the additional 120 people on NAS Patuxent River would also occur, but increases would be accommodated within existing solid waste management and recycling practices. Therefore, implementation of the Peary Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on solid waste management. Energy Under the Peary Road Alternative, electrical service would be installed throughout each new building, providing reliable and efficient electrical service. Electrical service would be provided from an existing line south of Peary Road (ADTEK Engineers, Inc., 2017a). Construction activities could result in brief, intermittent interruptions of service at the immediate project site during connections, but these interruptions would result in negligible impacts on the surrounding area. The eventual use of the new facilities would result in a continued demand and use of energy. The new employees under the Peary Road Alternative would increase the electricity demand a minor amount beyond levels currently used by NAWCAD facilities, but still well within the operating capacity of the system. Furthermore, the new electrical lines installed would be more efficient than those used at the existing facilities because they would be constructed in accordance with EO 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade. Implementation of the Peary Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on energy systems Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

69 Communications Under the Peary Road Alternative, communication service would be provided from Building 534, which is east of the project site (ADTEK Engineers, Inc., 2017a). During construction of the proposed buildings, coordination with the service providers would be necessary to connect to the existing fiber optic and communications network. Implementation of the Peary Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on the communication system Facilities Construction of the Work Facilities Complex at the Peary Road site would be expected to have overall long-term, beneficial effects on facilities. Facility construction would provide a more suitable, consolidated location for the NAWCAD functions. The new construction would provide improved facilities with modernized utilities to support the NAWCAD mission and improve current conditions. Vehicular access would be provided via two entrances off Peary Road. Approximately 600 total parking spaces would be built, including approximately 25 handicap-accessible spaces. Sidewalks would also be constructed for pedestrian access from the parking spaces to the buildings (ADTEK Engineers, Inc., 2017c). The proposed construction would be designed to meet antiterrorism force protection requirements, including a standoff distance of 56 feet from the building (ADTEK Engineers, Inc., 2017c). Therefore, implementation of the Peary Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on facilities Shaw Road Alternative (Alternative 2) Potential Impacts The study area for infrastructure under the Shaw Road Alternative includes the Shaw Road site and immediately surrounding area Utilities Potable Water An 8-inch watermain is along Switzer Road, west and north of the Shaw Road Site; waterlines run along Shaw Road adjacent to the site (Navy, 2010b; Navy, 2012). Construction activities could result in brief, intermittent interruptions of water service at the immediate project site during connections, but these interruptions would result in negligible impacts on the surrounding areas. Long-term impacts on potable water would be the same as those described for the Peary Road Alternative. The Work Facilities Complex design would comply with the installation s state water appropriations permit. Implementation of the Shaw Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on potable water systems. Wastewater The main transfer site for the sanitary sewer system on NAS Patuxent River is located to the west of the Shaw Road site, beyond Shaw Road. A pump station is located near the Robert N. Becker Laboratory on Switzer Road (Navy, 2010b). Wastewater lines run along Shaw Road adjacent to the Shaw Road site (Navy, 2012). Construction activities could result in brief, intermittent interruptions of service at the immediate project site during connections, but these interruptions would result in negligible impacts on the surrounding areas. Long-term impacts on wastewater would be the same as those described for the Peary Road Alternative. Implementation of the Shaw Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on wastewater systems Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

70 Stormwater On-site stormwater management systems have not been designed for the Shaw Road site. If this alternative was selected, stormwater management would be provided to treat 100 percent of the new impervious surfaces in accordance with applicable MDE requirements, low-impact development, and EO requirements. It is anticipated that this alternative would employ bioswale and microbioretention stormwater management facilities similar to those described for the Peary Road Alternative. Stormwater lines are present near the northeastern corner of the Shaw Road site, though further design would be needed to determine if these could be used for this project (Navy, 2012). With new stormwater infrastructure at the project site, no significant impacts on stormwater systems would be expected under the Shaw Road Alternative. Solid Waste Management Under the Shaw Road Alternative, short- and long-term impacts on solid waste management would be the same as those described under the Peary Road Alternative. Therefore, implementation of the Shaw Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on solid waste management. Energy Electrical service would be installed throughout each new building, providing reliable and efficient electrical service. Electrical lines are present adjacent to the Shaw Road site (Navy, 2012). Construction activities could result in brief, intermittent interruptions of service at the immediate project site during connections, but these interruptions would result in negligible impacts on the surrounding areas. Longterm impacts on electrical systems would be the same as those described for the Peary Road Alternative. Implementation of the Shaw Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on energy systems. Communications Fiber optic lines are along Shaw Road, adjacent to the project site. Communications antennae are just north of the project site, north of Shaw Road and west of Sears Road (Navy, 2012). During construction of the proposed buildings, coordination with the service providers would be necessary to connect to the existing fiber optic and communications network. Implementation of the Shaw Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on the communication system Facilities Under the Shaw Road Alternative, short- and long-term impacts on facilities would be the same as those described under the Peary Road Alternative. Therefore, implementation of the Shaw Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts on facilities. 3.7 Hazardous Materials and Wastes This section discusses hazardous materials, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and contaminated sites Regulatory Setting Hazardous materials are defined by 49 CFR section as hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, marine pollutants, elevated temperature materials, materials designated as hazardous in the Hazardous Materials Table, and materials that meet the defining criteria for hazard classes and divisions in 49 CFR part 173. Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

71 Hazardous wastes are defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, as a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may (A) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. Certain types of hazardous wastes are subject to special management provisions intended to ease the management burden and facilitate the recycling of such materials. These are called universal wastes and their associated regulatory requirements are specified in 40 CFR part 273. Four types of waste are currently covered under the universal wastes regulations: hazardous waste batteries, hazardous waste pesticides that are either recalled or collected in waste pesticide collection programs, hazardous waste thermostats, and hazardous waste lamps, such as fluorescent light bulbs. Special hazards are those substances that might pose a risk to human health and are addressed separately from other hazardous substances. Special hazards include asbestos-containing material (ACM), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and lead-based paint (LBP). USEPA is given authority to regulate special hazard substances by the Toxic Substances Control Act. Asbestos is also regulated by USEPA under the Clean Air Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. The DoD established the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) to facilitate thorough investigation and cleanup of contaminated sites on military installations (active installations, installations subject to Base Realignment and Closure, and formerly used defense sites). The Installation Restoration Program (IRP) and the Military Munitions Response Program are components of the DERP. The IRP requires each DoD installation to identify, investigate, and clean up hazardous waste disposal or release sites. The Military Munitions Response Program addresses nonoperational rangelands that are suspected or known to contain unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, or munitions constituent contamination. The Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) is the Navy s initiative to address DERP Affected Environment The Navy has implemented a Hazardous Material Control and Management Program and a Hazardous Waste Minimization Program for all activities. These programs are governed Navy-wide by applicable OPNAV instructions and at the installation by Base Commander instructions. The Navy continuously monitors its operations to find ways to minimize the use of hazardous materials and to reduce the generation of hazardous wastes Hazardous Materials Everyday activities at the installation require the use, handling, and storage of hazardous materials and petroleum products, including oils, lubricants, cleaners, hydraulic fluids, pesticides, and liquid fuels (i.e., gasoline, JP-8, and diesel). The primary hazardous materials storage buildings are Buildings 619, 653, 666, 1693, 2101, and 2385; however, smaller, local storage areas are scattered across the installation (NAVFAC Washington, 2017) Hazardous Waste Industrial activities generate various quantities of hazardous wastes, such as used oils, waste fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, paint, paint thinners, cleaners, degreasers, solvents, and batteries. The 3-43 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

72 installation has one central hazardous waste storage warehouse at Building 619 and 49 satellite accumulation areas. Hazardous wastes generated at the installation are managed in accordance with the installation s Regulated Waste Management Plan (NAVFAC Washington, 2017) Special Hazards (Asbestos-Containing Materials, Lead-Based Paint, Polychlorinated Biphenyls) ACM and LBP have been documented in certain buildings on the installation (Navy, 2010a). It is possible that PCB-containing construction materials and electrical equipment might be present in facilities that were constructed prior to the 1978-phase out of PCBs (NAVFAC Washington, 2017). Since there are no facilities present on the Peary Road or Shaw Road sites, there are no known special hazards (ACM, LBP, or PCBs) present Defense Environmental Restoration Program In 1994, NAS Patuxent River was listed in the USEPA National Priorities List due to past hazardous material handling and disposal practices on the installation. The Navy conducted an initial assessment of potentially contaminated areas in 1982, and 31 IRP sites were originally established. Currently, 46 ERP sites are at NAS Patuxent River. Installation-wide investigations and site restorations continue under the program (Navy, 2012). Two IRP sites are adjacent to the project sites. IRP Site 28 is adjacent to the Peary Road site, and IRP Site 35 is adjacent to the Shaw Road site. Site 28 was used from the 1940s until 1973 for the storage of vintage 1940s and 1950s transformers. It has been reported that as many as 100 transformers were stored on concrete pads at the site. PCBcontaminated soils were removed in 1991, 2014, and The site is response-complete (i.e., closed) (Morgan, 2017). Site 35 is currently used for agriculture. The Navy and USEPA signed a decision document on November 4, 2003, for no further action at Site 35. The MDE provided a No Comment letter on December 15, 2003, in lieu of signing the decision document. As a result, Site 35 is closed and has been removed from the NAS Patuxent River ERP (Morgan, 2017) Environmental Consequences The hazardous materials and wastes analysis contained in the respective sections addresses issues related to the use and management of hazardous materials and wastes, as well as the presence and management of specific cleanup sites at NAS Patuxent River No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur, and there would be no change associated with hazardous materials and wastes. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur with implementation of the No Action Alternative. Hazardous Material and Waste Potential Impacts: No Action Alternative: No change in baseline conditions. No significant impact. Peary Road Alternative: Hazardous materials and wastes would be handled in accordance with regulations. No significant impacts. Shaw Road Alternative: Similar to the Peary Road Alternative. No significant impacts Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

73 Peary Road Alternative Potential Impacts The study area for the Peary Road Alternative is the immediate project site. Hazardous Materials The proposed construction activities would require the delivery and use of minimal amounts of hazardous materials, such as paint, adhesives, and solvents. Management of all hazardous materials would be the responsibility of contractors during construction activities, and products would be handled in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. All construction-related hazardous materials, including petroleum products, would be removed and disposed of upon completion of construction tasks. No impacts from hazardous materials would be expected during operation of the new facilities. Hazardous Wastes The small amounts of hazardous materials that would be expected for construction of the Work Facilities Complex at the Peary Road site would generate minimal hazardous wastes. Contractors would be responsible for the management and handling of hazardous wastes, and would do so in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Operation of the facilities under the Peary Road Alternative would not be anticipated to generate any hazardous waste. Special Hazards There are no known special hazards on the Peary Road site. As such, no impacts on special hazards would be expected. Defense Environmental Restoration Program All work being performed under the Peary Road Alternative (e.g., grading, construction, utilities) would occur outside of the boundaries of established IRP sites. The closest site, IRP Site 28, has been closed and poses no further risk (Morgan, 2017). Therefore, implementation of the Peary Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts associated with hazardous materials and wastes Shaw Road Alternative Potential Impacts The study area for the Shaw Road Alternative is the immediate project site. Hazardous Materials Impacts on hazardous materials under the Shaw Road Alternative would be the same as those described under the Peary Road Alternative. Hazardous Wastes Impacts on hazardous wastes under the Shaw Road Alternative would be the same as those described under the Peary Road Alternative. Special Hazards There are no known special hazards on the Shaw Road site. As such, no impacts on special hazards would be expected Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

74 Defense Environmental Restoration Program All work being performed under the Shaw Road Alternative (e.g., grading, construction, utilities) would occur outside of the boundaries of established IRP sites. The closest site, IRP Site 35, has been closed and poses no further risk (Morgan, 2017). A former rifle range was located on or near the Shaw Road site. If the Shaw Road Alternative were selected, and the Shaw Road site was determined to be within the footprint of the old range, an Explosive Safety Submission-Determination Request would be submitted to the Naval Ordnance Safety and Security Activity to determine whether an Explosive Safety Submission would be necessary. The Explosive Safety Submission would serve as the plan for how old munitions from the former rifle range would be dealt with, if discovered during construction activity (Hodges, 2017; Steele, 2017b). Implementation of the Shaw Road Alternative would not result in significant impacts associated with hazardous materials and wastes. 3.8 Summary of Potential Impacts on Resources A summary of the potential impacts associated with each of the action alternatives and the No Action Alternative is presented in Table Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

75 Table 3-5 Summary of Potential Impacts on Resource Areas Resource Area No Action Alternative Peary Road Alternative (Preferred Alternative) Air Quality No change in baseline condition. No Short-term, minor increases in emissions significant impacts. during construction, and long-term, minor increases from 120 additional personnel. No significant impacts. Water Resources Geological Resources Cultural Resources Biological Resources Infrastructure Hazardous Materials and Wastes No change in baseline condition. No significant impacts. No change in baseline condition. No significant impacts. No planned change in baseline condition. No significant impacts. No change in baseline condition. No significant impacts. Minor, long-term impacts from continued degradation of facilities. No significant impacts. No change in baseline condition. No significant impacts. Short- and long-term, minor, adverse impacts from construction and an increase in impervious surfaces. No significant impacts. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts from construction activities. No significant impacts. No adverse effects on archaeological resources or aboveground resources. No significant impacts. Minor, adverse impacts from construction activities and the permanent loss of vegetation and habitat. No significant impacts. Long-term, beneficial impacts from upgrading and improving utilities and facilities. Minor increase in demand on utilities from new personnel. No significant impacts. Hazardous materials and wastes would be handled in accordance with regulations. No significant impacts. Shaw Road Alternative (Alternative 2) Short-term, minor increases in emissions during construction, and long-term, minor increases from 120 additional personnel. No significant impacts. Moderate, adverse impacts from direct impacts on wetlands. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts from construction activities. No significant impacts. No adverse effects on archaeological resources or aboveground resources. No significant impacts. Minor, adverse impacts from construction activities and the permanent loss of vegetation and habitat. No significant impacts. Long-term, beneficial impacts from upgrading and improving utilities and facilities. Minor increase in demand on utilities from new personnel. No significant impacts. Hazardous materials and wastes would be handled in accordance with regulations. No significant impacts Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

76 This page intentionally left blank Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

77 4 Cumulative Impacts This section (1) defines cumulative impacts; (2) describes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions relevant to cumulative impacts; (3) analyzes the incremental interaction the proposed action may have with other actions; and (4) evaluates cumulative impacts potentially resulting from these interactions. 4.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts The approach taken in the analysis of cumulative impacts follows the objectives of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, CEQ guidance, and Navy regulations. A cumulative impact is defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. To determine the scope of environmental impact analyses, agencies shall consider cumulative actions, which, when viewed with other proposed actions, have cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same impact analysis document. In addition, CEQ and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have published guidance addressing implementation of cumulative impact analyses Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis (CEQ, 2005) and Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (USEPA, 1999). CEQ guidance entitled Considering Cumulative Impacts Under NEPA (1997) states that cumulative impact analyses should... determine the magnitude and significance of the environmental consequences of the proposed action in the context of the cumulative impacts of other past, present, and future actions... identify significant cumulative impacts... [and]... focus on truly meaningful impacts. Cumulative impacts are most likely to arise when a relationship or synergism exists between a proposed action and other actions expected to occur in a similar location or during a similar time period. Actions overlapping with or near a proposed action would be expected to have more potential for a relationship than those more geographically separated. Similarly, relatively concurrent actions would tend to offer a higher potential for cumulative impacts. To identify cumulative impacts, the analysis needs to address the following three fundamental questions. Does a relationship exist such that affected resource areas of the Proposed Action might interact with the affected resource areas of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions? If one or more of the affected resource areas of the Proposed Action and another action could be expected to interact, would the Proposed Action affect, or be affected by, impacts of the other action? If such a relationship exists, then does an assessment reveal any potentially significant impacts not identified when the Proposed Action is considered alone? 4-1 Cumulative Impacts

78 4.2 Scope of Cumulative Impacts Analysis The scope of the cumulative impacts analysis involves both the geographic extent of the effects and the time frame in which the effects could be expected to occur. For this Environmental Assessment (EA), the study area delimits the geographic extent of the cumulative impacts analysis. In general, the study area will include those areas previously identified in Chapter 3 for the respective resource areas. The time frame for cumulative impacts centers on the timing of the Proposed Action. Another factor influencing the scope of cumulative impacts analysis involves identifying other actions to consider. Beyond determining that the geographic scope and time frame for the actions interrelate to the Proposed Action, the analysis employs the measure of reasonably foreseeable to include or exclude other actions. For the purposes of this analysis, public documents prepared by federal, state, and local government agencies form the primary sources of information regarding reasonably foreseeable actions. Given the scope and location of this project, documents used to identify other actions include recent Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River EAs, project planning lists from Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), management plans, land-use plans, and other planningrelated studies. 4.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions This section will focus on past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects at, and near, the Proposed Action locale. In determining which projects to include in the cumulative impacts analysis, a preliminary determination was made regarding past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions. Specifically, using the first fundamental question included in Section 4.1, it was determined if a relationship exists such that the affected resource areas of the Proposed Action (included in this EA) might interact with the affected resource area of a past, present, or reasonably foreseeable action. If no such potential relationship exists, the project was not carried forward into the cumulative impacts analysis. In accordance with CEQ guidance (CEQ, 2005), these actions that were considered but excluded from further cumulative effects analysis are not catalogued here as the intent is to focus the analysis on the meaningful actions relevant to informed decision making. Projects included in this cumulative impacts analysis are listed in Table 4-1 and briefly described in the following subsections. Table 4-1 Cumulative Action Evaluation Action Past Actions Construct Aircraft Prototype Facility Phase 2 Hangar 111 Renovations Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Construct Rotary Wing Testing and Evaluation Hangar Replacement Repair Runways and 6-24 (three phases) Construct Bulk Storage Facility Construct Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation Hangar Construct Aircraft Prototype Facility Phase 3 Key: NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act. Level of NEPA Analysis Completed Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment Categorical Exclusion Categorical Exclusion Categorical Exclusion Undetermined 4-2 Cumulative Impacts

79 4.3.1 Past Actions Construct Aircraft Prototype Facility Phase 2 This project includes the construction of the second of three phased projects to provide secure facilities to augment and improve naval aviation Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E) capabilities. The project provides an approximate 75,000-square-foot secure hangar space for one large aircraft or up to four smaller aircraft, and increases the overall capacity of the combined facility to support nine or more classified programs annually (Navy, 2012). Construction began in The aircraft prototype complex is approximately 1 mile east of the Peary Road site and 0.6 mile west of the Shaw Road site. Hangar 111 Renovations This project includes the multiphase renovation of Hangar 111 to increase building and operational efficiency; repair deteriorated areas of the facility; meet codes for Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, fire protection, and antiterrorism force protection; and extend the life of the hangar by 50 years (NAVFAC Washington, 2016a). Renovations began in 2015 and are ongoing. Hangar 111 is approximately 0.5 mile north of the Peary Road site and 1.75 miles northwest of the Shaw Road site Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Construct Rotary Wing Testing and Evaluation Hangar Replacement The Navy proposes to construct a hangar complex to support rotary-wing aircraft RDT&E. The new hangar would be approximately 129,000 square feet and include hangar bays, maintenance shops, crew spaces, storage areas, and office and laboratory space. Approximately 10 structures would be demolished, totaling 4,900 square feet, and 2 other structures totaling 250 square feet would be demolished and constructed elsewhere as part of a separate action. This project would include supporting features such as utilities, concrete pads, curbs, sidewalks, landscaping, and stormwater drainage (NAVFAC Washington, 2017). This project is slated for 2025 but currently unprogrammed (Krasnesky, 2017). The rotary wing testing and evaluation hangar site is approximately 250 feet east of the Peary Road site (parking would be on the opposite side of Peary Road with the main hangar area along Saufley Road and Cedar Point Road) and 1.5 miles west of the Shaw Road site. Repair Runways and 6-24 This project would repair deficiencies in Runways and All three phases of this project have been funded, and Phase 2 is under construction (Krasnesky, 2017). At its closest, Runway 6-24 is approximately 0.75 mile east and Runway is 0.8 mile north of the Peary Road site; Runway 6-24 is approximately 0.8 mile west and Runway is 0.75 mile north of the Shaw Road site. Construct Bulk Storage Facility This project will construct a 12,000-square-foot bulk storage facility to support the Presidential Helicopter Program and the existing H-3 and H-60 airframes undergoing testing and evaluation adjacent to Hangar 2805 (Holt, 2017). The bulk storage facility would be approximately 1.25 miles northeast of the Peary Road site and 1.5 miles north of the Shaw Road site. 4-3 Cumulative Impacts

80 Construct Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation Hangar This project includes the construction of an approximate 80,000-square-foot hangar complex to provide an RDT&E hangar, maintenance and Integrated Test Team office, and laboratory space in support of Acquisition Category I Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft aviation programs. An office facility to support the functions of these programs would also be constructed (Navy, 2012). Funding for this project was approved in 2017 (Krasnesky, 2017); construction could begin in 2018 (NAVFAC Washington, 2016a). The UCLASS RDT&E hangar site is approximately 1.75 miles northeast of the Peary Road site and 1 mile north of the Shaw Road site. Construct Aircraft Prototype Facility Phase 3 This project includes the construction of the last of three phased projects to provide secure facilities to augment and improve naval aviation RDT&E capabilities. This project would improve RDT&E capabilities and deliver advantages that are consistent with naval aviation goals to reduce costs, improve decision making, and improve the process cycle time required to deliver critical combat systems ready for operational tasking (Navy, 2012). Currently, this project is programmed for fiscal year 2024 (Krasnesky, 2017). The aircraft prototype complex is approximately 1 mile east of the Peary Road site and 0.6 mile west of the Shaw Road site. 4.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis Where feasible, cumulative impacts were assessed using quantifiable data; however, for many of the resources included for analysis, quantifiable data are not available and a qualitative analysis was undertaken. In addition, where an analysis of potential environmental effects for future actions has not been completed, assumptions were made regarding cumulative impacts related to this EA where possible. The analytical methodology presented in Chapter 3, which was used to determine potential impacts on the various resources analyzed in this document, was also used to determine cumulative impacts Air Quality Description of Geographic Study Area The study area for cumulative impacts on air quality is the Southern Maryland Air Intrastate Air Quality Control Region Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions All present and reasonably foreseeable future actions listed in Table 4-1 and the Proposed Action have the potential to affect air quality Cumulative Impact Analysis For present and future projects, any construction would generate short-term criteria pollutant and fugitive dust emissions while ground-disturbing activities are occurring. Some projects, like the Hangar 111 renovations, would not involve ground disturbance but would likely use some pieces of equipment that generate air emissions while in operation. Other projects, such as runway repair activities, would primarily occur on paved surfaces, limiting fugitive dust emissions. Air emissions are based on the size and complexity of the project and whether construction activities would occur on unpaved surfaces. All present and reasonably foreseeable future actions could collectively increase 4-4 Cumulative Impacts

81 emissions of criteria air pollutants temporarily in and around the project sites at NAS Patuxent River, but variations in the timing of the present and future projects, and the relatively short durations of projectrelated effects, would distribute air quality impacts temporally and geographically. Additional personnel would commute to NAS Patuxent River under the Proposed Action, which would contribute to long-term air emissions. Other projects identified in Table 4-1 could have negligible to minor increases as well from the operation of boilers or back-up generators, but long-term emissions increases would be cumulatively minor. Cumulatively, emissions from all projects are negligible or minor and would occur within an attainment area. Furthermore, construction emissions would be temporary. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action, combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant impacts within the study area Water Resources Description of Geographic Study Area The study area for assessment of cumulative impacts on water resources is NAS Patuxent River Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions Present and foreseeable future actions that involve ground disturbance and construction are considered in this cumulative impact analysis, including constructing the aircraft prototype complex (Phases 2 and 3), rotary wing testing and evaluation hangar replacement, constructing the bulk storage facility, and constructing the UCLASS RDT&E hangar, in addition to the Proposed Action Cumulative Impact Analysis For present and future projects, any construction has the potential to affect surface water, groundwater, and stormwater runoff while ground-disturbing activities are occurring. Impacts associated with erosion and sedimentation into water bodies would be limited by the implementation of appropriate best management practices (BMPs) to minimize soil and contaminated water from leaving the project sites. In the long term, projects that would increase impervious surfaces could also cumulatively reduce groundwater infiltration, increase stormwater runoff, and decrease stormwater quality. Present and foreseeable future projects involving new structures must adhere to federal and state requirements of ensuring the post-development hydrology is the same as pre-development hydrology and treating 100 percent of the stormwater from new development. Furthermore, all projects at NAS Patuxent River must be evaluated for consistency with the federally enforceable policies of Maryland s Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP), in accordance with the memorandum of understanding between the State of Maryland and Department of Defense (State of Maryland and Department of Defense, 2013), which cumulatively works toward preserving beneficial coastal uses and minimizing coastal impacts. Cumulatively, impacts on water resources would be minor and localized to individual project sites. In addition, projects on the installation would implement construction BMPs, follow stormwater management principles in the installation s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and preserve hydrology after development. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action, combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant impacts within the study area. 4-5 Cumulative Impacts

82 4.4.3 Geological Resources Description of Geographic Study Area The study area for assessment of cumulative impacts on geological resources is NAS Patuxent River Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions Present and foreseeable future actions that involve ground disturbance and construction are considered in this cumulative impact analysis, including constructing the aircraft prototype complex (Phases 2 and 3), rotary wing testing and evaluation hangar replacement, construction the bulk storage facility, and constructing the UCLASS RDT&E hangar, in addition to the Proposed Action Cumulative Impact Analysis Soils at NAS Patuxent River have largely been disturbed from past development activities. Prior Farmland Conversion Impact Rating reviews conducted with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service confirm that, while prime farmland series are present at NAS Patuxent River, the installation scored below the protection threshold for prime and unique farmland soils (Navy, 2017). For present and future projects, any construction has the potential to result in soil erosion while ground-disturbing activities are occurring. Erosion and sedimentation would be limited by the implementation of appropriate BMPs to restrict soil to the construction site. Cumulatively, impacts on geological resources would be localized to individual project sites, and many of these are previously disturbed areas. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action, combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant impacts within the study area Cultural Resources Description of Geographic Study Area The area of potential effect (APE) for archaeological and architectural resources includes the project sites under each alternative. The study area for cumulative impacts on cultural resources is NAS Patuxent River Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions All individual projects that involve ground-disturbing activities or any changes within eligible historic districts must be considered for adverse effects on cultural resources, though none of these projects are within the APEs for the Proposed Action Cumulative Impact Analysis The Navy meets its stewardship requirements towards cultural resources under Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The installation has an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan that is a reference and a planning tool for managing and preserving cultural resources while maintaining mission readiness (NAS Patuxent River, 2011). Any renovations of individually National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) -eligible historic buildings or within NRHP-eligible historic districts would be done to meet the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR part 68). Any ground-disturbing activities in undeveloped areas would undergo surveys for archaeological artifacts, and/or project boundaries would be compared against known areas of archaeological sensitivity. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (and other appropriate parties) 4-6 Cumulative Impacts

83 would be undertaken prior to project commencement. In this way, the Navy works to identify, avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate any potential impacts on cultural resources when implementing individual projects. Implementation of the Proposed Action at the Peary Road site or the Shaw Road site would not be expected to result in adverse impacts on cultural resources, as discussed in Section Therefore, the Proposed Action would not contribute to cumulative impacts on cultural resources. Other present and future projects would be within the viewshed or boundaries of the Flight Test/Tactical Test/NAS Operations Historic District, including the aircraft prototype complex (Phases 2 and 3), Hangar 111 renovations, rotary wing testing and evaluation hangar, UCLASS RDT&E hangar, and Runway and 6-24 repairs. Individually, each project must undergo review and consultation. Cumulatively, impacts on cultural resources would not likely affect the status of contributing resources to the NRHP-eligible resources, namely the Flight Test/Tactical Test/NAS Operations Historic District. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action, combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts within the study area Biological Resources Description of Geographic Study Area The study area for assessment of cumulative impacts on biological resources is NAS Patuxent River Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions All other projects could contribute indirectly to impacts on biological resources Cumulative Impact Analysis Much of the vegetation and wildlife habitat at NAS Patuxent River has been modified by past development and military operations. NAS Patuxent River has an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan that is a reference and a planning document for managing the installation s natural resources while maintaining mission readiness (Navy, 2017). For present and future projects, all construction projects would be expected to generate some noise and fugitive dust, which can indirectly affect wildlife species. Individually, projects would be expected to have negligible to minor impacts, which would vary with the size, intensity, and duration of construction activities. Cumulatively, only projects occurring at the same time and in the same vicinity could have cumulative impacts; there is ample surrounding habitat where wildlife would retreat if disturbed by noise, dust, or increased human activities. Cumulative projects that would develop currently undeveloped land on NAS Patuxent River would contribute to cumulative loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat. Projects that are along the flight line or that would involve demolition and subsequent construction in the same area would have fewer cumulative contributions because these areas are poor habitat. Cumulative biological resource impacts from past, present, and future actions within the study area would be less than significant because none of the other projects identified in Table 4-1 are planned in areas of the installation that are designated as sensitive habitat. Furthermore, the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan and master planning initiatives have avoided and/or minimized adverse effects on the best wildlife habitat and open green space at the installation. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action, combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant impacts within the study area. 4-7 Cumulative Impacts

84 4.4.6 Infrastructure Description of Geographic Study Area The study area for assessment of cumulative impacts on infrastructure is NAS Patuxent River Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions All past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions listed in Table 4-1 and the Proposed Action have the potential to affect infrastructure Cumulative Impact Analysis All individual construction activities have varying infrastructure requirements. As discussed in Section 3.6.2, utility systems on NAS Patuxent River are in good condition and have adequate capacity. Individual projects could have temporary impacts during construction activities while systems are being interconnected, but these kinds of disruptions would be minor. The Proposed Action would contribute to increased long-term demand on potable water, sanitary sewer, and energy infrastructure due to the proposed increase in personnel. Cumulatively, construction and repair projects would be expected to improve overall system reliability. The construction of new facilities would replace aging facilities, many of which are substandard or inadequate (as discussed in Section ), and consolidate Navy personnel into new, efficient facilities. Cumulatively, infrastructure impacts would not result in major utility shortages or loss in carrying capacity resulting in potential failure of these systems; the current utility systems are adequate to meet demands. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action, combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant impacts within the study area Hazardous Materials and Wastes Description of Geographic Study Area The study area for assessment of cumulative impacts on hazardous materials and wastes is NAS Patuxent River Relevant Past, Present, and Future Actions All present and reasonably foreseeable future actions listed in Table 4-1 and the Proposed Action have the potential to affect hazardous materials and wastes Cumulative Impact Analysis Cumulative impacts associated with hazardous materials and wastes from present and future actions within the study area would be less than significant. No hazardous materials would be stored at the site. Activities would adhere to the Navy s Hazardous Material Control and Management Program and Hazardous Waste Minimization Program. All construction, repair, or renovation activities would be expected to use small quantities of hazardous materials and generate small quantities of hazardous wastes while these activities are occurring. The Navy continuously monitors its operations to find ways to minimize the use of hazardous materials and to reduce the generation of hazardous wastes. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action, combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in significant impacts within the study area. 4-8 Cumulative Impacts

85 5 Other Considerations Required by the National Environmental Policy Act 5.1 Consistency with Other Federal, State, and Local Laws, Plans, Policies, and Regulations In accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section (c), analysis of environmental consequences shall include discussion of possible conflicts between the Proposed Action and the objectives of federal, regional, state, and local land-use plans, policies, and controls at Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River. Table 5-1 identifies the principal federal and state laws and regulations that are applicable to the Proposed Action, and describes briefly how compliance with these laws and regulations would be accomplished. Table 5-1 Principal Federal and State Laws Applicable to the Proposed Action Federal, State, Local, and Regional Land-Use Plans, Policies, and Controls National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations; Navy procedures for implementing NEPA Clean Air Act Clean Water Act Coastal Zone Management Act National Historic Preservation Act Endangered Species Act Migratory Bird Treaty Act Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act Status of Compliance This Environmental Assessment has been prepared in accordance with NEPA, as implemented by the CEQ and Navy regulations. The Proposed Action would comply with applicable federal and state air quality regulations. St. Mary s County is in attainment for all criteria pollutants; a General Conformity applicability analysis and Record of Non-Applicability are not required. The Peary Road Alternative would not require a Section 404 permit. The Shaw Road Alternative would affect 2.2 acres of wetlands (which includes a 25-foot buffer around the wetlands) and would require a permit and mitigation under Section 404. The Proposed Action would disturb more than one acre; therefore, a Construction General Permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System would be required. The Navy will submit a Coastal Consistency Determination to Maryland Department of the Environment for both action alternatives. No adverse effects on the National Register of Historic Places-eligible historic district would occur. See consultation letters in Appendix A. No effect on threatened or endangered species would be expected. No formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 is required. No impacts on migratory birds would be expected. No impacts on bald eagles or golden eagles would be expected. No impacts would be expected. Stormwater controls would minimize possible impacts on essential fish habitat in Pine Hill Run under the Shaw Road Alternative. No consultation is required. 5-1 Other Considerations Required by the National Environmental Policy Act

86 Table 5-1 Principal Federal and State Laws Applicable to the Proposed Action Federal, State, Local, and Regional Land-Use Status of Compliance Plans, Policies, and Controls Comprehensive Environmental Response, Not applicable. Compensation, and Liability Act Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Not applicable. The Work Facilities Complex would not Know Act use or store hazardous or toxic chemicals. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Not applicable. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Not applicable. Toxic Substances Control Act Not applicable. Farmland Protection Policy Act NAS Patuxent River soils, and projects that affect them, are not subject to Farmland Protection Policy Act requirements. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management No floodplains are at the project sites. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands Not applicable to the Peary Road Alternative. A wetlands assessment would need to be prepared under the Shaw Road Alternative. Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with The Proposed Action would comply with applicable Pollution Control Standards pollution controls required by construction permits. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address No disproportionately high or adverse effects on minority Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and or low-income populations would occur. Low-income Populations Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from No disproportionate effects on children would occur. Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection Not applicable. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and No traditional cultural properties are known to be Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments located within NAS Patuxent River. Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal The Proposed Action would promote energy efficiency Sustainability in the Next Decade and sustainability by using water- and energy-efficient fixtures. Key: CEQ = Council on Environmental Quality; NEPA=National Environmental Policy Act; NAS = Naval Air Station. 5.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Resources that are irreversibly or irretrievably committed to a project are those that are used on a longterm or permanent basis. This includes the use of nonrenewable resources such as metal and fuel, and natural and cultural resources. These resources are irretrievable in that they would be used for this project when they could have been used for other purposes. Human labor is also considered an irretrievable resource. Another impact that falls under this category is the unavoidable destruction of natural resources that could limit the range of potential uses of that environment. Implementation of the Proposed Action would involve human labor; the consumption of fuel, oil, and lubricants for construction vehicles; and loss of natural resources to include approximately 13 acres of forest under the Peary Road Alternative or 15 acres of forest under the Shaw Road Alternative. These resources are not rare or scarce; therefore, their use for the Proposed Action would not result in a significant irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. 5-2 Other Considerations Required by the National Environmental Policy Act

87 5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Implementing the Proposed Action would result in the following unavoidable environmental impacts. For both project sites (Peary Road and Shaw Road), there would be minor, short-term, adverse impacts on air quality, biological resources, and water resources from construction activities. There would also be minor, long-term, adverse impacts on air quality, biological resources, and water resources from the increase in personnel, the loss of forest, and the increase in impervious surfaces. The Proposed Action would have long-term beneficial impacts from upgrading and improving utilities and facilities. Under the Shaw Road Alternative, there would be moderate, adverse impacts on water resources from direct impacts on wetlands. 5.4 Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an analysis of the relationship between a project s 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. Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment are of particular concern. This refers to the possibility that choosing one development site reduces future flexibility in pursuing other options, or that using a parcel of land or other resources often eliminates the possibility of other uses at that site. In the short term, effects on the human environment with implementation of the Proposed Action would primarily relate to the construction activity itself. Air quality would be affected in the short term during construction and in the long term from increased commuters. There would also be a permanent loss of forest. However, under either alternative, this loss would compose less than 1 percent of the total existing forested areas on NAS Patuxent River. The construction and operation of the Work Facilities Complex would not have a significant impact on the long-term natural resources productivity of the area. The Proposed Action would not result in any impacts that would significantly reduce environmental productivity or permanently narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment. 5-3 Other Considerations Required by the National Environmental Policy Act

88 This page intentionally left blank. 5-4 Other Considerations Required by the National Environmental Policy Act

89 6 References ADTEK Engineers, Inc. (2017a, August 16). Specifications 50% Design Submittal, FY16 Design of Peary Road LRP Site at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. Prepared for NAVFAC Washington. ADTEK Engineers, Inc. (2017b, June 5). Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) Stormwater Management Concept Submission for FY16 Special Project Design of Peary Road LRP Site at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Maryland St. Mary's County. Prepared for NAVFAC Washington. ADTEK Engineers, Inc. (2017c, March 17). FY16 Design of Peary Road LRP Site, NAS Patuxent River, MD, Geotechnical Report. Prepared for NAVFAC Washington. CEQ. (1997). Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC. CEQ. (2005, June 24). Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis. Churilla, L. (2017, December 11). communication from Leslie Churilla (Environmental Compliance Program Manager, NAS Patuxent River) to Jennifer Steele (NAVFAC Washington) providing calendar year 2015 and 2016 air emissions at NAS Patuxent River. Hodges, A. (2017, November 14). communication from Anne Hodges (NAVFAC Washington) to Tanya Perry (Marstel-Day) providing information on the former rifle range and safety requirements. Holt, N. (2017, December). Comments on Preliminary Draft EA for Construction and Operation of a Work Facilities Complex at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, providing information on cumulative projects. Katz, G., & Shellenhamer, J. (2011). Phase I Archaeological Survey on the North Bank of Pine Hill Run, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, St. Mary's County, Maryland. Prepared by The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Washington, DC. Klein, M., & McCloskey, K. (2017). Phase I Cultural Resource Survey and Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of Site 18ST635 for the Peary Road LRP Project Area, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, St. Mary's County, Maryland. Prepared by Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, Fredericksburg, VA. Krasnesky, N. (2017, September 19). PAXR Project List (MS Excel Speadsheet), provided by Nancy Krasnesky (NAVFAC Washington) to Tanya Perry (Marstel-Day). Maryland Department of Natural Resources. (2016a, December). List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland. Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Service, Natural Heritage Program. Retrieved January 5, 2018, from Maryland Department of Natural Resources. (2016b, December). List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of Maryland. Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Service, Natural Heritage Program. Retrieved January 5, 2018, from References

90 Maryland Department of Planning. (2017, August). St. Mary's County Demographic and Socio-economic Outlook. Retrieved November 16, 2017, from Maryland State Data Center: Maryland Highway Administration. (2017, March 15). St. Mary's County Traffic Volume Map Retrieved from MDE Air and Radiation Management Administration. (2015, October 1). Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Part 70 (Title V) Operating Permit No Morgan, H. (2017, December). Comments on Preliminary Draft EA for Construction and Operation of a Work Facilities Complex at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, providing information on IRP Sites 28 and 35. NAS Patuxent River. (2011, July). Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan ( ), Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. NAVFAC Washington. (2016a, October). Final Environmental Assessment for Hangar 111 Renovations at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. NAVFAC Washington. (2016b, March). Navy District Washington Resource Area Standard Language. NAVFAC Washington. (2017, August). Final Environmental Assessment Addressing the Rotary Wing Testing and Evaluation Hangar Replacement at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland (MILCON P131). Navy. (2005, July). Environmental Assessment Privatization of Navy Housing at Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Maryland. Prepared by Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington. As cited in NAVFAC Washington, 2016b. Navy. (2010a, January). Environmental Assessment Demolition and Renovation of Historic Buildings at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. As cited in NAVFAC Washington, 2016b. Navy. (2010b, August). Environmental Assessment for the Construction of Three Pre-Engineered Buildings in Support of the Lab Revitalization Program at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, St. Mary's County, Maryland. Navy. (2012, February). For Official Use Only. NAS Patuxent River Installation Master Plan. Prepared for Naval Air Station Patuxent River, and Naval Facilities Engineering Command Washington by Klavon Design Associates, Inc., ONYX Group, and Greenhorne & O Mara. Navy. (2016, October 26). Meeting Minutes for Environmental Assessments (EAs) for the Work Facilities Complex and Seaplane Basin Repairs at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD. Navy. (2017). Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for Naval Air Station Patuxent River Complex's Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Webster Field Annex, and Minor Properties, Maryland. Otter, E. (1993). Phase I Archaeological Survey for a New Water Well Site, Patuxent Naval Air Station, Lexington Park, St. Mary s County, Maryland. 6-2 References

91 Pogue, D. J. (1983). Patuxent River Naval Air Station Cultural Resources Survey, Volume: History and Archaeology. Sara, T. R., & Bergevin, J. (2004). Phase I Archaeological Survey of Approximately 3,250 Acres Aboard Patuxent River Naval Air Station, St. Mary's County, Maryland. Prepared by Geo-Marine, Inc. Smith, J. (2018, February 13). communication from Jackie Smith (Natural Resources Manager, NAS Patuxent River) to Jenn Steele (NAVFAV Washington) providing information about where bald eagle nests on NAS Patuxent River are in relation to the Peary and Shaw Road sites. State of Maryland and Department of Defense. (2013, May 8). Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Maryland and the United States Department of Defense. Steele. (2017a, November 1). communcation from Jennifer Steele (NAVFAC Washington) to Tanya Perry (Marstel-Day) providing general construction schedule for the proposed Work Facilities Complex. Steele. (2017b, November 14). communication from Jennifer Steele (NAVFAC Washington) to Tanya Perry (Marstel-Day) providing information on former rifle range. USEPA. (1999, May). Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (EPA 315- R ). USEPA. (2014) National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Data. Retrieved October 17, 2017, from Air Emissions Inventories: USEPA. (2015, July). Carbon Storage in Forests. Retrieved November 17, 2017, from EPA's Report on the Environment (ROE): USEPA. (2017, September 30). Maryland Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants. Retrieved October 17, 2017, from Green Book: USFWS. (2007, May). National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Retrieved from es.pdf USFWS. (2014). Species by County Report: St. Mary's County, Maryland. As cited in NAVFAC Washington, 2016b. Retrieved from countysearch!speciesbycountyreport.action?fips= References

92 This page intentionally left blank. 6-4 References

93 7 List of Preparers This Environmental Assessment was prepared collaboratively between the Navy and contractor preparers. U.S. Department of the Navy Julie Darsie (NAVFAC Washington) M.A. Urban Affairs & Public Policy A.B. Architecture Years of Experience: 20 Responsible for cultural resources, document review Adrian Dascalu (NAVFAC Washington) M.S. Molecular Biology B.S. Biology Years of Experience: 2 Responsible for document review Anne Hodges (NAS Patuxent River) B.S. Environmental Studies Years of Experience: 19 Responsible for document review Mike Smolek (NAS Patuxent River) Graduate studies in Anthropology B.A. Anthropology Years of Experience: 45 Responsible for cultural resources, document review Jackie Smith (NAS Patuxent River) B.S. Zoology Years of Experience: 23 Responsible for natural resources, document review Jennifer Steele (NAVFAC Washington) Graduate Certificate in Environmental Policy and Management M.S. Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Years of Experience: 5 Responsible for senior review 7-1 List of Preparers

94 Contractors Kristie Baynard (Marstel-Day LLC) M.S. Historic Preservation Years of Experience: 17 Responsible for cultural resources Dr. Sean Donahoe (Marstel-Day LLC) Ph.D. Environmental Science M.S. Biology B.S. Mathematics, Biology Years of Experience: 31 Responsible for senior review Laurie Griffith (Marstel-Day LLC) M.A., International Affairs B.A., Sociology B.A., East Asian Studies Years of Experience: 19 Responsible for technical editing Beatrice Ohene-Okae, GIS Certificate (Marstel-Day LLC) B.A. Geography Years of Experience: 2 Responsible for graphics Elizabeth Pratt (Marstel-Day LLC) B.A. Business Administration Years of Experience: 11 Responsible for geological resources, biological resources, and infrastructure Tanya Perry (Marstel-Day LLC) B.S. Environmental Science B.A. Communications Years of Experience: 16 Responsible for project management, senior review Erika Wettergreen (Marstel-Day LLC) M.S. Environmental Science and Policy B.S. Maritime Policy and Environmental Science Years of Experience: 26 Responsible for water resources Mary Young (Marstel-Day LLC) B.S. Environmental Science Years of Experience: 14 Responsible for air quality and cumulative impacts 7-2 List of Preparers

95 8 Distribution List This Environmental Assessment will be distributed to the following agencies/people: Federal Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District Ms. Kathy Anderson, Chief, Maryland Section Southern 10 South Howard Street (PO Box 1715) Baltimore, MD U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field Office Ms. Genevieve LaRouche, Field Supervisor 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD State Agencies State Clearinghouse Maryland Department of Planning 301 W. Preston Street Baltimore, MD Maryland Historical Trust Ms. Elizabeth Hughes, State Historic Preservation Officer 100 Community Place, 3rd Floor Crownsville, MD Maryland Department of the Environment Mr. Elder A. Ghigiarelli, Jr. Wetlands and Waterways Program 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 430 Baltimore, MD Maryland Department of Natural Resources Mr. Mark Belton, Secretary 580 Taylor Avenue Tawes State Office Building Annapolis, MD Maryland Department of Natural Resources Chesapeake and Coastal Service Mr. Matt Fleming, Director 811 Tawes State Office Building E2 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD Maryland Department of Natural Resources Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Ms. Kate Charbonneau, Executive Director 1804 West Street, Suite 100 Annapolis, MD County Agencies St. Mary s County Department of Land Use & Growth Management William B. Hunt, Director Patuxent Building, Leonard Hall Drive (PO Box 653) Leonardtown, MD Commissioners of St. Mary s County James R. Guy, Commissioner President Chesapeake Building Baldridge Street Leonardtown, MD Newspaper The Enterprise 8-1 Distribution List

96 This page intentionally left blank. 8-2 Distribution List

97 Appendix A Public and Agency Participation and Intergovernmental Coordination Materials A-1 Appendix A

98 This page intentionally left blank. A-2 Appendix A

99 A-3 Appendix A

100 A-4 Appendix A

101 A-5 Appendix A

102 A-6 Appendix A

103 A-7 Appendix A