Environmental Assessment, Implementation of Real …...DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Implementation...

D R A F T E N V I R O N M E N T A L A S S E S S M E N T

Implementation of Real Property Master Plan Projects at Fort Rucker, Alabama

Prepared for

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District

April 2018

CH2M HILL, Inc. 6600 Peachtree Dunwoody Road Building 400, Suite 600 Atlanta, Georgia 30328

NG1122170736ATL CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY PROPRIETARY III

Signature Page

Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact

for the Implementation of Real Property Master Plan Projects

Fort Rucker, Alabama REVIEWED BY: Leigh B. Jahnke Date Environmental Coordinator Fort Rucker, Alabama Alfred T. Townsend Date Chief, Environmental and Natural Resources Division Fort Rucker, Alabama Edwin P. Janasky Date Director of Public Works Fort Rucker, Alabama Trevor Hanzeli Date Office of Staff Judge Advocate Fort Rucker, Alabama Lisa E. Eichhorn Date Public Affairs Officer Fort Rucker, Alabama APPROVED FOR RELEASE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT (30 DAYS)

NG1122170736ATL CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY PROPRIETARY V

Contents Section Page

Signature Page .................................................................................................................................. iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. ix

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ES-1

1 Purpose, Need, and Scope ................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.3 Scope ................................................................................................................................ 1-2 1.4 Public Involvement .......................................................................................................... 1-5

2 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ........................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................... 2-30 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward ........................................................ 2-30

2.4.1 Expand Only Through Renovation of Existing Buildings ................................... 2-30 2.4.2 Use of Other Military Installations .................................................................... 2-30 2.4.3 Lease Private Facilities ...................................................................................... 2-31

3 Affected Environment and Consequences ............................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Resources Eliminated from Further Consideration ......................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Land Use.............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Prime Farmland ................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.3 Floodplains .......................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.4 Visual ................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.5 Demographics ..................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.6 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................... 3-3

3.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 3-3 3.2.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.2 Consequences ..................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 3-7 3.3.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 3-7 3.3.2 Consequences ..................................................................................................... 3-8

3.4 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 3-13 3.4.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-13 3.4.2 Consequences ................................................................................................... 3-15

3.5 Water Resources ............................................................................................................ 3-16 3.5.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-16 3.5.2 Consequences ................................................................................................... 3-20

3.6 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 3-22 3.6.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-22 3.6.2 Consequences ................................................................................................... 3-24

3.7 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-26 3.7.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-26 3.7.2 Consequences ................................................................................................... 3-27

3.8 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................. 3-28

CONTENTS

VI CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY PROPRIETARY NG1122170736ATL

Section Page

3.8.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-28 3.8.2 Consequences ................................................................................................... 3-28

3.9 Transportation ............................................................................................................... 3-30 3.9.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-30 3.9.2 Consequences ................................................................................................... 3-30

3.10 Utilities ........................................................................................................................... 3-32 3.10.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-32 3.10.2 Consequences ................................................................................................... 3-33

3.11 Hazardous and Toxic Substances ................................................................................... 3-34 3.11.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-34 3.11.2 Consequences ................................................................................................... 3-35

3.12 Cumulative Impacts Summary ....................................................................................... 3-37 3.12.1 Projects Identified with the Potential for Cumulative Effects .......................... 3-38 3.12.2 Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................ 3-38 3.12.3 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................... 3-40

4 Findings and Conclusions .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Findings ............................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1.1 Consequences of the Preferred Alternative ....................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Consequences of the No Action Alternative ....................................................... 4-1

4.2 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 4-1

5 References .......................................................................................................................... 5-1

Tables

ES-1 List of Proposed Projects ............................................................................................................ ES-1 ES-2 Summary of Impacts ................................................................................................................... ES-3 ES-3 Project Design Measures to be Implemented with the Proposed Action .................................. ES-6 2-1 List of Proposed Projects .............................................................................................................. 2-1 3-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................................................................................... 3-3 3-2 Noise Levels of Construction Equipment at 50 and 100 Feet ....................................................... 3-8 3-3 Sensitive Noise Receptors within 1 Mile of the Proposed Real Property Master Plan Projects. 3-10 3-4 Affected Soil Types ...................................................................................................................... 3-14 3-5 Nearest Surface Water Feature(s) to Proposed Real Property Master Plan Project Sites ......... 3-18 3-6 Special-status Wildlife Observed or with Potential to Occur at Fort Rucker .............................. 3-22 3-7 Timber Loss Resulting from Proposed Real Property Master Plan Projects ............................... 3-25 3-8 Timber Sales Resulting from Implementation of the Proposed Action ...................................... 3-29 4-1 Summary of Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 4-2

Figures

1-1 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................. 1-3 2-1 Project Areas for Project 1 – Cantonment Area ........................................................................... 2-3 2-2 Project Areas for Project 2 – Cantonment Area ........................................................................... 2-5 2-3 Project Areas for Project 3, Project 4, Project 6 (Partial), and Project 8 – Cantonment Area ...... 2-7 2-4 Project Areas for Project 5, Project 6 (Partial), and Project 7 – Cantonment Area ...................... 2-9 2-5 Project Areas for Project 9 and Project 15 (Partial) – Cantonment Area ................................... 2-11 2-6 Project Area for Project 15 (Partial) – Hanchey Army Heliport .................................................. 2-13 2-7 Project Areas for Project 10 and Project 16 – Lowe AHP ........................................................... 2-15 2-8 Project Area for Project 11 – Shell AHP ...................................................................................... 2-17

CONTENTS

NG1122170736ATL CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY PROPRIETARY VII

Section Page

2-9 Project Areas for Project 12 – Knox AHP .................................................................................... 2-19 2-10 Project Areas for Project 13 and Project 14 – Cairns AAF .......................................................... 2-21 2-11 Project Area for Project 17 – Cantonment Area ......................................................................... 2-23

Appendix

A Correspondence

CONTENTS

VIII CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY PROPRIETARY NG1122170736ATL

This page left intentionally blank.

NG1122170736ATL CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY PROPRIETARY IX

Acronyms and Abbreviations µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

AAF army airfield

ACM asbestos-containing material

ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management

ADNL A-weighted day-night level

ADP area development plan

AHP army heliport

AIT advanced individual training

AOC area of concern

APFT Army physical fitness test

AR Army Regulation

Army U.S. Army

ATC air traffic control

ATCT air traffic control tower

AT/FP anti-terrorism/force protection

AVIM Aviation Intermediate Maintenance Hangar

BGPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

Bldg building(s)

BMP best management practice

CAA Clean Air Act

CBMPP Construction Best Management Practices Plan

CDNL C-weighted day-night level

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFCs chloroflourocarbons

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 methane

CO carbon monoxide

COCO contractor-owned, contractor-operated

CO2 carbon dioxide

dB decibel

dBA A-weighted decibel

dBC C-weighted decibel

DLADS Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

X CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY PROPRIETARY NG1122170736ATL

DoD Department of Defense

DPW Directorate of Public Works

EA environmental assessment

EO Executive Order

EMCS energy monitoring and control system

ENRD Environmental and Natural Resources Division

EP effective population

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FNSI Finding of No Significant Impact

Fort Rucker Fort Rucker Army Installation

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1990

ft2 square feet

FY fiscal year

GCN Greatest Conservation Need

GHG greenhouse gas

HCFCs hydrochloroflourocarbons

HFCs hydroflourocarbons

HMCC Hazardous Materials Control Center

HWMP Hazardous Waste Management Plan

ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan

IFR In-Flight Report

INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

IONMP Installation Operational Noise Management Plan

IRP Installation Restoration Program

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

LUPZ Land Use Planning Zone

mph mile(s) per hour

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NCO noncommissioned officer

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

N2O nitrous oxide

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

O3 ozone


NG1122170736ATL CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY PROPRIETARY XI

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Pb lead

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls

PFCs perfluorocarbons

PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

PN project number

POLs petroleum, oils, and lubricants

POV personally owned vehicle

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

QCP qualified credentialed person

RPMP Real Property Master Plan

SAR species at risk

SEARP&DC Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission

SERE Survival Evasion Resistance Escape

SF6 sulfur hexaflouride

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIP State Implementation Plan

SNR sensitive noise receptor

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOP standard operating procedure

SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan

SWAP State Wildlife Action Plan

SWMU solid waste management unit

TBD to be determined

U.S.C. U.S. Code

USAACE U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UST underground storage tank

UXO unexploded ordnance

WOC Warrant Officer Candidate


XII CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY PROPRIETARY NG1122170736ATL

WOCC Warrant Officer Career College

WWII World War II

WWTP wastewater treatment plant

yd2 square yards

NG1122170736ATL CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY PROPRIETARY ES-1

Executive Summary This environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to evaluate the effects of implementing Real Property Master Plan (RPMP) projects on the Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker) in Alabama. This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and implementing regulations specified in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500 through 1508 and 32 CFR Part 651.

Purpose and Need The purpose of the Proposed Action is to implement construction, demolition, and infrastructure improvement projects planned within the next 25 fiscal years to ensure that future mission and facility requirements are met. The analysis of applicable installation development projects in a single EA facilitates an understanding of the potential environmental consequences associated with the continuing installation development process, facilitates NEPA (42 U.S. Code §§ 4321, et seq.) review and compliance process; eliminates project fragmentation and segmentation; improves the coordination of land use planning; expedites project execution through early planning; reduces installation, reviewing agency, and major command workloads; provides cost savings; improves the evaluation of potential cumulative environmental impacts; assists in maintaining a baseline for future analysis; supports strategic decision-making; and encourages agency coordination.

The need for the Proposed Action is to meet current and future mission requirements and national security objectives associated with Fort Rucker. This involves meeting ongoing mission requirements associated with upgrading installation utilities, pavements, and facilities; improving the efficiency and effectiveness of forces by enhancing their ability to expand; and replacing older, substandard facilities with new buildings that meet current standards for safe and secure workplaces. Continued development of infrastructure at Fort Rucker must consider future facilities construction, demolition, renovation, transportation needs, airfield alterations and enhancements, road improvements, utilities improvements, land use planning, energy requirements, and development constraints and opportunities.

Development is constrained at Fort Rucker due to topographic limitation on undeveloped land, older and lesser-quality facilities, environmental constraints, operational constraints, built constraints, and anti-terrorism/force protection (AT/FP) setback requirements.

Proposed Action In support of the projects developed during the master planning process, Fort Rucker proposes the construction of new buildings and facilities, renovation of existing buildings, upgrades to existing utilities, and removal of select existing buildings and facilities. The proposed projects would be implemented in the cantonment area, Cairns Army Airfield (AAF), Hanchey Army Heliport (AHP), Lowe AHP, Knox AHP, and Shell AHP (Figures 2-1 through 2-11).

A total of 17 projects are included in the Proposed Action. Projects evaluated in this EA are listed in Table ES-1.

Table ES-1. List of Proposed Projects Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

No. Proposed Projects

1 Redevelop Tank Hill District Clearing and Demolition of 115-acre subarea of the Tank Hill District

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-2 CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY PROPRIETARY NG1122170736ATL

Table ES-1. List of Proposed Projects Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama


Construct Advanced Individual Training (AIT) Complex (Project Number [PN] 89973) Construct Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Academy (PN 55583) Construct Warrant Officer Career College (WOCC) Campus (PN 47216) Construct Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) Complex (PN 72118) Construct Aviation Training Support Facility (PN 86816)

2 Construct Golf Course Maintenance Facility (PN 88877)

3 Construct Hazardous Materials Storage (PN 90033)

4 Construct Hazardous Materials Waste Storage (PN 90033)

5 Expand Intramural Sports (PN To Be Determined [TBD])

6 Relocate Motorpool to Industrial Area (PN TBD)

7 Revitalize Motorpool Area (PN TBD)

8 Revitalize World War II (WWII) Warehouse Area (PN TBD)

9 Construct Aircraft Paint Facility at Hanchey AHP (PN 63408)

10 Construct Aviation Intermediate Maintenance (AVIM) Hangar and Associated Parking at Lowe AHP (PN 15659)

11 Construct Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at Shell AHP (PN 60456)

12 Construct AVIM Hangar and Associated Parking at Knox AHP (PN 60460)

13 Construct Air Traffic Control (ATC) Complex at Cairns AAF (PN TBD)

14 Implement Cairns AAF Area Development Plan (ADP) (PN TBD)

15 Implement Hanchey AHP ADP (PN TBD)

16 Implement Lowe AHP ADP (PN TBD)

17 Repair Farrell Road Crossing an Unnamed Perennial Tributary to Claybank Creek (PN TBD)

Alternatives No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would maintain existing conditions on Fort Rucker. Under the No Action Alternative, existing structures would not be demolished, new facilities would not be constructed, and no other changes to installation activities would be made. Operations and staff would be maintained in existing facilities at Fort Rucker, and no changes would occur. Failure to accomplish the Proposed Action would result in continued use of outmoded and over-used facilities, continued less-than-optimal work at scattered facilities, and the inability to modify operations as new military needs arise. Farrell Road would be left unrepaired, which could eventually result in the structural failure of Farrell Road.

The No Action Alternative would not meet the Proposed Action purpose and need. However, inclusion of the No Action Alternative serves as a benchmark for evaluation of the potential impacts of the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative is therefore evaluated in detail in this EA.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Summary of Environmental Consequences This EA presents a comprehensive evaluation of the existing conditions and environmental consequences of implementing the Preferred Alternative and No Action Alternative, as required by NEPA. Three categories of potential impacts were evaluated: direct, indirect, and cumulative. A direct impact is the result of direct action and occurs at the same time and place. An indirect impact is caused by an action and occurs later in time or removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable. A cumulative impact results from the incremental impact of the action when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other action.

Based on the findings of this EA, implementation of the Proposed Action would not have significant adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the quality of the environment.

Under the No Action Alternative, existing structures would not be demolished, new facilities would not be constructed, and no other changes to installation activities would be made. While this would likely not result in significant direct or indirect impacts to any resource areas, it would fail to accomplish the Proposed Action purpose and need.

Table ES-2 summarizes the impacts of the alternatives. Identified impacts from implementation of the Preferred Alternative were determined to be less than significant without mitigation.

Table ES-2. Summary of Impacts Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

Resource Preferred Alternative

Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative

Environmental Consequences

Land Use No Impact No Impact

Air Quality Minor short-term fugitive dust emissions from soil disturbance during construction. Use of sprinkling/irrigation, vegetative cover, and mulching as dust abatement measures during construction.

Minor short-term impacts from vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions during construction.

No Impact

Noise Minor short-term noise impacts during construction and demolition from heavy equipment. Construction and demolition activities would be limited to typical working hours, minimizing exposure of other personnel on Fort Rucker. Workers would be required to wear appropriate hearing protection.

No Impact

Geology

Geologic and Topographic Conditions

Minor to moderate long-term impacts to topographic conditions through grading for site preparation.

No Impact

Soils Minor to moderate short-term impacts from potential for soil erosion from disturbed soils during construction. Use of sediment barriers (silt fence or straw wattles), temporary detention basins, grade stabilization with seed and mulch, and geotextile slope stabilization to minimize impacts on soils.

No Impact

Water Resources

Surface Water Negligible short-term indirect impacts from site grading, demolition of facilities, and construction of

Potential for long-term minor direct impacts to the unnamed tributary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY






facility. Use of sediment barriers (silt fence or straw wattles), temporary detention basins, grade stabilization with seed and mulch, and geotextile slope stabilization to minimize erosion and transport of sediments to surface waters. Use of work area containment and oil/water separators to prevent transport of petroleum, oils, and lubricants from motor pool areas to surface waters.

Minor long-term impacts associated with repairs to stream crossing at Farrell Road and installation of a stream crossing along the Lowe AHP AVIM hangar access road.

to Claybank Creek if Farrell Road is left unrepaired.

Groundwater No Impact No Impact

Floodplains No Impact No Impact

Wetlands No Impact No Impact

Stormwater Minor long-term impacts on stormwater systems resulting from a net increase in impervious surfaces.

Issues resulting from inadequate stormwater design would persist at the current golf course maintenance facility.

Biological Resources

Vegetation Minor short-term impacts from removal of vegetation, including timber, during construction.

No Impact

Fish and Wildlife Negligible direct impact on wildlife could result from construction activities.

No Impact

Special-Status Species Minor direct impacts to gopher tortoise could result from construction activities if relocation of tortoises is necessary.

No Impact

Critical Habitat No Impact No Impact

Cultural Resources No Impact No Impact

Socioeconomics

Economic Development Minor to moderate short-term positive impacts on local economy associated with construction employment and wages and timber sales.

Negligible long-term impacts from loss of profitable timber stand acreage.

No Impact

Demographics No Impact No Impact

Fire, Police, Emergency, and Medical Service

Minor long-term positive impacts would result from replacing outdated facilities that do not meet current safety standards and the construction of two new fire stations.

The potential for electrical fires and gas leaks would remain if failing buildings are not replaced.

Environmental Justice No Impact No Impact

Protection of Children No Impact No Impact

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY






Housing No Impact No Impact

Recreation

Minor long-term positive impacts on intramural sports would result from creating upgraded, appropriately sized facilities.

There would be no upgrade to current, inadequate facilities for solider and family fitness on Fort Rucker resulting in negligible impacts to recreation.

Transportation Minor short-term adverse impacts due to increased congestion on nearby roads from construction-related traffic.

Minor long-term impacts from changes in traffic patterns.

Minor long-term beneficial impacts would result from increased available parking areas.

Farrell Road would be left unrepaired, which could eventually result in structural failure and permanent closure of Farrell Road.

POV parking at the airfields would continue to not meet current demands.

Utilities

Potable Water Negligible short-term impacts could occur when buildings are disconnected or connected to utilities.

Minor long-term adverse impacts expected due to increase in demand from the RPMP projects. However, minor long-term positive impacts would also be expected because Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) silver construction design would increase utility efficiency and reduce usage.

Outdated facilities with inefficient utility systems that do not meet current standards would remain.

Wastewater System Negligible short-term impacts could occur when buildings are disconnected or connected to utilities.

Minor adverse long-term impacts expected due to increase in demand from the RPMP projects. However, minor long-term positive impacts would also be expected because LEED silver construction design would increase utility efficiency and reduce usage.


Energy Sources Negligible short-term impacts could occur when buildings are disconnected or connected to utilities.



Solid Waste Minor short-term impacts would result from an increase in construction and demolition debris.

Long-term negligible impacts from permanently using landfill capacity.

No Impact

Hazardous and Toxic Substances

Negligible short-term impact from use of small quantities of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., oils, grease) during construction.

Hazardous materials and wastes storage facilities would remain outdated and not up to current

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY






Demolition could result in minor short-term impacts associated with ACM, lead paint, and PCBs. Waste would be characterized and disposed of in an appropriate manner. Use of site inspections prior to demolition and appropriate removal and disposal techniques if hazardous/toxic materials are discovered.

Moderate long-term positive impacts would result from upgraded hazardous materials and wastes storage facilities that meet current standards.

environmental and safety standards.

Summary of Project Design Measures Measures would be implemented to ensure that adverse environmental impacts of construction and operation of the implemented alternative would be avoided or minimized. These measures would be incorporated into the final design, implemented by the contractor, and included in the contract documents. A summary of project design measures is presented in Table ES-3.

Table ES-3. Project Design Measures to be Implemented with the Proposed Action Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

Resource Area Proposed Project Design Measures

Air Quality Sprinkling/irrigation, vegetative cover, and mulching would be used as dust abatement measures during construction.

Noise Construction and demolition activities would be limited to typical working hours, minimizing exposure of other personnel on Fort Rucker. Workers would be required to wear appropriate hearing protection.

Bead Blast Facility personnel would be required to wear hearing protection.

Soils Sediment barriers (silt fence or straw wattles), temporary detention basins, grade stabilization with seed and mulch, and geotextile slope stabilization would be used to minimize impacts on soils.

Surface Water Sediment barriers (silt fence or straw wattles), temporary detention basins, grade stabilization with seed and mulch, and geotextile slope stabilization would be used to minimize erosion and transport of sediments to surface waters. Work area containment and oil/water separators would be used to prevent transport of petroleum, oils, and lubricants from motorpool areas to surface waters.

Stormwater Silt fencing, guttering, and other flow control measures, detention and infiltration areas, and oil/water separators would be used to prevent onsite and downstream impacts from stormwater during and after construction.

Transportation Clearly indicated detours and traffic control signalers would be used to keep traffic moving during periods of heavy construction-related traffic or temporary road closures.

Hazardous/Toxic Substances

Use of site inspection prior to demolition and appropriate removal and disposal techniques if hazardous/toxic materials are discovered.

SECTION 1

NG1122170736ATL CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY PROPRIETARY 1-1

Purpose, Need, and Scope 1.1 Introduction The Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker) is approximately 25 miles northwest of Dothan, Alabama, between the cities of Daleville, Enterprise, and Ozark. Fort Rucker is on the East Gulf Coastal Plain in southeastern Coffee County and southwestern Dale County (Fort Rucker, 2017a). The Fort Rucker reservation encompasses approximately 62,857 acres or 98 square miles. The Fort Rucker property boundary and the locations of the cantonment area and some of the nearby airfields, heliports, and stagefields are depicted on Figure 1-1. Fort Rucker serves as the headquarters of the U.S. Army (Army) Aviation Branch and is home to the Army Aviation Center of Excellence. The airspace used to accomplish the training mission spans over 29,590 square miles in southeast Alabama, northwest Florida, and southwest Georgia (Fort Rucker, 2017b). An approximately 5,000-acre cantonment area is in the southern portion of Fort Rucker and provides temporary and permanent living quarters for Soldiers and their families. The cantonment area includes residential areas, support facilities, retail centers, restaurants, health care facilities, and recreational facilities.

Fort Rucker has a population of approximately 13,700, which includes approximately 3,500 full-time Soldiers, approximately 1, 700 part-time or transient military, and approximately 8,500 Department of Defense (DoD) and non-DoD civilians (including families of full-time Soldiers) (Fort Rucker, 2017b).

Recently, Fort Rucker completed a Real Property Vision Plan to provide the first step in the master plan process by establishing planning districts within Fort Rucker (Fort Rucker, 2016a). The Fort Rucker Master Plan identifies installation development projects within these planning districts.

This environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to evaluate the effects of implementing installation development projects for U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and other organizations at Fort Rucker. Collectively, these projects are referred to herein as the “Proposed Action.” This EA analyzes and documents potential impacts on the human and natural environments that would result from implementation of the Army’s Proposed Action. Details of the Proposed Action are provided in Section 2, Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives.

1.2 Purpose and Need The purpose of the Proposed Action is to implement construction, demolition, and infrastructure improvement projects planned within the next 25 fiscal years (FY) to ensure that future mission and facility requirements are met. The analysis of applicable installation development projects in a single EA facilitates an understanding of the potential environmental consequences associated with the continuing installation development process, facilitates National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S. Code [USC] §§ 4321, et seq.) review and compliance process; eliminates project fragmentation and segmentation; improves the coordination of land use planning; expedites project execution through early planning; reduces installation, reviewing agency, and major command workloads; provides cost savings; improves the evaluation of potential cumulative environmental impacts; assists in maintaining a baseline for future analysis; supports strategic decision-making; and encourages agency coordination.

The need for the Proposed Action is to meet current and future mission requirements and national security objectives associated with Fort Rucker. This involves meeting ongoing mission requirements associated with upgrading installation utilities, pavements, and facilities; improving the efficiency and effectiveness of forces by enhancing their ability to expand; and replacing older, substandard facilities

SECTION 1 – PURPOSE, NEED, AND SCOPE

1-2 CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY PROPRIETARY NG1122170736ATL

with new buildings that meet current standards for safe and secure workplaces. Continued development of infrastructure at Fort Rucker must consider future facilities construction, demolition, renovation, transportation needs, airfield alterations and enhancements, road improvements, utilities improvements, land use planning, energy requirements, and development constraints and opportunities.

Development is constrained at Fort Rucker due to topographic limitations on undeveloped land, older and lesser-quality facilities, environmental constraints, operational constraints, built constraints, and anti-terrorism/force protection (AT/FP) setback requirements.

1.3 Scope This EA evaluates ongoing demolition, construction, infrastructure repair and improvements, and modifications at Fort Rucker. It is expansive and establishes the foundation for subsequent analyses and decision-making. Broad-scoped EAs are intended to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus on the key issues at each level of project review. In this EA, the potential environmental impacts of the various master planning components are assessed. The EA may not address all substantive environmental issues in sufficient detail to satisfy the requirements of NEPA for each specific component project, either because of the broad actions considered or because conditions and projects are subject to change and may need to be refined as the projects are more fully developed in the future. Therefore, additional separate NEPA analyses may be necessary for some of the component projects. However, the information in this EA provides a benchmark of initial screening and early avoidance of potential adverse environmental impacts, and the analyses presented here can be used to tier subsequent NEPA analyses, should they be necessary.

This EA also provides the basis for identifying additional environmental information that may be required and provides the background information for future NEPA analyses that may be conducted.

This EA was prepared in accordance with NEPA and implementing regulations specified in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500 through 1508, and 32 CFR Part 651. The purpose of this EA is to clearly describe the current environmental resources on Fort Rucker and inform decision-makers and the public of the potential environmental consequences of construction, demolition, and infrastructure repair, improvements, and modifications at Fort Rucker while presenting the rationale used for evaluating and determining impacts. Mitigation measures are identified and described where warranted.

This EA includes a thorough evaluation of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, both temporary and permanent, that could occur as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action. Reasonably foreseeable future actions are identified in Section 3.12. Any additional requirements stemming from other, unrelated military actions would undergo separate NEPA analysis and evaluation.

This EA also considers the potential impacts of the No Action Alternative, as required by NEPA. The No Action Alternative provides a benchmark against which the potential impacts of the Proposed Action and the alternatives can be compared.

An interdisciplinary team of environmental scientists, biologists, planners, economists, engineers, archaeologists, historians, and military technicians has analyzed the Proposed Action and alternatives in light of existing conditions, and has identified relevant beneficial and adverse effects associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives.

Shell ArmyHeliport

Cairns ArmyAirfield

d

Brown Stagefield

GS

Hunt Stagefield

Fort Rucker

Hooper Stagefield

Knox ArmyHeliport

Hatch Stagefield

Tabernacle Stagefield

Ech Stagefield

Mollinelli Foward Armingand Refueling Point

Lowe ArmyHeliport

Hammond StagefieldArmy Heliport

HancheyArmy Heliport

Goldb

efield

CantonmentArea

0 2 41

Miles

$\\brookside\GIS_SHARE\ENBG\00_Proj\U\USACE\Ft_Rucker\MapFiles\Nov2017\FigureX_MasterPlan_Location_Map_8x11.mxd User Name: saselage Date: 4/11/2018 Time: 2:28:21 PM

Legend

Ft. Rucker Property BoundaryFigure 1-1Vicinity MapMaster Plan Projects EAFort Rucker, AL

BASE MAP SOURCE: ESRI, World Imagery online mapping



1.4 Public Involvement The Army invites public participation in the proposed federal action through the NEPA process. Consideration of the views and information of all interested persons promotes open communication and enables better decision-making. All agencies, organizations, and members of the public with a potential interest in the Proposed Action, including minority, low-income, disadvantaged, and Native American groups, are urged to participate in the decision-making process.

Coordination letters were submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Alabama State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and potentially interested tribal governments. All correspondence is included in Appendix A.

Public participation opportunities, with respect to this EA and decision-making on the Proposed Action, are guided by 32 CFR Part 651. Upon completion of the environmental analysis, the EA and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) would be made available to the public for a comment period of 30 days. Comments received would be added to Appendix A. At the end of the 30-day period, the Army will consider the comments received prior to making a decision. As appropriate, the Army may then execute the FNSI and proceed with implementation of the Proposed Action. If implementing the Proposed Action was determined to result in significant effects, then the Army would publish a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register to prepare an environmental impact statement or would not take the action.

Throughout this process, the public can obtain information on the status and progress of the Proposed Action and the EA through Ms. Leigh Jahnke, Fort Rucker Directorate of Public Works (DPW), Environmental and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), at 334-255-2080 or by email at [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

SECTION 2


Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 2.1 Introduction This section describes the Proposed Action and alternatives for implementation of installation development projects that meet the project purpose and need as described in Section 1.2. Two alternatives (the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative) were selected for detailed analysis. In addition, alternatives considered but not carried forward are described in Section 2.4.

Fort Rucker has a requirement to meet one-for-one demolition, whereby an equal amount of demolition must be proposed to offset new construction, due to Army policy to control the growth of existing facility inventories. Fort Rucker uses a demolition bank for construction projects. Some of the existing facilities that are being used to support the Fort Rucker mission may be repurposed to support other requirements. Many of the projects included in the Proposed Action will enable vacating older, lesser-quality facilities that can then be demolished. The facilities that would be demolished may not be in the footprints of the proposed projects.

2.2 Proposed Action In support of the projects developed during the master planning process, Fort Rucker proposes the construction of new buildings and facilities, renovation of existing buildings, upgrades to existing utilities, and removal of select existing buildings and facilities. The proposed projects would be implemented in the cantonment area, Cairns Army Airfield (AAF), Hanchey Army Heliport (AHP), Lowe AHP, Knox AHP, and Shell AHP (Figures 2-1 through 2-11).

A total of 17 projects are included in the Proposed Action. Projects evaluated in this EA are listed in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. List of Proposed Projects Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama


1

Redevelop Tank Hill District Clearing and Demolition of 115-acre subarea of the Tank Hill District Construct Advanced Individual Training (AIT) Complex (Project Number [PN] 89973) Construct Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Academy (PN 55583) Construct Warrant Officer Career College (WOCC) Campus (PN 47216) Construct Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) Complex (PN 72118) Construct Aviation Training Support Facility (PN 86816)

2 Construct Golf Course Maintenance Facility (PN 88877)

3 Construct Hazardous Materials Storage (PN 90033)

4 Construct Hazardous Materials Waste Storage (PN 90033)

5 Expand Intramural Sports (PN To Be Determined [TBD])

6 Relocate Motorpool to Industrial Area (PN TBD)

7 Revitalize Motorpool Area (PN TBD)

SECTION 2 – DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES


Table 2-1. List of Proposed Projects Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama


8 Revitalize WWII Warehouse Area (PN TBD)

9 Construct Aircraft Paint Facility at Hanchey AHP (PN 63408)

10 Construct Aviation Intermediate Maintenance (AVIM) Hangar and Associated Parking at Lowe AHP (PN 15659)

11 Construct Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at Shell AHP (PN 60456)

12 Construct AVIM Hangar and Associated Parking at Knox AHP (PN 60460)

13 Construct Air Traffic Control (ATC) Complex at Cairns AAF (PN TBD)

14 Implement Cairns AAF Area Development Plan (ADP) (PN TBD)

15 Implement Hanchey AHP ADP (PN TBD)

16 Implement Lowe AHP ADP (PN TBD)

17 Repair Farrell Road Crossing an Unnamed Perennial Tributary to Claybank Creek (PN TBD)

Proposed construction projects would incorporate sustainable and low-impact design and development technologies to conserve energy and minimize operating costs and would comply with DoD AT/FP requirements. With the exceptions of three proposed projects (revitalizing the motorpool in the cantonment, expanding intramural sports, and the Farrell Road repairs), the proposed construction projects include site development, utilities and connections, lighting, paving, parking, walks, curbs and gutters, storm drainage, information systems, landscaping and signage. Air conditioning would be provided by self-contained systems. Descriptions of specific components are provided below.

1. Redevelop Tank Hill District

This is the result of a comprehensive planning effort in a 115-acre subarea of the Tank Hill District to allow for construction of multiple training complexes. Preparation of the area would include demolishing buildings, land clearing, and relocating existing functions in the cantonment and training lands, as necessary. The temporary school, as depicted on Figure 2-1, are existing modular facilities used as a temporary school while the new Consolidated Elementary School is built and the buildings will be removed and the site will be restored once the new school opens in August/September 2019.

a. Clearing and Demolition of a 115-acre subarea of the Tank Hill District

Redevelopment of this district would include clearing and demolition for construction of new facilities and future uses. This would include removal of buildings (Buildings [Bldg] 4301 [40,986 square feet [ft2]], 4302 [200 ft2], 4303 [1,800 ft2], 4312 [120 ft2], 4313 [240 ft2], 5801 [26,908 ft2], 5909 [26,908 ft2], 5910 [27,660 ft2], 5914 [12,651 ft2], 6005 [122,371 ft2], 6031 (5,385 ft2), 6035 (14,000 ft2), and 6830 [5,382 ft2]) and clearing and grading of up to 115 acres, including the area where the former hospital was located as depicted on Figure 2-1.

0 900 1,800450

Feet

$\\brookside\GIS_SHARE\ENBG\00_Proj\U\USACE\Ft_Rucker\MapFiles\Nov2017\FigureX_MasterPlan_Proposed_Projects_8x11.mxd User Name: saselage Date: 4/11/2018 Time: 3:46:23 PM

LegendRoad

Building to be Demolished

Future Project Boundary

Ft. Rucker Property BoundaryFigure 2-1Project Areas for Project 1Cantonment AreaMaster Plan Projects EAFort Rucker, AL

BASE MAP SOURCE: BING, online mapping

0 400 800200

Feet


LegendRoad



Ft. Rucker Property Boundary

Golf Course Utility Extension

Figure 2-2Project Areas for Project 2Cantonment AreaMaster Plan Projects EAFort Rucker, AL


0 400 800200

Feet


LegendRoad



Ft. Rucker Property BoundaryFigure 2-3Project Areas for Project 3, Project 4,Project 6 (Partial), and Project 8Cantonment AreaMaster Plan Projects EAFort Rucker, ALBASE MAP SOURCE: BING, online mapping

0 900 1,800450

Feet


LegendRoad



Ft. Rucker Property BoundaryFigure 2-4Project Areas for Project 5,Project 6 (Partial), and Project 7Cantonment AreaMaster Plan Projects EAFort Rucker, ALBASE MAP SOURCE: BING, online mapping

0 250 500125

Feet


LegendRoad


Figure 2-5Project Areas for Project 9 andProject 15 (Partial)Hanchey Army HeliportMaster Plan Projects EAFort Rucker, ALBASE MAP SOURCE: BING, online mapping

0 300 600150

Feet


LegendRoad

ADP Projects

Figure 2-6Project Area for Project 15 (Partial)Hanchey Army HeliportMaster Plan Projects EAFort Rucker, AL


0 500 1,000250

Feet


LegendRoad

Access Road



ADP Projects

Figure 2-7Project Areas for Project 10 and Project 16Lowe AHPMaster Plan Projects EAFort Rucker, AL


0 250 500125

Feet


LegendFuture Project Boundary


Figure 2-8Project Area for Project 11Shell AHPMaster Plan Projects EAFort Rucker, AL


0 250 500125

Feet


LegendRoad



Figure 2-9Project Areas for Project 12Knox AHPMaster Plan Projects EAFort Rucker, AL


0 500 1,000250

Feet


LegendRoad




ADP Projects

Figure 2-10Project Areas for Project 13 and Project 14Cairns AAFMaster Plan Projects EAFort Rucker, AL


0 300 600150

Feet


LegendRoad


Figure 2-11Project Area for Project 17Cantonment AreaMaster Plan Projects EAFort Rucker, AL




b. Construct AIT Complex (PN 89973)

Fort Rucker proposes to construct an AIT complex to support up to 350 trainees. This project would include the construction of a battalion headquarters (10,900 ft2), a dining facility (30,045 ft2), barracks (including two company operations facilities; 90,000 ft2), a covered training pavilion for tactical equipment training (1,750 ft2), a detached storage facility (1,000 ft2), a multipurpose training athletic field (17,634 ft2 or 4 acres), intrusion detection systems (IDS), and an energy monitoring and control system (EMCS). This complex would also include a general instruction building (90,610 ft2).

The complex would cover approximately 18 acres and would require an additional 2 acres during the construction phase.

c. Construct NCO Academy (PN 55583)

Fort Rucker proposes to construct an NCO Academy that is projected to train 225 Soldiers with 39 cadre and staff members. This project would include construction of a general instruction building (31,188 ft2); automation-aided instruction facility (7,575 ft2); general purpose administration (9,710 ft2); multipurpose assembly room (auditorium; 7,244 ft2); network operation center (430 ft2); learning resource center (4,939 ft2); organizational storage (822 ft2); arms room (797 ft2); advanced skills training barracks (48,572 ft2); limited use instruction building (17,466 ft2) and associated fixed wing parking apron (8,154 square yards [yd2]); covered training area (2,700 ft2); lawn equipment storage building (500 ft2); running track, multipurpose athletic field and an obstacle course (4 acres), a physical training pit (5,625 ft2) and stations; and organizational vehicle parking (250 square yards [yd2]). Intrusion detection system, closed-circuit television installation, and EMCS connections would also be provided.

The NCO Academy would cover approximately 30 acres to allow for future expansion, as required by NCO Academy criteria.

d. Construct WOCC Campus (PN 47216)

Fort Rucker proposes to construct a WOCC Campus to integrate the training environment for the WOCC Command, staff, and resident training and education for the Warrant Officer Candidates (WOCs), the Warrant Officer Intermediate Level Education, and the Warrant Officer Senior Service Education. Two potential locations are depicted on Figure 2-1. This project would include general instruction buildings (102,000 ft2), unaccompanied personnel housing (107,325 ft2), company operations facility (8,800 ft2), covered training area (3,000 ft2), Army physical fitness test (APFT) Field, and nonorganizational parking (10,000 yd2).

The campus would cover up to 35 acres.

e. Construct SERE Complex (PN 72118)

Fort Rucker proposes to construct a SERE Complex that would provide a self-contained, mission-critical training operations center at one location. Three potential locations are depicted on Figure 2-1. The proposed project would include construction of a student in/out processing building (5,181 ft2), headquarters with a sensitive compartmented information facility (21,108 ft2), general instruction building (administrative and classrooms; 25,815 ft2), unaccompanied personnel housing (40,452 ft2), overnight quarters (2,475 ft2), dining hall (11,008 ft2), mini-resistance training lab (4,188 ft2), physical fitness facility (2,125 ft2), two general purpose storage facilities (2,800 ft2 and 4,700 ft2), small arms storage (2,075 ft2), parking, and a combatives physical training area with a hand-to-hand combat pit (6,534 ft2). The facility will be digitally linked with Fort Rucker’s security system. All facilities will be single-story and obscured using existing vegetation and tree lines.

The complex would cover up to 35 acres.



f. Construct Aviation Training Support Facility (PN 86816)

Fort Rucker proposes to construct an Aviation Training Support Facility (135,770 ft2) that would provide a facility for training on both large (macro) and small (micro) historic artifacts, primarily rotary and fixed wing aircraft and systems. The proposed project would include construction of an administrative area, Enterprise classroom, research library, conference room, restrooms, arms room vault, consolidated entry and reception area, climate-controlled open high-bay material storage, and a 40-foot-wide upward acting exterior door for introduction of macros at both the first and second floors into the high-bay areas. The facility will be digitally linked with Fort Rucker’s security system.

2. Construct Golf Course Maintenance Facility (PN 88877)

Fort Rucker proposes to construct a new golf course maintenance facility to provide adequate maintenance and pesticide management for existing golf course operations. This proposed project would include construction of a golf course maintenance building (4,992 ft2), environmental building (750 ft2), equipment storage building (1,400 ft2), material storage bins (800 ft2), and fuel storage area. The interior space of the maintenance building would include office space, an employee break area, two restrooms with showers, a mechanics office, a shop area with access from the outside by two roll-up doors, a shop parts area, machine room, storage/small equipment area, a golf course supplies storage area, and an irrigation equipment area accessible from the outside. The environmental building would include a fertilizer storage area accessed from the outside by a roll-up door, a pesticide storage facility, a wash bay, and a waste disposal area. The equipment storage building would be fully enclosed and insulated with no heating or cooling required. The fuel storage area would have a full-service island and a metered pump system. This project would also include extension of utility services to the golf course area from the nearby housing area, approximately 3,040 linear feet, and the demolition of the existing golf course maintenance facilities (Bldg 20010 [3,229 ft2], 20017 [2,824 ft2], and 20023 [729 ft2]).

3. Construct Hazardous Materials Storage (PN 90033)

Fort Rucker proposes to construct a hazardous materials storage building to meet current hazardous materials and waste standards required to support the mission. The proposed project would include construction of the hazardous materials storage building (8,000 ft2) that would include administration space and a warehouse area. It would also include the demolition of the existing hazardous materials storage building (Bldg 1207 [4,000 ft2]).

The hazardous material storage and the hazardous materials waste storage building (see next bullet) would be constructed near each other in the industrial area, at the intersection of Dilly Branch Road and Engineer Road. The two buildings would cover approximately 3.5 acres and would disturb an additional 0.5-acre during the construction phase. However, all construction would occur within previously disturbed grounds.

4. Construct Hazardous Materials Waste Storage (PN 90033)

Fort Rucker proposes to construct a hazardous materials waste storage building to meet current hazardous materials and waste standards required to support the mission. The proposed project would include construction of the hazardous materials waste storage building (3,500 ft2) and would consist of a warehouse area. It would also include the demolition of the existing hazardous materials storage building (Bldg 1315 [9,000 ft2]). The hazardous materials waste storage building would be constructed near the hazardous materials storage building and would be within the same area of disturbance described for the hazardous materials storage building.



5. Expand Intramural Sports (PN TBD)

Fort Rucker proposes to expand the intramural sports program, enabling Soldier and Family fitness on the installation. With the addition of this site and reconfiguration of the current adult baseball/softball fields located between Andrews Avenue and Ruf Avenue; youth fields in the 8900 block; and the frisbee golf course; the intramural program will be comprised of appropriately sized venues to support various sporting events.

6. Relocate Motorpool to Industrial Area (PN TBD)

The aging and inefficient motorpool facilities and convoy operations training, currently located in the cantonment on the 4700 block, would be demolished. This function would be moved away from the center of the cantonment area and relocated to the industrial area. The proposed motorpool area, which would include garages, maintenance bays, and washracks, would be sited in an area that already includes a government motorpool and an aviation back-shop. The project would include demolition of the following buildings: Bldg 4701 (4,997 ft2), 4708 (293 ft2), 4709 (120 ft2), 4710 (4,928 ft2), 4711 (4,029 ft2), 4712 (4,928 ft2), 4713 (4,928 ft2), 4736 (902 ft2), and 4753 (600 ft2).

The relocated motorpool would be up to a 17-acre project area.

7. Revitalize Motorpool Area (PN TBD)

Once the structures, equipment, and vehicles in the existing motorpool are relocated or demolished, as described in Project 6, Fort Rucker would revitalize the current motorpool area for administrative or community activity use. If used for administrative function then a building or building complex, of an unspecified use and of an unspecified size, would be constructed. An additional site-specific evaluation would occur as needed in the future.

8. Revitalize WWII Warehouse Area (PN TBD)

The WWII warehouse area, located in the northeast of the developed industrial area, has buildings that are more than 50 years old that have exceeded their life expectancy and are beyond economic rehabilitation or repair. Fort Rucker proposes to demolish these aging and inefficient buildings and the area used to construct modern, efficient, industrial facilities to support government and/or contractor-operated/owned functions involving Logistics, Public Works, and Aviation Maintenance and Support. The project would include demolition of the following buildings: 1307 (9,963 ft2), 1308 (9,000 ft2), 1309 (9,000 ft2), 1310 (9,080 ft2), 1311 (9,000 ft2), 1312 (9,000 ft2), 1313 (10,068 ft2), 1403 (13,396 ft2), and 1407 (9,198 ft2).

9. Construct Aircraft Paint Facility at Hanchey AHP (PN 63408)

Fort Rucker proposes to construct a new aircraft paint facility (up to 66,712 ft2) for the aviation training center Fort Rucker helicopter fleet at Hanchey AHP. This proposed facility would accommodate the painting of at least 30 aircraft per year; this is the minimum number required to sustain mission readiness of the aircraft fleet used to support aviation training at Fort Rucker. The proposed project would be sited north of the AVIM hangar and its accompanying parking apron.

The interior space of the facility would include enclosures for painting and stripping booths. Painting booths would be constructed with conditioned air for paint adhesion requirements and to accommodate accelerated drying. Stripping booths would be constructed with ancillary equipment serving multiple booths at a time. Covered cleaning platforms would be equipped for steam cleaning. This proposed project would also include the demolition (or reuse) of the inoperable bead blast facility (Bldg 40139) and the current aircraft paint facility (Bldg 40135), which cannot properly execute stripping and painting functions. An alternate site is being considered for the aircraft paint facility or personally owned vehicle (POV) parking (site may not accommodate both), as depicted on Figure 2-5.



Prior to construction of this project, the AVIM hangar northernmost detention pond would be relocated approximately 60 feet northeast. Additionally, it is anticipated that approximately 1.1 acres of woods would need to be cleared.

10. Construct AVIM Hangar and Associated Parking at Lowe AHP (PN 15659)

Fort Rucker proposes to construct an AVIM Hangar-UH-60 and washrack at Lowe AHP to support Army Helicopter Systems. The proposed hangar (88,769 ft2) would be sited along the northwest boundary of Lowe AHP and would include a hangar bay with 10 maintenance bays; maintenance shops and offices; maintenance support; an administrative core with an aviation operations area, administration area, and support spaces; and a hangar access apron (4,433 yd2). The proposed POV and government-owned vehicle parking and exterior storage would be located to the north of the proposed AVIM hangar and would potentially require a new access road. The proposed wash rack (8,517 ft2) would be located south of the road leading from the western helicopter parking area and west of the main road bisecting Lowe AHP. The proposed hangar, parking areas, and access road would be sited at the edge of developed land but would extend into undisturbed land and require clearing and earthwork to prepare a level site. The proposed washrack would be sited in a maintained grassy area.

11. Construct Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at Shell AHP (PN 60456)

Fort Rucker proposes to construct an aircraft maintenance hangar for the UH-72A aircraft to service rotary wing aircraft and support initial entry rotary wing training. The proposed modified standard design hangar (80,752 ft2) would be sited to the northeast of the existing buildings at Shell AHP and near the northern boundary in an area that is currently an open grassy area and include up to 15 maintenance bays, airfield aprons, wash platform and a storage facility. The hangar interior would include supporting shops, parts storage, avionics, administrative, restrooms, breakroom, and training and conference facilities. The maintenance bays would be equipped with overhead bridge cranes, fire alarm/suppression systems, ground service equipment covered parking, and integrated mechanical support systems. The facility will be designed to appropriate scale to meet required standoff distances. The hangar would be designed to withstand 120 mile-per-hour (mph) wind loading.

12. Construct AVIM Hangar and Associated Parking at Knox AHP (PN 60460)

Fort Rucker proposes to construct an AVIM Hangar-CH-47 to support initial entry rotary wing training at Knox AHP. The proposed hangar (103,205 ft2) would be sited either in a developed area/maintained grassy area to the southeast of Bldg 25161 or in an area to the southwest of Bldg 25166 that contains a stormwater management pond/maintained grassy area. This proposed project would also include the demolition (or reuse) of the temporary fabric tension maintenance facility.

The proposed hangar would accommodate five bays for the CH-47 helicopter and include all supporting shops, parts storage, avionics, administrative, restrooms, breakroom, and training and conference facilities. The proposed design would include parking for 100 POVs. The hangar would be designed to withstand 100-mph wind loading. The stormwater management pond would be relocated to end of the runway area if the area to the southwest of Bldg 25166 were to be chosen.

13. Construct ATC Complex at Cairns AAF (PN TBD)

Fort Rucker proposes to construct an ATC complex at Cairns AAF to meet facility operations criteria. This proposed complex would consist of an air traffic control tower (ATCT), Army radar approach control (ARAC), and Army flight following facility. The ARAC would be located in the proposed airfield operations headquarters complex building.



This proposed project would be sited over a portion of an existing building (portion of Bldg 30101) and the existing ATCT. A portion of Bldg 30101, which includes operations, administrative space, and the snack bar, with the existing ATCT (22,392 ft2) would be demolished prior to construction.

The ATC complex would require lightning protection, grounding, bonding, and shielding in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration Standards 019E and 20B.

The interior of the ATCT would meet the United Facilities Criteria 4-133-01 guidelines and include a tower cab floor, ready room/breakroom, ATC equipment room, mechanical equipment room, hub radio/flight following, bathroom, training room, administrative offices, and an entry floor.

The proposed location would provide drive-up service access to service entries, including the In-Flight Report (IFR) equipment room, the operations/IFR room (through the IFR equipment room), and the mechanical room.

14. Implement Cairns AAF ADP (PN TBD)

Fort Rucker would implement select projects in the Cairns AAF ADP, which includes construction of a new hangar (100,000 ft2), a combined ATC complex (addressed separately under Project 13), and a snack bar/recreation facility (7,000 ft2).

The proposed hangar would be located at the northern end of hangar row (north of Hangar 30108). The new snack bar/recreation facility is proposed along Wallace Street and will be centrally located to airfield operations and training facilities.

The projects would enable demolition of two of three existing hangars (30108 [38,126 ft2], 30106 [42,000 ft2], or 30104 [35,392 ft2]). These areas would then be available for POV parking or future development sites. A future development area is proposed in the northeast area of the airfield located east of Runway 18-36. This area is proposed for potential future hangar or building locations.

All construction would occur within previously disturbed grounds.

15. Implement Hanchey AHP ADP (PN TBD)

Fort Rucker would implement select projects in the Hanchey AHP ADP, which includes the construction of a satellite fire station, POV parking, and a motorpool building.

The satellite fire station would be located to the northeast of the existing parking apron. POV parking, to include a bus loading zone, is planned south of Bldg 50400 for the aircraft maintenance workers assigned to the existing hangars. The additional POV parking provided by the identified projects are expected to reduce the need for POV parking on the apron adjacent to the hangars and will facilitate transport of students and employees to the heliport.

A Motorpool building (5,000 ft2) for maintenance of ground support equipment would be constructed in the area south of the existing Fuel Farm.

16. Implement Lowe AHP ADP (PN TBD)

Fort Rucker would implement select projects in the Lowe AHP ADP, which includes construction of a new hangar and washrack (addressed separately under Project 10), a replacement fire station, and a replacement ATCT/airfield operations building.

Construction of a new AVIM hangar would enable demolition of one of three older hangars (40120 [34,220 ft2], 40117 [34,200 ft2], and 40113 [26,044 ft2]) and provide flexibility to accommodate other aviation maintenance missions at Lowe AHP.

The proposed replacement fire station and ATCT/airfield operations building would be constructed in the vicinity of the existing facilities to the south of Hangar 40113. These buildings would provide



modern replacements to the existing older, undersized facilities (40110 [4,340 ft2] and 40111 [4,527 ft2]) allowing them to be demolished.

17. Repair Farrell Road Crossing an Unnamed Perennial Tributary to Claybank Creek (PN TBD)

Fort Rucker proposes to repair the Farrell Road crossing. There is severe erosion at the downstream ends of two large drainage culverts that pass under Farrell Road, with the flow merging downstream of Farrell Road. The design would take into consideration drainage basins and calculated anticipated runoff and would likely address surface improvements near the terminus of the outfall structure of Culvert 1, add an energy dissipater with stilling basin and ditch wall stabilization downstream of Culvert 2, and address failing gabion basket walls. Impacts to the unnamed tributary to Claybank Creek would occur along approximately 300 linear feet.

2.3 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would maintain existing conditions on Fort Rucker. Under the No Action Alternative, existing structures would not be demolished, new facilities would not be constructed, and no other changes to installation activities as described in Section 2.2 would be made. Operations and staff would be maintained in existing facilities at Fort Rucker, and no changes would occur. Failure to accomplish the Proposed Action would result in continued use of outmoded and over-used facilities, continued less-than-optimal work at scattered facilities, and the inability to modify operations as new military needs arise. Farrell Road would be left unrepaired, which could eventually result in structural failure of Farrell Road.

The No Action Alternative would not meet the Proposed Action purpose and need. However, inclusion of the No Action Alternative serves as a benchmark for evaluation of the potential impacts of the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative is therefore evaluated in detail in this EA.

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward Alternatives may be developed that have the potential to meet facility and training requirements through means other than new construction or use of alternative sites or methods. Alternatives were evaluated in terms of their ability to meet the project purpose and their potential impacts relative to the Proposed Action. Alternatives that would not provide suitable facilities to support the military mission were eliminated from further consideration. Additionally, any alternative likely to have greater impacts or costs than the Proposed Action was eliminated from further consideration.

2.4.1 Expand Only Through Renovation of Existing Buildings Buildings scheduled for demolition as part of the Proposed Action were considered for rehabilitation to meet anticipated future needs on Fort Rucker. However, these structures are beyond economic renovation to accommodate new technologies that would be necessary to meet mission requirements. Some of these buildings have physically deteriorated beyond economic repair for structural stability. Because these facilities are inadequate for renovation, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.

2.4.2 Use of Other Military Installations Fort Rucker has the primary mission of training, educating, and developing agile and adaptive Army Aviation professionals for the Army. Relocating current operations to other installations would be counterproductive to the economies achieved through serving as the headquarters of Army Aviation and would require similar construction elsewhere to accommodate the components of the proposed action. This would result in increased costs in facilities, travel time, personnel, and other economic factors. Thus, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.



2.4.3 Lease Private Facilities Suitable secure facilities are not available off-post to meet all anticipated needs. The construction of new facilities would be prohibitively expensive compared to use of land on Fort Rucker. It would be impractical to conduct military missions with sophisticated and often classified military equipment at private facilities. Use of off-post facilities would require staff to repeatedly travel between the post and the off-post facilities, resulting in increased fuel and vehicle maintenance costs. Thus, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.



This page intentionally left blank.

SECTION 3

NG1218171723ATL 3-1

Affected Environment and Consequences This section describes existing environmental conditions of the Preferred Alternative that could be affected by implementation of the Proposed Action. These include air quality, noise, geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, socioeconomics, transportation, utilities, and hazardous and toxic substances.

This analysis considers both the duration and the magnitude of impacts. Duration is described either as short-term (effects that would occur only with respect to a particular activity for a finite period, a year or less, or only during the time required for construction or installation activities), or long-term (effects that are more likely to be persistent and chronic). The magnitude of an impact refers to its severity and takes into account beneficial and adverse impacts. The magnitude factors in the level of community concern associated with potential impacts on human health; whether the action establishes a precedent for further actions with significant effects; the level of uncertainty about projected impacts; and the extent to which the impact may violate federal, state, or local environmental protection laws or constrain future activities. The thresholds of change for the magnitude of impacts are defined as follows:

• Negligible: When the impact is localized and not measurable at the lowest level of detection • Minor: When the impact is localized and slight, but detectable • Moderate: When the impact is readily apparent and appreciable • Major: When the impact is severely adverse, major, and highly noticeable

Magnitudes that are classified as “negligible” to “moderate” were considered less than significant in the analysis. Significant adverse impacts are those categorized as “major.” Potential beneficial impacts are discussed separately from potential adverse impacts. Measures that would be implemented to avoid or minimize potential impacts to the environment, including those that would otherwise be significant, are presented.

3.1 Resources Eliminated from Further Consideration 3.1.1 Land Use The Fort Rucker reservation encompasses 62,857 acres or approximately 98 square miles, which includes the main reservation (57,772 acres) and multiple satellite properties (totaling 5,479 acres) that are used primarily for aviation training. Land use within the main reservation generally is divided into the main cantonment area and an operations area (military and aviation training facilities and timber management lands). The approximately 5,000-acre cantonment area is in the southern portion of Fort Rucker and consists of residential areas, support facilities, retail centers, restaurants, and health care facilities (Fort Rucker, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c).

The operations area within the main reservation (54,965 acres) is largely undeveloped and includes range and training areas and aviation facilities. Development within the operations area is concentrated on the various airfields, with approximately 51,000 acres of forest that is managed for commercial harvest occupying most of the area (Fort Rucker, 2008, 2017b).

Fort Rucker is approximately 20 miles northwest of Dothan, Alabama, between the cities of Daleville, Enterprise, and Ozark. The surrounding land use in southeastern Coffee and southwestern Dale Counties is primarily agricultural activities and timber management (Fort Rucker, 2017a).

SECTION 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES


While implementation of the Proposed Action would not change land use at Fort Rucker, some of the RPMP projects (e.g., relocate motorpool to industrial area) would consolidate functions. Because the Proposed Action would have no effect on land use with any of the alternatives, this resource does not warrant further consideration and is excluded from further discussion.

3.1.2 Prime Farmland The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) requires federal agencies to identify and take into account the adverse effects of their actions on the preservation of farmland. The FPPA defines prime farmland as “…land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion, as determined by the Secretary. Prime farmland includes land that possesses the above characteristics but is being used currently to produce livestock and timber. It does not include land already in or committed to urban development or water storage…” Acquisition or use of farmland by a federal agency for national defense purposes is exempted by Section 1547(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 4208(b).

Prime farmland soils consisting of Red Bay fine sandy loam occur at Preferred Alternative sites in the cantonment area, and prime farmland soils consisting of Faceville fine sandy loam occur at Preferred Alternative sites at Cairns AAF. All areas with prime farmland soils within the Preferred Alternative sites are committed to urban development. As a result, there would be no impacts to prime farmland and this resource does not warrant further consideration and is excluded from further discussion.

3.1.3 Floodplains The Proposed Action would have no impacts on floodplains since none of the proposed projects are sited in a floodplain. The cantonment area is located above 320 feet elevation, which places it above the floodplain of Claybank Creek. All satellite airfields with proposed modifications are also located outside of floodplains. The Proposed Action components would not be adversely impacted by floods occurring within floodplains. Construction would occur outside of designated floodplains and would have no impact on flood elevations upstream or downstream of the project components. Because the Proposed Action would have no effect on floodplains with any of the alternatives, this resource does not warrant further consideration and is excluded from further consideration.

3.1.4 Visual The Proposed Action would have insignificant impacts on visual resources. The visual appearance of new facilities would be consistent with the developed areas in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, no impacts to visual resources would occur, so this resource does not warrant further consideration and is excluded from further discussion.

3.1.5 Demographics Coffee County has a population of 51,226 and Dale County has a population of 49,226 (Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission [SEARP&DC], 2017). Dothan in Houston County is the largest metropolitan area within the Wiregrass Community, with a population of 68,468 (SEARP&DC, 2017). Fort Rucker has a population of approximately 13,700, which includes approximately 3,500 full-time military, approximately 1,700 part-time or transient military, and approximately 8,500 DoD and non-DoD civilians (Fort Rucker, 2017b). The racial makeup of the counties around Fort Rucker is comparable to that of the region.

Because the Proposed Action would have no effect on demographics with any of the alternatives, this resource does not warrant further consideration and is excluded from further discussion.



3.1.6 Environmental Justice Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (1994), requires federal agencies to achieve environmental justice "to the greatest extent practicable" by identifying and addressing "disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects of … activities on minority populations and low-income populations."

The Fort Rucker population does not have a disproportionately high population of economically disadvantaged persons or concentrations of minority groups. Dale and Coffee Counties generally have a lower percentage of minorities and a similar percentage of disadvantaged persons compared to Alabama as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

Because the Proposed Action would have no effect on environmental justice with any of the alternatives, this resource does not warrant further consideration and is excluded from further discussion.

3.2 Air Quality Under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established nationwide air quality standards to protect public health and welfare, with an adequate margin of safety. These federal standards, known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), represent the maximum allowable atmospheric concentrations for six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter, which includes respirable particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) and respirable particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5). NAAQS include both primary and secondary standards for each criteria pollutant (Table 3-1). Primary standards protect against adverse health effects, while secondary standards protect against welfare effects such as damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.

The criteria provided under the CAA classify the country into attainment and nonattainment areas, usually designated by county or metropolitan statistical area. Any areas not meeting NAAQS are designated as nonattainment for the specific pollutant or pollutants. In addition, designated nonattainment areas may be expanded per Section 107(d) of the CAA, which defines a nonattainment area as “any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standards for the pollutant.” Nonattainment status can be further classified as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme, with extreme having the highest level of NAAQS exceedances. Each state is required to demonstrate how nonattainment areas will be brought into compliance with NAAQS and other components of the CAA through a State Implementation Plan.

Table 3-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

Air Pollutant NAAQS

(Primary/Secondary) Averaging Time Level Form

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Primary

8 hours 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year 1 hour 35 ppm

Lead (Pb) Primary and Secondary

Rolling 3-month average 0.15 μg/m3 a Not to be exceeded

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Primary

1 hour 100 ppb 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum

1 year 53 ppbb Annual mean



Table 3-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

Air Pollutant NAAQS

(Primary/Secondary) Averaging Time Level Form

Ozone (O3) Primary 8 hours 0.070 ppmc Annual fourth-highest daily maximum

Particle Pollution (PM)

PM2.5 Primary 1 year 12.0 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years

Secondary 1 year 15.0 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years

PM10

Primary 24 hours 35 μg/m3 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years

Secondary 24 hours 150 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Primary 1 hour 75 ppbd 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years

Secondary 3 hours 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year

Notes:

Source: (EPA, 2017a), EPA website https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million a In areas designated nonattainment for the Pb standards prior to the promulgation of the current (2008) standards, and for

which implementation plans to attain or maintain the current (2008) standards have not been submitted and approved, the previous standards (1.5 µg/m3 as a calendar quarter average) also remain in effect.

b The level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm. It is shown here in terms of ppb for the purposes of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard level.

c Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) O3 standards additionally remain in effect in some areas. Revocation of the previous (2008) O3 standards and transitioning to the current (2015) standards will be addressed in the implementation rule for the current standards.

d The previous SO2 standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect in certain areas: (1) any area for which it is not yet 1 year since the effective date of designation under the current (2010) standards, and (2) any area for which an implementation plan providing for attainment of the current (2010) standard has not been submitted and approved and which is designated nonattainment under the previous SO2 standards or is not meeting the requirements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) call under the previous SO2 standards (40 CFR § 50.4[3]). A SIP call is an EPA action requiring a state to resubmit all or part of its SIP to demonstrate attainment of the required NAAQS.

“Climate change” refers to any significant change in measures of climate such as temperature, precipitation, or wind that last for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from any of the following conditions (EPA, 2017b):

• Natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the earth's orbit around the sun

• Natural processes within the climate system, including changes in ocean circulation

• Human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g. deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, and desertification)

DoD Directive 4715.21, Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience, describes the agency’s need to adapt current and future operations to account for potential impacts of climate change to maintain an effective military.

https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table



Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are compounds that may contribute to accelerated climate change by altering the thermodynamic properties of the earth’s atmosphere. GHGs include the following pollutants (EPA, 2017b):

• Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a naturally occurring gas produced by natural fires, geothermal events, and aerobic respiration. CO2 also is a by-product of burning fossil fuels biomass, land-use changes, and other industrial processes. It is the principal anthropogenic GHG that affects the earth’s radiative balance.

• Methane (CH4) is a naturally occurring gas with a climate change potential approximately 20 times that of CO2 with regard to climatic warming. CH4 is produced through anaerobic (without oxygen) decomposition of waste in landfills, animal digestion, decomposition of animal wastes, production and distribution of natural gas and petroleum, coal production, and incomplete fossil fuel combustion.

• Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a naturally occurring gas with a climate change potential approximately 300 times that of CO2 with regard to climatic warming. Major sources of N2O include soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.

• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are man-made compounds containing only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. HFCs, which are commonly used in air conditioning and refrigerants, were introduced as alternatives to ozone depleting substances, such as chloroflourocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochloroflourocarbons (HCFCs). The climate change potential of HFCs ranges from approximately 140 to 11,700 times that of CO2.

• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are man-made compounds containing only fluorine and carbon. Similar to HFCs, PFCs have been introduced as a replacement for CFCs. PFCs are also used in manufacturing and are emitted as by-products of industrial processes. PFCs are powerful GHGs, with a climate change potential approximately 7,390 to 12,200 times that of CO2.

• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless gas that is soluble in alcohol and ether, and slightly soluble in water. This compound is a very powerful GHG, with a climate change potential more than 20,000 times that of CO2, and is used primarily in electrical transmission and distribution systems, as well as a dielectric in electronics.

The EPA Mandatory Reporting Rule became effective on December 29, 2009. Suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year in the U.S. must submit annual reports to the EPA. In addition, the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts et al. v. EPA et al. (Supreme Court Case 05-1120) found that the EPA has the authority to list GHGs as pollutants and to regulate emissions of GHGs under the CAA. On April 17, 2009, the EPA found that CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 may contribute to air pollution and may endanger public health and welfare.

3.2.1 Affected Environment Fort Rucker and the surrounding area are in attainment for all criteria air pollutants (EPA, 2017c). Within the region, particulate matter is the most serious air quality issue, but concentrations are well below the level that would pose health risks or trigger nonattainment status.

Primary stationary air pollution sources at Fort Rucker include fossil fuel boilers and water heaters, woodworking shops, paints booths, incinerators, underground and aboveground storage tanks, and any other source that might release pollutants into the atmosphere. Other potential major sources of air pollutants are military equipment and vehicles (Fort Rucker, 2008).



3.2.2 Consequences Preferred Alternative

During construction and demolition, air quality impacts could result from dust carried offsite and combustive emissions from construction equipment. The primary risks from blowing dust particles relate to human health and human nuisance values. Fugitive dust can contribute to respiratory health problems and create an inhospitable working environment. Deposition on surfaces can be a nuisance to those living or working downwind.

Measures that would be implemented to reduce or eliminate fugitive dust emissions include the following:

• Sprinkling/Irrigation. Sprinkling the ground surface with water until it is moist is an effective dust control method for haul roads and other traffic routes (Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee, 2014). This practice can be used at virtually any site. When suppression methods involving water are used, care would be exercised to minimize over-watering that could cause the transport of mud onto adjoining roadways, which ultimately could increase the dust problem. Mechanical removal of mud from tires would be implemented if necessary.

• Vegetative Cover. In areas not expected to accommodate vehicle traffic, vegetative stabilization of disturbed soil is often desirable. Vegetation provides coverage to surface soils and decreases wind velocity at the ground surface, thus reducing the potential for dust to become airborne.

• Mulch. Mulching can be a quick and effective means of dust control for recently disturbed areas.

No significant long-term changes in air quality are expected with construction of the Preferred Alternative. Fugitive dust would increase in the immediate area during construction, but impacts would be temporary and less than significant. Dust abatement measures discussed above would help limit the direct and secondary creation of dust.

Fort Rucker has a major source air operating permit (Facility No. 604-0008) issued by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). The proposed project will have applicable requirements under ADEM Administrative Rules 335-3-6-.05 and 335-3-6-.20. Prior to initiating construction activities, an air construction permit application may need to be submitted. ADEM’s air permit engineer for Fort Rucker should be engaged to confirm the air permitting approach.

New stationary sources would be created through implementation of the Proposed Action, including the installation of new natural gas boilers for comfort heating in the newly constructed buildings and the installation of new paint and strip booths in the Aircraft Paint Facility at Hanchey AHP. New sources may need to be added to Fort Rucker’s existing air operating permit through a permit modification with ADEM. Painting operations (30 aircraft painted per year) are expected to remain the same following implementation of the Proposed Action. Operation of the Preferred Alternative would result in long-term, insignificant increase in air emissions.

The Preferred Alternative would generate GHG emissions from construction-related activities. Construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in a short-term, insignificant increase in GHG emissions. The Proposed Action is not located in a coastal region or along a tidally influenced river reach. Therefore, sea level rise from climate change would not impact the proposed project.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no demolition and no new construction. Conditions would remain as they are and current air quality conditions would not change. There would be no impacts on air quality.



3.3 Noise Noise is defined as unwanted or annoying sound that interferes with or disrupts normal human activities such as sleep, conversation, or student learning. A number of noise measurements are normally considered when determining noise impacts and include the following:

• Decibel (dB): A measurement of the sound pressure level.

• dBA (A-weighted sound pressure level): Sound pressure level adjusted by an A-weighting filter. The A-weighting filter places greater emphasis on those frequencies within the sensitive range of the human ear by de-emphasizing the very low and very high frequency components. Typically, human hearing is best approximated by using a dBA scale (EPA, 1974).

• dBC (C-weighted sound pressure level): Sound pressure level adjusted by a C-weighting filter, which emphasizes the very low frequency components of sound.

The decibel scale is logarithmic rather than arithmetic. When sound pressure doubles, the sound pressure level, as expressed by dBA, increases by 3. Psychologically, most humans do not perceive a doubling of sound until there is an increase of 10 dBA (EPA, 1974). Sound pressure decreases with distance from the source. Typically, the amount of noise from a continuous source is halved (reduced by 3 dBA) as the distance from the source doubles (EPA, 1974). However, other factors, including ground type, atmospheric conditions, and shielding by vegetation and structures, further affect the amount of decrease in sound over distance (U.S. Department of Transportation [USDOT], 2011).

Federal Aviation Administration and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development criteria specify that noise levels in noise-sensitive land use areas normally are considered unacceptable where they exceed a day-night average sound level of 65 dBA.

3.3.1 Affected Environment Training and operational activities are the primary sources of noise at Fort Rucker and training typically occurs 24 hours per day. The principal sources of operational noise on Fort Rucker are generated through small arms fire, demolition and large caliber weapons, simulators, and rotary wing (helicopter) aircraft training. Helicopter flight training represents the largest operational source of noise. Helicopter corridors extend from airfields and heliports to target areas. Numerous rotary wing aircraft are stationed at Fort Rucker and are used extensively throughout the installation and adjacent areas. Helicopter flights are a significant component of military training and operations on-post. Heavy weapons and small arms firing is conducted in the impact area on the northern portion of the installation. Other noise sources include routine construction and demolition activities and military and civilian motor vehicle operations (Fort Rucker, 2011).

The Army has developed land use guidelines for areas on and near its installations as an element of its Installation Operational Noise Management Plan (IONMP) (Fort Rucker, 2011). The noise impact on the community is translated into four noise zones:

• Zone I is acceptable with all noise-sensitive land uses. It includes all areas in which the peak sound level is less than 87 dB (for small arms), the A-weighted day-night level (ADNL) is less than 65 dB (for aircraft), or the C-weighted day-night level (CDNL) is less than 62 dB (for large arms and demolitions).

• Zone II is normally not recommended for siting noise-sensitive land uses. This zone consists of the area where the peak sound level is between 87 and 104 dB, the ADNL is between 65 dB and 75 dB, or the CDNL is between 62 dB and 70 dB. Activities within this zone generally should be limited to manufacturing, warehousing, transportation, and resource protection.



• Zone III is not recommended for siting noise-sensitive land uses. This zone is the area closest to the source of the noise where the peak sound level is greater than 104 dB, the ADNL is greater than 75 dB, or the CDNL is greater than 70 dB.

• Land Use Planning Zone (LUPZ) is a supplemental zone used with certain noise metrics. The LUPZ is part of the Zone I just outside of the Zone II and the LUPZ is generally compatible with most noise-sensitive land uses. This zone is at the upper end of the Noise Zone I and is defined by a CDNL between 57 dB and 62 dB or an ADNL between 60 dB and 65 dB (Fort Rucker, 2011).

Fort Rucker implements an IONMP for current and future noise management (Fort Rucker, 2011). The IONMP fosters communication between Fort Rucker and its civilian neighbors and provides a method for responding to civilian issues related to noise generated by Fort Rucker training activities. Other goals of the IONMP include education of both installation personnel and surrounding residents, management of noise complaints, mitigation of noise and vibration, and noise abatement procedures. Noise monitoring systems and data management are also included in the plan.

Preferred Alternative

Proposed RPMP projects in the cantonment area are located in a Zone I noise contour. Projects at Lowe AHP, Knox AHP, and Shell AHP are within LUPZ noise contours. Construction at Hanchey AHP is within a Zone II noise contour. At Cairns AAF, demolition activities are in a Zone I area and construction of the ATC Complex is in a Zone II noise contour.


The Proposed Action would result in minor short-term direct noise impacts from construction, demolition, and parking and roadway improvements. During construction and demolition, noise would typically be above background levels except during aircraft flyovers. Heavy equipment such as bulldozers, graders, backhoes, excavators, dump trucks, pavers, jackhammers, and cement trucks would generate noise that could affect onsite workers. Construction equipment typically emits noise in the 79- to 89-dBA range at a distance of 50 feet. If multiple pieces of construction equipment are operating simultaneously, then the noise is increased due to the additional equipment. Therefore, noise from the construction site could be up to 94 dBA at 50 feet with several large pieces of equipment operating at the same time. There is a reduction of 6 dBA for every doubling of distance from the noise source (Table 3-2). Construction workers would use hearing protection and would follow Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards and procedures to protect themselves from construction noise and/or noise being generated by surrounding training activities.

Table 3-2. Noise Levels of Construction Equipment at 50 and 100 Feet Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

Equipment

Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA)

Noise Level at 100 Feet

(dBA)

Earthmoving

Front Loaders 79 73

Backhoes 85 79

Dozers 80 74

Tractors 80 74

Graders 85 79



Table 3-2. Noise Levels of Construction Equipment at 50 and 100 Feet Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

Equipment

Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA)

Noise Level at 100 Feet

(dBA)

Pavers 89 83

Trucks 82 76

Materials Handling

Concrete Mixers 85 79

Concrete Pump 82 76

Crane 83 77

Concrete Crushers 85 79

Stationary

Pumps 76 70

Generator 78 72

Compressors 81 75

Impact

Jack Hammers 88 82

Pneumatic Tools 86 80

Other

Saws 78 72

Vibrators 76 70

Source: EPA, 1971

Construction under the Proposed Action could affect nonconstruction personnel. Direct exposure to nonconstruction staff to construction-related noise would be temporary, limited to times when personnel are traveling between vehicles and buildings or among buildings. Construction activities would be confined to daytime hours, further minimizing potential disturbance to sensitive residential areas at the most critical times (8 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Most of the proposed RPMP projects would not be located in proximity to sensitive noise receptors. Sensitive noise receptors that are located within one-mile of proposed RPMP projects are presented in Table 3-3. The Fort Rucker Consolidated Elementary and Primary School off Farrell Road would be occupied beginning in August/September 2019. The temporary school, which includes multiple modular buildings, is the current home to the elementary school students and teachers but would be vacated in June 2019.



Table 3-3. Sensitive Noise Receptors within 1 Mile of the Proposed Real Property Master Plan Projects Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

Sensitive Noise Receptors (SNR)

RPMP Projects within 1 Mile Distance

Sound Level Difference Due to Distance (rounded down to

nearest whole doubling value)

Munson Heights Family Housing near Red Cloud Road

Repair Farrell Road Crossing 1,426 feet to the southeast -24 dBA

Construct SERE Complex Site B

2,746 feet to the south -30 dBA

Construct NCO Academy 4,330 feet to the south -36 dBA

Construct SERE Complex Site A

4,699 feet to the southeast -36 dBA

Revitalize Motorpool Area 3,907 feet to the east -36 dBA

Bowden Terrace Family Housing near Division Road

Expand Intramural Sports 2,798 feet to the northwest -30 dBA

Revitalize Motorpool Area 2,851 feet to the northwest -30 dBA

Repair Farrell Road Crossing 3,960 feet to the southwest -36 dBA

City of Daleville Residences off Andrews Drive

Revitalize WWII Warehouse Area

2,640 feet to the northeast -30 dBA

Lyster Community Hospital off Dustoff Street

Construct AIT Complex 1,109 feet to the south -24 dBA


1,267 feet to the southwest -24 dBA

Construct NCO Academy 1,954 feet to the west -30 dBA

Construct WOCC Campus Site B


Construct WOCC Campus Site A

2,270 feet to the west -30 dBA

Repair Farrell Road Crossing 2,376 feet to the northeast -30 dBA

Construct SERE Complex Site C



3,274 feet mile to the west -36 dBA

Construct Aviation Training Support Facility


Fort Rucker Elementary School off Farrell Road

Repair Farrell Road Crossing 1,584 feet to the south -24 dBA

Revitalize Motorpool Area 3,326 feet to the east -36 dBA

Expand Intramural Sports 4,752 feet to the east -36 dBA

Temporary School off Andrews Avenue


Adjacent to the south and west 0 dBA

Construct AIT Complex Adjacent to the east 0 dBA


900 feet to the southeast -24 dBA








Construct NCO Academy 1,045 feet to the northwest -24 dBA




2,310 feet to the east -30 dBA


3,115 feet to the northeast -30 dBA

Repair Farrell Road Crossing 3,970 feet to the northeast -36 dBA

Chapel Complex off Red Cloud Road

Revitalize Motorpool Area 1,690 feet to the southeast -30 dBA

Expand Intramural Sports 2,376 feet to the southeast -30 dBA

Repair Farrell Road Crossing 2,746 feet to the southwest -30 dBA

Chapel of Wings off Shamrock Street


950 feet to the south -24 dBA





Repair Farrell Road Crossing 2,482 feet to the southeast -30 dBA

Construct AIT Complex 2,534 feet to the southwest -30 dBA

Construct NCO Academy 4,013 feet to the west -36 dBA





Center Library off Novosel Street

Revitalize Motorpool Area 1,214 feet to the northeast -24 dBA



Repair Farrell Road Crossing 2,640 feet to the northwest -30 dBA



Construct WOCC Site B 3,485 feet to the southwest -36 dBA

Expand Intramural Sports 3,168 feet to the northeast -30 dBA



50 feet to the west 0 dBA








U.S. Army Aviation Museum off Andrews Avenue


412 feet to the northwest -18 dBA








Repair Farrell Road Crossing 4,224 feet mile to the northwest

-36 dBA

Personnel stationed at outdoor posts in the vicinity of construction may be exposed to sound levels that could damage hearing. The upper tolerable limit of loudness before hearing damage occurs depends on the frequency and duration of the sound. The dBA and dBC scales are used to determine impacts on human receptors.

The dBA scale was designed to work primarily with higher frequency sounds. In military noise, this would encompass such sounds as those from generators, aircraft, maneuver drills, and general transportation. The dBC scale is used for intense signals containing low frequency sound energy like those that emanate from large gun blasts, sonic booms, and detonations (Fort Rucker, 2011).

For personnel stationed outdoors near the construction and demolition area, the hearing risk would be analyzed and personnel would be provided with hearing protection if warranted by the exposure noise levels.

The table identifies several proposed projects immediately adjacent to the temporary school which have the potential for noise impacts to children and staff associated with the schools. The temporary modular buildings do not dampen outside noise as well as permanent buildings. However, there are only two potential projects that would likely occur before the temporary school would be closed in Fall 2019 and they are both more than 0.5-mile away. Noise above 85 dBA can result in hearing damage and loss (American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, 2018). The Farrell Road crossing project would potentially occur in FY 2018 or 2019 and the Aviation Training Support Facility project would potentially occur in FY 2019. Construction-related noise levels in the vicinity of the temporary school would be less than 60 dBA as a result of either of these projects. If the Farrell Road crossing project occurs later in time than FY 2019 there would be potential impacts to students and staff at the new Elementary School but construction-related noise levels would be less than 66 dBA. These projects would result in less than significant noise impacts to children of staff.

Existing noise sources would not pose a noise risk to personnel stationed in or using the new facilities. Occupied buildings would provide a work environment free from excessive noise. Intermittent and temporary exposures to aircraft noise would occur as personnel move between vehicles and buildings or among buildings. No shifts in existing noise contours would occur.



Once construction is complete, operation of the occupied facilities, with the exception of the aircraft paint facility at Hanchey AHP, would not generate appreciable noise and levels would be comparable to background levels. Minor long-term impacts to noise would result from bead blasting activities at the aircraft paint facility at Hanchey AHP. Bead blasting would produce high levels of noise (average of 100 dBA with maximum noise levels up to 145 dBA) that can cause permanent hearing loss in unprotected individuals. During bead blasting, workers would be required to wear hearing protectors to reduce noise levels below the OSHA permissible exposure limit (currently set at 90 dBA). The nearest sensitive noise receptors to the aircraft paint facility are residences located off Highway 134, approximately 1.2 miles to the south. At this distance, no impacts to sensitive receptors are expected from bead blasting activities.


Under the No Action Alternative, no demolition or new construction would occur. Operations would continue under current conditions. Therefore, no construction- or demolition-related noise impacts would result from implementation of the No Action Alternative.

3.4 Geology and Soils 3.4.1 Affected Environment 3.4.1.1 Geologic and Topographic Conditions Geologic resources consist of the earth’s surface and subsurface materials. Soils are the unconsolidated surface materials that form from underlying bedrock or other parent material. “Topography” refers to an area’s surface features, including its shape, height, and depth.

Fort Rucker extends northwestward from the floodplain of the Choctawhatchee River, with elevations ranging from 148 feet above mean sea level to elevations above 500 feet. Fort Rucker’s cantonment area is located on relatively flat ridge tops at or above 320 feet elevation (Fort Rucker, 2017c).

Fort Rucker is in the Southern Red Hills physiographic district of the East Gulf Coastal Plain. This area is characterized by southward sloping upland of moderate relief. Fort Rucker lies in a rugged area that developed on indurate resistant siliceous claystone and sandstone, creating narrow and winding ridgetops that range from highly dissected in the eastern portion of the post to gently rolling in the western and extreme eastern portions (Fort Rucker, 2008).

The East Gulf Coastal Plain is an elevated former sea bottom. Consistent with this sea bottom origin, geological formations are sedimentary with underlying basement rock that includes metamorphic, igneous crystalline, and sedimentary rock. Fort Rucker soils overlie the Buhrstone Escarpment, a formation held up by shale and sandstone. Geologic formations that outcrop on Fort Rucker include Tuscahoma Sand, Hatchetigbee and Tallahatta Formations, Lisbon Formation, Residuum, Alluvial High Terrace Deposits, and Low Terrace Deposits (Fort Rucker, 2017a).

3.4.1.2 Soils Predominant soil series on the main installation include the Troup-Orangeburg-Nankin-Lucy series and Troup-Luverne-Conecuh series. Additionally, an area of Troup-Red Bay-Orangeburg series is present in the far eastern portion of the main installation (Fort Rucker, 2017a).


Soil types affected by construction at each proposed RPMP project are described in Table 3-4.



Table 3-4. Affected Soil Types Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

Project Soil Type(s)

Construct AIT Complex Red Bay fine sandy loam, very gently sloping; Eustis loamy sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes

Construct NCO Academy Eustis loamy sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes; Eustis loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Construct WOCC Campus Site A – Red Bay fine sandy loam

Site B – Red Bay fine sandy loam, very gently sloping; Eustis loamy sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes

Construct SERE Complex

Site A – Eustis loamy sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes; Eustis loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Site B – Eustis loamy sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes; Eustis loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes; Eustis loamy sand, 12 to 25 percent slopes

Site C – Eustis loamy sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes; Eustis loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes


Eustis loamy sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes; Red Bay fine sandy loam, very gently sloping

Construct Golf Course Maintenance Facility

Eustis loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Construct Hazardous Materials Storage

Magnolia sandy clay loam, severely eroded, gently sloping

Construct Hazardous Materials Waste Storage


Expand Intramural Sports Eustis loamy sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes; Magnolia sandy clay loam, severely eroded, gently sloping; Lakeland and Cuthbert soils, 12 to 30 percent slopes

Relocate Motorpool to Industrial Area


Revitalize Motorpool Area Red Bay fine sandy loam, very gently sloping; Magnolia sandy clay loam, severely eroded, gently sloping

Revitalize WWII Warehouse Area


Construct Aircraft Paint Facility at Hanchey AHP

Paint Facility – Lakeland loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Alternate Paint Facility and Parking – Lakeland loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Construct AVIM Hangar and Associated Parking at Lowe AHP

Lakeland and Cuthbert soils, 12 to 30 percent slopes; Sandy alluvial land, poorly drained; Eustis loamy sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes; Eustis loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Construct Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at Shell AHP

Troup loamy sand, 1 to 5 percent slopes

Construct AVIM Hangar and Associated Parking at Knox AHP

Site A (south) – Lakeland loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Site B (north) – Lakeland loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes; Lakeland loamy fine sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes; Lakeland loamy fine sand, 12 to 25 percent slopes

Construct ATC Complex at Cairns AAF

Faceville fine sandy loam, level

Implement Cairns AAF ADPs Snack Bar/Recreation – Faceville fine sandy loam, level

New Hangar – Magnolia fine sandy loam, level; Ruston fine sandy loam, eroded, very gently sloping



Table 3-4. Affected Soil Types Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

Project Soil Type(s)

Potential Future Development Sites – Lakeland loamy fine sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes; Eustis loamy sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes; Tifton fine sandy loam, eroded, very gently sloping; Sandy alluvial land, poorly drained; Gravel pits

Implement Hanchey AHP ADP

Satellite Fire Station – Lakeland loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

POV Parking – Lakeland loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Motor Pool Building – Lakeland loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Implement Lowe AHP ADP Fire Station – Eustis loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

ATCT/Airfield Operations Building – Eustis loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Repair Farrell Road Crossing an Unnamed Perennial Tributary to Claybank Creek (PN TBD)

Sandy alluvial land, poorly drained; Lakeland and Cuthbert soils, 12 to 30 percent slopes

Source: SoilWeb Earth (University of California, Davis)

3.4.2 Consequences The majority of the proposed RPMP projects are located on level or gently sloping disturbed/developed lands and would have long-term negligible direct impacts on geologic and topographic conditions and soils from disturbance during demolition and construction activities. These projects include construction of the AIT Complex, WOCC Campus, Golf Maintenance Facility, Hazardous Materials Storage, Hazardous Materials Waste Storage, Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at Shell AHP, AVIM Hangar and Associated Parking at Knox AHP, ATC Complex at Cairns AAF; relocation of the motorpool; revitalization of the motorpool area and WWII warehouse area; and implementation of Cairns AAF, Hanchey AHP, and Lowe AHP ADPs.

Projects listed below would have long-term minor to moderate direct impacts on geologic and topographic conditions and soils as a result of more extensive earthwork activities.

• Redevelop Tank Hill District – Redevelopment of this district would include clearing and grading of up to 115 acres of heavily vegetated, previously disturbed/developed land.

• Expand Intramural Sports – A moderate amount of earthwork would be required to level out the proposed site of athletic fields and associated facilities east of 3rd street and south of the road leading to Beaver Lake.

• Construct Aircraft Paint Facility at Hanchey AHP – Construction of the aircraft paint facility at Hanchey AHP would require clearing approximately 1.1 acres of wooded area.

• Construct AVIM Hangar and Associated Parking at Lowe AHP – Construction of the AVIM hangar and associated parking at Lowe AHP would require clearing and grading of approximately 8.2 acres undisturbed land.

• Repair Farrell Road Crossing and Unnamed Perennial Tributary of Claybank Creek – Construction of the upgraded Farrell Road Crossing could require extensive clearing and grading of land around the unnamed perennial tributary to Claybank Creek. Project specific details are unknown at this time.

Impacts to soils could include compaction from heavy equipment, construction of impervious surfaces, and erosion from disturbance of soils during earth-moving activities. Disturbed areas would be kept to the minimum required to complete the work and would be confined within site boundaries. Effective sedimentation and erosion control procedures and BMPs would be used during construction to



minimize erosion of surrounding soils due to soil/ground disturbance. Stormwater runoff resulting from increased impervious surface area also could contribute to limited soil erosion. Site-specific measures would minimize transport of soils. Contractors would be required to implement measures consistent with the Alabama Handbook for Erosion Control, Sediment Control and Stormwater Management on Construction Sites and Urban Areas (Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee, 2014). Appropriate best management practices (BMPs) would be selected based on site-specific conditions and could include, but would not be limited to, sediment barriers (silt fence or straw wattles), temporary detention basins, grade stabilization with seed and mulch, and geotextile slope stabilization.

Additionally, the Proposed Action could have adverse direct impacts on soils if a spill or leak of petroleum products or hazardous materials were to occur. In the event of a spill, Fort Rucker’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan) (Fort Rucker, 2015) would be followed to quickly contain and clean up the spill. While a spill or leak could occur, implementation of environmental protection measures identified in the SPCC Plan would minimize the potential for and extent of associated contamination.

Grading plans for facilities and roadways would be prepared at individual sites to identify how sites would be graded, how drainage patterns would be directed, and how runoff velocities would affect receiving waters. The grading plans also would provide information regarding when earthwork would start and stop, establish the degree and length of finished slopes, and specify where and how excess material would be disposed of or where borrow materials would be obtained if needed. Berms, diversions, and other stormwater practices that require excavation and filling also would be incorporated into grading plans. Erosion and sediment control and stormwater management goals would be considered in the grading plans. Grading crews would be supervised to ensure that the plans are implemented as intended.


Under the No Action Alternative, no land clearing, demolition, or construction would take place. Therefore, no impacts on geology, topography, or soils would result from the No Action Alternative.

3.5 Water Resources 3.5.1 Affected Environment Surface Water

Fort Rucker’s surface water resources include numerous rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes. Fort Rucker is located in the Choctawhatchee River Basin, with the Choctawhatchee River southeast and the Pea River northwest of the installation (Fort Rucker, 2017a). Claybank Creek and its tributaries constitute 82 percent of the approximate 335 miles of streams and rivers within the main reservation. Claybank Creek flows in a southerly direction from a source north of Fort Rucker, bisecting the installation, and into the Choctawhatchee River southwest of Fort Rucker. There are five lakes on Fort Rucker. Four of the lakes (Beaver, Buckhorn, Ech, and Parcours) are small reservoirs (less than 20 acres) built on tributaries of Claybank Creek. Lake Tholocco is an approximately 620-acre impoundment of Claybank Creek that is used for both training and recreation activities (Fort Rucker, 2017a).

Surface Water Quality

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has historically monitored surface water quality at two stations (USGS Station 02361000 and USGS Station 02363000) in the vicinity of Fort Rucker. Surface water data from the Choctawhatchee River and tributaries indicate that the rivers are moderately turbid, with hardness ranging from 20 to 30 ppm. Primary and secondary drinking water parameters meet State standards, with the exception of manganese and iron, which exceeded State standards. Water quality meets Clean



Water Act Ambient Water Quality Criteria, with the exception of elevated iron levels. Organic contaminants have not been routinely monitored in these rivers (Fort Rucker, 2017a).

The Choctawhatchee River and most of its tributaries are classified as “Fish and Wildlife” waters by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (Fort Rucker, 2017a). This designation indicates that surface waters are suitable for the propagation of fish, aquatic life, and wildlife, but are not suitable for swimming, drinking water, or food processing. Lake Tholocco waters are classified as “Fish and Wildlife” and “Swimming” (Fort Rucker, 2017a). More information on surface water designations can be found in Alabama’s Water Quality Assessment and Listing Methodology (ADEM, 2016).

Groundwater Several aquifers and confining units underlie Fort Rucker. These are part of the Southeastern Coastal Plain aquifer system, which forms a thick wedge of sedimentary strata resting upon a base of relatively impervious igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock sloping down from the Piedmont Geologic Region (Fort Rucker, 2017a).

The Lisbon aquifer, which is subdivided into the Lisbon Formation and deeper Tallahatta and Hatchetigbee Formations, is the shallow aquifer at Fort Rucker. This aquifer extends to a depth of 10 to 140 feet below land surface and outcrops on higher ground in northwestern Fort Rucker and the cantonment area. The Lisbon aquifer is separated from deeper aquifers by the Tuscahoma Sand Confining Unit. The Tuscahoma Formation primarily outcrops north of Fort Rucker, but it is also surficial in valleys of Claybank, Steep Head, and Bowles Creeks. Surface areas of the outcropping Tuscahoma Confining Unit and Lisbon aquifer at Fort Rucker are roughly equivalent. No other aquifer units outcrop on the installation (Fort Rucker, 2017a).

Immediately below the Tuscahoma Confining Unit are the Nanafalia and Clayton Formations, which outcrop north of Fort Rucker, at headwaters of the Choctawhatchee River. The Nanafalia Formation consists of sand beds, hydrologically connected to sand and limestone beds of the Clayton Formation. These formations are 400 to 500 feet thick in the vicinity of Fort Rucker (Fort Rucker, 2017a).

The Nanafalia/Clayton Formations are separated from the deeper Providence Sand/Ripley Formation by a narrow confining unit, and in places, they are hydraulically connected. The Providence Sand/Ripley Formation is 600 to 800 feet thick, and groundwater flow is to the south. Deeper formations include the Blufftown Formation and part of the Eutaw Formation. These formations are separated from the basal (deepest) aquifer by a confining unit of clay and chalk. This confining unit, the middle Eutaw Formation, lies 2,000 to 2,500 feet beneath Fort Rucker. The basal aquifer unit includes the Tuscaloosa and Atkinson Formations. (Fort Rucker, 2017a).

Most of Fort Rucker’s drinking water comes from groundwater wells into the Nanafalia/Clayton Formations. Due to the extensive pumping of groundwater, cones of depression have developed in the Nanafalia aquifer at Fort Rucker and surrounding municipalities. The potentiometric surface at Fort Rucker has lowered approximately 80 feet during the period between 1975 and 2006. The Providence Sand/Ripley Formations also have been tapped for groundwater by deep wells, with no reported instances of cones of depression. These formations provide a substantial potential auxiliary water supply (Fort Rucker, 2017a).

Wetlands

Wetlands are dispersed throughout Fort Rucker, mostly associated with numerous streams that traverse the installation. Wetland surveys conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1996 as part of the National Wetlands Inventory identified 3,424 acres of wetlands on Fort Rucker. These wetlands are influenced by seasonal fluctuations in precipitation, overland or near surface flow, shallow groundwater, or some combination of these processes (Fort Rucker, 2017a).



Two wetland locations on Fort Rucker contain unique floral assemblages. The “bay swamp” below the beaver dam on Brooking Mill Creek, south of the southeastern perimeter road (Sector 38) contains several rare plants (e.g., white arum). Also, a seepage bog containing several species of plants uncommon to scarce elsewhere on the reservation occurs in Sector 21 between the stream crossing at Ech Stagefield Road and Ech Stagefield (Fort Rucker, 2017a).

Stormwater Stormwater runoff occurs as rain washes across parking lots, flight lines, motorpools, and other ground areas. If contaminants are present from leaking vehicles or other sources, they can be transported downstream with the stormwater. The erosive force of the flow can also cause physical damage.

The stormwater collection system in developed areas of the installation consists mostly of roadside ditches, culverts, and swales coupled with natural surface features that channel and direct stormwater flow away from use areas to detention or infiltration areas. Storm drains serve portions of the cantonment area. All aircraft and ground vehicle washracks are equipped with oil/water separators to prevent pollution from petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POLs) from reaching surface waters (Fort Rucker, 2008).

Fort Rucker holds a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I Permit (No. AL0002178) for all stormwater inlets (Fort Rucker, 2016b). The ADEM administers the NPDES stormwater requirements for construction sites disturbing 1 acre or more through the General NPDES Permit ALR100000. Regulations require that coverage under this general permit be established prior to conducting construction and associated land disturbing activities. Requirements of these rules include the implementation and effective maintenance of a Construction Best Management Practices Plan (CBMPP). This plan must be prepared and certified by a qualified credentialed professional (QCP) and be designed to minimize pollutant discharges in stormwater runoff to the maximum extent practicable during land disturbing activities. NPDES permit coverage must be retained until all disturbed areas have been reclaimed and/or effective stormwater quality remediation has been achieved (ADEM, 2016).


Table 3-5 describes the nearest surface water features to proposed RPMP project sites.

Table 3-5. Nearest Surface Water Feature(s) to Proposed Real Property Master Plan Project Sites Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

Project Nearest Surface Water Feature(s)

Construct AIT Complex Parcours Lake is 0.55-mile to the north

Construct NCO Academy Unnamed intermittent tributary of Claybank Creek is 0.16-mile to the south

Construct WOCC Campus Site A – Parcours Lake is 0.41-mile to the north-northwest

Site B – Parcours Lake is 0.55-mile to the north

Construct SERE Complex

Site A – Unnamed intermittent tributary of Claybank Creek is 0.25-mile to the west

Site B – Unnamed intermittent tributary of Claybank Creek is 0.13-mile to the north

Site C – Unnamed intermittent tributary of Claybank Creek is 0.12-mile to the north


Unnamed wetland area is 0.52-mile to the southeast

Construct Golf Course Maintenance Facility

Unnamed intermittent tributary of Claybank Creek is 0.28-mile to the west



Table 3-5. Nearest Surface Water Feature(s) to Proposed Real Property Master Plan Project Sites Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

Project Nearest Surface Water Feature(s)

Construct Hazardous Materials Storage

Unnamed intermittent tributary of Beaver Lake is 0.35-mile to the east

Construct Hazardous Materials Waste Storage

Unnamed intermittent tributary of Beaver Lake is 0.35-mile to the east

Expand Intramural Sports Unnamed intermittent tributary of Beaver Lake is 500 feet to the east

Relocate Motorpool to Industrial Area Unnamed intermittent tributary of Beaver Lake is 0.30-mile to the east

Revitalize Motorpool Area Unnamed intermittent tributary of Beaver Lake is 0.36-mile to the northeast

Revitalize WWII Warehouse Area Unnamed perennial tributary of Beaver Lake is 0.27-mile to the north

Construct Aircraft Paint Facility at Hanchey AHP

Paint Facility – Unnamed intermittent stream is 0.29-mile to the northeast

Alternate Paint Facility and Parking – Unnamed wetland area is 0.36-mile to the northeast

Construct AVIM Hangar and Associated Parking at Lowe AHP

The access road to the AVIM hangar will cross an unnamed intermittent stream

Construct Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at Shell AHP

Steep Head Creek is 157 feet to the south; Lake Baker is 0.4-mile to the north

Construct AVIM Hangar and Associated Parking at Knox AHP

Site A (south) – Unnamed wetland area is 274 feet to the northeast; unnamed intermittent tributary of Buckhorn Lake is 0.15-mile to the northeast

Site B (north) – Overlaps western edge of wetland area; unnamed intermittent tributary of Buckhorn Lake is 500 feet to the northeast

Construct ATC Complex at Cairns AAF Unnamed intermittent stream is 0.35-mile to the west

Implement Cairns AAF ADP

Snack Bar/Recreation – Unnamed intermittent stream is 0.32-mile to the southwest

New Hangar – Unnamed intermittent stream is approximately 0.2-mile to the southwest

Potential Future Development Area – Unnamed intermittent stream intersects the potential future development area

Implement Hanchey AHP ADP

Satellite Fire Station – Unnamed intermittent stream is 0.38-mile to the northeast

POV Parking – Unnamed intermittent stream is approximately 90 feet to the southeast

Motor Pool Building – Unnamed wetland area is 0.25-mile to the southwest

Implement Lowe AHP ADP Fire Station – Unnamed wetland area is 0.34-mile to the east

ATCT/Airfield Operations Building – Unnamed wetland area is 0.34-mile to the east-northeast

Repair Farrell Road Crossing an Unnamed Perennial Tributary to Claybank Creek

Within unnamed perennial tributary of Claybank Creek

Drainage/stormwater management problems currently exist at the present golf course maintenance facility. The golf course maintenance facility is built in a low-lying area where it receives a good portion of drainage from the clubhouse. During heavy rains, sand piled adjacent to the existing facility can seep into drainage and creeks and water washes through the chemical storage area if flooding occurs.



There are currently two large drainage culverts that pass under Farrell Road, eventually merging just downstream of Farrell Road. Culvert 1 consists of an 8-feet-wide by 6-feet-high inlet with box culvert passing under Farrell Road. Multiple repairs have taken place at the outlet of Culvert 1 to limit the amount of erosion taking place at the structure and further downstream. In January/February timeframe of 2017, repairs began on a 4-foot section of the outlet, which had failed. The box culvert was extended further past the edge of the road and cast-in-place wing walls were added. Class 4 riprap was brought in at the toe to add to the Class 3 riprap that already existed. Toward the end of construction, a significant rainfall occurred, transporting both the Class 3 and Class 4 riprap 100 feet or more downstream. In addition, gabion walls outlining one side of the stream, starting at the outlet structure, are failing. Culvert 2 consists of 6- to 7-foot diameter corrugated metal pipe passing under Farrell Road with a complex energy dissipation structure at the outlet, followed by a sloped concrete channel. Culvert 2 appears to be adequately sized and functioning properly; however, the energy dissipater and concrete channel need to be extended past the toe of the slope.


Surface Water With the exception of the three projects discussed below the RPMP projects would have no direct impacts on surface waters, including rivers, streams, lakes, or wetlands, because none of the proposed demolition or construction projects would occur within a surface water resource. However, during demolition and construction activities, potential adverse direct impacts to surface water quality and hydrogeological resources could occur as a result of spills. This risk would be minimized by practicing good housekeeping, such as properly storing materials and fueling and maintaining construction equipment offsite or in designated areas with appropriate control and containment. All spills would be addressed in accordance with Fort Rucker’s SPCC Plan (Fort Rucker, 2015). This plan includes federal and state environmental regulatory requirements related to spill emergency response procedures. If a major spill has the potential to reach surface waters, storm drains, or sanitary sewer drains, the Fire and Emergency Services Division (Directorate of Public Safety) would be notified immediately by calling 911. The Fire and Emergency Services Division would then notify the DPW ENRD (Fort Rucker, 2017d).

The relocated motorpool and golf course maintenance facility would contain washracks and areas where POLs would be stored and used. These areas would be designed with spill containment to prevent accidental release of POLs.

The Proposed Action would have short-term negligible indirect impacts to surface waters from construction and demolition activities resulting in soil disturbance and loss of vegetative cover. These activities could result in modified surface water runoff patterns from the site or impacts on water quality through transport of sediment- and soil-bound pollutants. Increased runoff from an unvegetated site could result in hydrologic impacts, such as channelization and erosion. These potential water quality and hydrologic impacts would be temporary and limited to the construction and demolition footprints. Appropriate BMPs would be implemented for all demolition and construction projects to minimize offsite impacts on water quality. No significant water quality impacts are expected.

Three proposed RPMP Projects that could have long-term minor direct impacts to surface waters with implementation of appropriate BMPs include the following:

• Construct AVIM Hangar and Associated Parking at Lowe AHP – The proposed AVIM hangar access road would cross an intermittent stream channel.

• Repair Farrell Road Crossing an Unnamed Perennial Tributary to Claybank Creek – Repairs to the two large drainage culverts that pass under Farrell Road would impact approximately 300 linear feet of an unnamed perennial tributary to Claybank Creek.



• Implement Cairns AAF ADP – There is an unnamed intermittent stream that intersects the potential future development area located east of Runway 18-36. Because this future development has not been planned, impacts cannot be identified at this time. This issue would be addressed through future, project-specific NEPA analyses.

Groundwater The Proposed Action would have no direct impacts on groundwater. Demolition and construction activities would not require excavation to the depth of groundwater and none of the proposed new facilities would require the use of groundwater.

Stormwater The Proposed Action would have short-term negligible impacts on stormwater during demolition and construction activities with the use of BMPs. For proposed construction activities that would exceed 1 acre in size, a CBMPP would be prepared by a QCP. The CBMPP would require that BMPs be used in all construction to minimize or prevent potential stormwater impacts. BMPs would be consistent with the Alabama Handbook (Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee, 2014). Appropriate BMPs would be selected based on site-specific conditions and could include, but would not be limited to, sediment barriers (silt fence or straw wattles), temporary detention basins, grade stabilization with seed and mulch, and geotextile slope stabilization.

The Proposed Action would have long-term minor direct impacts on the stormwater systems as a result of a net increase in impervious surfaces. The addition of impervious surfaces through the construction of new buildings, roads, and parking lots would result in an increase in stormwater. Potential impacts on the quality and utility of water resources could occur as the result of increased stormwater runoff. The design of buildings, parking lots, and roads would include stormwater controls, such as detention areas and infiltration areas, designed to minimize or eliminate the impacts of increased runoff.

At the relocated motorpool, maintenance areas and washracks would be isolated from precipitation and stormwater runoff and equipped with oil/water separators to prevent incidental discharges of potential pollutants. At the proposed golf course maintenance facility, the new washrack would use a closed loop system to prevent direct discharge to the storm drainage system.

There is potential for impacts to existing stormwater controls at Hanchey AHP as a result of proposed RPMP projects. Construction of the new aircraft paint facility at Hanchey AHP would require relocation of a detention pond. The alternate site for the aircraft paint facility and/or POV parking would also impact existing stormwater solutions. These impacts would be addressed as a part of project design and no long-term adverse impacts to stormwater management are expected.

Construction of the new golf course maintenance facility would have long-term beneficial impacts on stormwater management. Stormwater management design would be an important part of the site design and would ensure drainage from the fairway and slope above is diverted.


Under the No Action Alternative, no change from existing conditions would occur and there would be no adverse impacts on surface waters, wetlands, or stormwater. There would also be no long-term beneficial impacts of stormwater management improvements at the new golf course maintenance facility.



3.6 Biological Resources 3.6.1 Affected Environment 3.6.1.1 Vegetation The East Gulf Coastal Plain region is a former longleaf pine region that is among the most disturbed landscapes in the eastern United States. Land uses throughout this region have included 100 to 400 years of agriculture, open range grazing by hogs and other livestock, repeated logging, and elimination of naturally occurring wildfire, leaving less than 3 percent of upland landscape in entirely natural vegetation (Fort Rucker, 2009).

The most common habitat types on Fort Rucker are hardwood-dominated mesic forest, mixed pine-hardwood mesic forests, and mid-aged pine stands. Other land cover types found on Fort Rucker include steep, forested, ravine slopes; xeric forest-clayhills; young pine plantations; agricultural land, fallow fields, and old fields; eroded sites, waste areas, and quarries; developed areas; floodplain forests; bay swamps; seeps, bogs, and wetlands; borrow pits; intermittent streams; oxbow ponds; beaver ponds; permanent streams; and man-made lakes (Fort Rucker, 2017a).

Detailed information on the habitat types on Fort Rucker is in Fort Rucker’s Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP), which is incorporated by reference (Fort Rucker, 2017a).

3.6.1.2 Wildlife Natural animal communities in the Fort Rucker area have been affected by urbanization. Two large mammals present at the time of settlement, the panther (Puma concolor coryi) and black bear (Ursus americanus), have been extirpated from the area. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and the introduced feral hog (Sus scrofa) are common, as are many smaller mammals that have been relatively undisturbed by urbanization.

Detailed information on the fauna occurring on Fort Rucker is in Fort Rucker’s INRMP, which is incorporated by reference (Fort Rucker, 2017a).

3.6.1.3 Special-Status Species Special-status Wildlife

Fifteen wildlife species that are federal or state-listed, state-protected, or ranked by the Nature Conservancy’s Alabama Natural Heritage Program have been observed within Fort Rucker or identified by USFWS as having potential to occur within the Preferred Alternative site (Table 3-6).

Table 3-6. Special-status Wildlife Observed or with Potential to Occur at Fort Rucker Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

Scientific Name Common Name

Status a SWAP GCN b

Rank

Federal State Global State

Bivalves

Fusconaia burkei tapered pigtoe Threatened Protected P2 G2G3 S2

Hamiota australis Southern sandshell Threatened Protected P2 G2G3 S2

Pleurobema strodeanum*

fuzzy pigtoe Threatened Protected P2 G2 S2

Ptychobranchus jonesi Southern kidneyshell Endangered Protected P1 G1 S1

Villosa choctawensis* Choctaw bean Endangered Protected P2 G2 S2



Table 3-6. Special-status Wildlife Observed or with Potential to Occur at Fort Rucker Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

Scientific Name Common Name

Status a SWAP GCN b

Rank

Federal State Global State

Fish

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi

Atlantic sturgeon (gulf subspecies)

Threatened Protected P2 G3T2 S1

Reptiles

Alligator mississippiensis*

American alligator Threatened by similarity of appearance

--- --- G5 S4

Crotalus adamanteus* Eastern diamondback rattlesnake

Under Review (Threatened)

--- P2 G4 S3

Drymarchon corais couperi

Eastern indigo snake Threatened Protected P1 G3 S1

Gopherus polyphemus* gopher tortoise (eastern population)

Candidate c Protected P2 G3 S2

Masticophis flagellum flagellum*

Eastern coachwhip --- Protected ---

Birds

Columbina passerina* common ground dove --- Protected --- G5 S3

Mycteria americana wood stork Threatened Protected P2 G4 S2N

Hailiaeetus leucocephalus*

bald eagle BGEPA d --- --- G5 S4B

Mammals

Geomys pinetis* Southeastern pocket gopher

--- Protected P2 G5 S1

Notes:

Source: Fort Rucker, 2017a; USFWS, 2017; Alabama Natural Heritage Program, 2017 * Species observed within Fort Rucker (Fort Rucker, 2017a) a Status Definitions:

State Protected: Species protected by Regulation 220-2-.92 (Nongame Species Regulation), 220-2-.98 (Invertebrate Species Regulation), 220-2-.26(4) (Protection of Sturgeon), 220-2-.94 (Prohibition of Taking or Possessing Paddlefish), or 220-2-.97 (Alligator Protection Regulation).

b State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) Species of Greatest Conservation Need (GCN): P1 = Priority 1/Highest Conservation Concern; P2 = Priority 2/ High Conservation Concern

c Gopherus polyphemus, western population listed by USFWS as threatened west of the Mobile and Tombigbee rivers in Alabama (Choctaw, Mobile, and Washington counties), Mississippi, and Louisiana. Eastern population is a candidate species for listing.

d Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA: 16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d)

The federally listed Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis) and fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum) have been recorded on Fort Rucker in recent surveys (Fort Rucker, 2017a). The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), which is listed as federally threatened only because of its similarity in appearance to the endangered American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), also has been recorded on Fort Rucker. The eastern population of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is a candidate species for federal listing and this species is an Army-designated species at risk (SAR). The SAR policy encourages proactive management efforts for SAR and their habitats (USFWS, 2012).



State-protected species or SWAP-designated Species of GCN which have confirmed populations, or have been sighted on the installation, are the Eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus), gopher tortoise, Eastern coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), common ground dove (Columbina passerina), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Fort Rucker, 2017a).

Though not recorded, it is possible that the gulf subspecies of the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), and wood stork (Mycteria americana) could occur on Fort Rucker (USFWS, 2017). Bivalve species including tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei), Southern sandshell (Hamiota australis), and Southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi) have the potential to occur on Fort Rucker, although they have not been found in recent surveys (USFWS, 2017; Fort Rucker, 2017a).

Special-status Plants

No plant species listed as endangered or threatened by the USFWS have been documented to occur on Fort Rucker based on literature searches, herbarium records, and onsite flora surveys conducted by Mount and Diamond (Mount and Diamond, 1992). A survey for threatened, endangered, or special concern plants was completed in 2002 by Troy State University with negative results (Mount and Bailey, 2003). Species of interest to the USFWS may occur on Fort Rucker, including the incised groovebur (Agrimonia incisa; a species of management concern, Flyr’s nemesis (Brickellia cordifolia; a species of special concern), Baltzell’s sedge (Carex baltzellii; a species for which consideration is encouraged), and Alabama anglepod (Matelea alabamensis; a species of special concern). These species have not been confirmed on Fort Rucker in recent surveys. The State of Alabama has no official list of threatened or endangered plants. However, several plant species that are considered rare do occur on Fort Rucker (Fort Rucker, 2017a).

Preferred Alternative No USFWS-designated critical habitat for plants or wildlife occurs within the proposed RPMP project areas. USFWS-designated critical habitat for fuzzy pigtoe, Choctaw bean, Southern kidneyshell, and tapered pigtoe occurs along Claybank Creek, approximately 0.7-mile southwest of the Tank Hill District redevelopment area and approximately 2.4 miles downstream of repairs to the Farrell Road Crossing.

The majority of proposed RPMP project sites are located in previously disturbed/developed areas. No special-status species would be expected to occur at these sites. Proposed RPMP projects that occur within suitable habitat for special-status species are described below.

Suitable habitat for gopher tortoise occurs within the Tank Hill District redevelopment area and the proposed aircraft paint facility at Hanchey AHP. Fort Rucker has a Conservation Agreement for the protection of gopher tortoise (USFWS, 2012). However, conferencing pursuant to Section 7(a)(4) of the Endangered Species Act, may be necessary to discuss the likely impacts of the Proposed Action on this candidate species


Vegetation The Proposed Action would result in short- and long-term negligible to minor impacts on vegetation at Fort Rucker. Effects on vegetation would be expected from temporary disturbances during construction and demolition activities (e.g., trampling and removal) and from the permanent removal of vegetation from the construction of new facilities.

The majority of proposed RPMP projects are in disturbed/developed areas that are paved or contain mowed grass and/or ornamental landscape plants and lack native vegetation. Impacts to vegetation in



these areas will be negligible. Projects where long-term minor impacts on vegetation are expected are described further below.

• Redevelop Tank Hill District – Proposed projects in the Tank Hill District would require clearing of up to 115 acres of heavily vegetated land, including 58 acres of timber (Table 3-7).

• Expand Intramural Sports – The development of intramural sports fields and associated facilities east of 3rd Street and south of the road leading to Beaver Lake could require clearing of approximately 5 to 7 acres of forested land.

• Construct Aircraft Paint Facility at Hanchey AHP – Construction of the new aircraft paint facility could require clearing approximately 1.1 acres of woods.

• Construct AVIM Hangar and Associated Parking at Lowe AHP – Construction of the AVIM hangar and parking area would require clearing up to 8.2 acres of undisturbed forest, including 6 acres of timber (Table 3-7).

• Repair Farrell Road Crossing an Unnamed Perennial Tributary to Claybank Creek – Repairs to the Farrell Road crossing could require clearing approximately 6 acres of timber (Table 3-7).

Table 3-7. Timber Loss Resulting from Proposed Real Property Master Plan Projects Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

Project Type Cut Acres

Pine STa

(tons)

HW STb

(tons) PCnSc (tons)

PPWd (tons)

HPWe (tons)

Poles (tons)

Canter-wood (tons)

Redevelop Tank Hill District Regeneration 58 878 --- 831 1,080 370 200 37

Construct AVIM Hangar and Additional Parking at Lowe AHP

Regeneration 6 120 32 35 44 164 --- ---


Regeneration 6 54 122 16 18 182 --- ---

Expand Intramural Sports Unknown (Unk) 7 Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk

TOTALS 77 1,052 tons

154 tons

882 tons

1,142 tons

716 tons

200 tons 37 tons

Notes: a Pine ST = Pine Sawtimber b HW ST = Hardwood Sawtimber c PCnS = Pine Chip-n-Saw d PPW = Pine Pulpwood e HPW = Hardwood Pulpwood

Overall, there would be potential losses of approximately 77 acres and 4,183 tons of timber. Given that almost all of Fort Rucker (including Cairns AAF) is classified as forest (58,043 acres) (Fort Rucker, 2017e), the permanent loss of forested land associated with proposed RPMP projects would be less than significant.



Wildlife The Proposed Action would result in short-term negligible to minor direct and indirect impacts on wildlife due to disturbances from noise, demolition and construction activities, and heavy equipment use.

The Proposed Action would result in long-term minor direct impacts to wildlife from the conversion of undeveloped natural areas to developed impervious areas. Impacts would be minor because proposed projects would be in previously disturbed areas to the extent practicable. In addition, most wildlife in the vicinity of the proposed project areas are species that are tolerant of noise and human activity common in urban environments.

During land clearing and grading at locations where buildings and roads do not currently exist, all plants would be eliminated from the area and limited incidental animal injury or mortality could occur. This potential habitat would be permanently lost. It is expected that wildlife would avoid the active construction sites and adjacent areas during construction.

No habitat would be lost outside the boundaries of Fort Rucker. Incidental losses of animals during construction would not seriously affect regional animal population levels.

Special-status Species The Proposed Action could result in short-term minor direct impacts to gopher tortoise. Prior to initiating ground-disturbing work in areas with suitable habitat for gopher tortoise, such as the Tank Hill District redevelopment area and the proposed Aircraft Paint Facility at Hanchey AHP, presence/absence surveys for gopher tortoise would be conducted. If necessary, relocation of tortoises into temporary enclosures would be conducted by Fort Rucker Wildlife Biologists.

The Farrell Road crossing repairs would occur in an unnamed perennial tributary to Claybank Creek. Claybank Creek contains protected species including fuzzy pigtoe, Choctaw bean, Southern kidneyshell, and tapered pigtoe. While adverse impacts to these species are not anticipated, it is possible.

Use of appropriate construction BMPs would prevent indirect impacts to critical habitat in Claybank downstream of the Farrell Road crossing repair site. There would be no adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, existing conditions would not change. Therefore, no impacts on biological resources would result from implementation of the No Action Alternative.

3.7 Cultural Resources 3.7.1 Affected Environment Fort Rucker is responsible for managing a broad range of cultural resources and complying with a suite of applicable statutes, regulations, Executive Orders, and Presidential Memoranda. All of Fort Rucker has been surveyed for archaeological resources with the exception of impact areas and four parcels acquired through lease or purchase since 2010. The impact areas have been excluded because of the presence of unexploded ordnance (UXO) and continued use of explosives (Fort Rucker, 2016c).

3.7.1.1 Archaeological Resources A total of 315 archaeological sites have been identified within the installation with an additional 26 archaeological sites identified on leased lands in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Of the 315 sites, six sites have been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and one site requires additional investigation. These include 1C08, 1DA43, 1DA47, 1DA168, 1DA316, 1DA317, and



1DA356/394. Of the 26 sites identified outside of the installation on leased lands, eight sites are considered potentially eligible for the NRHP. These include 1CV129, 1DA304, 1HE141, 1HE142, 1HE145, 1HE146, 1HO124, and 1PK29. The status of all sites was determined after consultations with the Alabama SHPO (Fort Rucker, 2016c).

3.7.1.2 Architectural Resources Architectural surveys at the installation have identified and evaluated all buildings and structures constructed prior to 1969. All the resources present at Fort Rucker date from WWII to the Cold War era. Of these resources, only one is eligible for the NRHP – the Headquarters Chapel (Building 109 or the former Chapel of the Wings), which was constructed in 1942. Although the building is identical to many other chapels constructed in this time period the interior chapel furnishings were constructed by German prisoners who were being held at Fort Rucker during WWII (Fort Rucker, 2016c).

In addition to these architectural and archeological resources, Fort Rucker contains five cemeteries and 15 former church locations within the installation. These are managed by the installation but are considered separated from the other resources (Fort Rucker, 2016c).

3.7.1.3 Native American Resources Fort Rucker has identified 21 federally recognized tribes with an interest in this area of Alabama. The installation initiated consultation with these tribes in 2002. Appropriate agreements for government-to-government consultations will be developed between Fort Rucker and all interested groups.

To date, no individuals or federally recognized tribes have identified any sacred sites or areas of religious significance at Fort Rucker (Fort Rucker, 2016c).

3.7.2 Consequences Preferred Alternative The Proposed Action would not impact cultural resources at Fort Rucker. The areas proposed for demolition and construction have been surveyed for historic and archaeological resources. No historic, archeological, or Native American resources that warrant listing on the NRHP occur within the proposed project areas (Fort Rucker, 2016c). However, the preferred site of the Aircraft Paint Facility at Hanchey AHP is near an old cemetery that was relocated. It is possible that unknown human remains could still be present at this site.

In the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains during site preparation, Fort Rucker would implement its standard operating procedures (SOPs), as outlined in the Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) (Fort Rucker, 2016c). Work would resume when deemed appropriate and in accordance with the SOPs. Implementation of the procedures for inadvertent discovery of resources would mitigate potential impacts to less than significant levels.

No Action Alternative No land clearing, demolition, or construction would take place under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, no impacts on cultural resources would result from implementation of the No Action Alternative.



3.8 Socioeconomics 3.8.1 Affected Environment Economic Development

Coffee, Dale, Houston, Henry, and Geneva Counties make up an area defined as the Wiregrass Community. Fort Rucker, which lies in Coffee and Dale Counties, is part of the Wiregrass Community. Planning and development in the region are coordinated by SEARP&DC, Region 7, which includes Barbour and Covington Counties in addition to the Wiregrass Community. Historically, Fort Rucker has had a substantial impact on the economy and demographics of the surrounding communities. Large changes in local populations occurred, with increases in the 1960s followed by decreases in the 1970s as a result of troop training associated with the Vietnam War (Fort Rucker, 2008). Currently, Fort Rucker has at least a $1.5 billion annual economic impact and is responsible for over 23,000 jobs in the Wiregrass region (SEARP&DC, 2017).

Fire, Police, Emergency, and Medical Services

Fort Rucker has a health clinic and two dental clinics providing medical services. Fire protection is provided by an on-post fire department, and security and police protection is provided by the Military Police. Gate guards are provided through contract support.

Protection of Children

Fort Rucker follows the guidelines for the protection of children as specified in EO 13045 – Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risk (Federal Register: April 23, 1997, Volume 62, Number 78). Approximately 24.5 percent of the population of Dale and Coffee Counties is under the age of 18, which is consistent with the surrounding region and the state of Alabama (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Children typically gather at schools, parks, recreational facilities, and daycare centers.

Housing

Approximately 45,010 housing units are present in Dale and Coffee Counties. Approximately 89 percent of housing units in Dale and Coffee Counties are occupied (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Military family housing on Fort Rucker consists of three neighborhoods with approximately 1,500 total housing units. The neighborhoods are generally located in the western half of the cantonment.

Recreation

Recreational opportunities on Fort Rucker include a running trail, fitness trail, fitness center, numerous athletic fields, lake activities, camping, hunting, and a golf course. In addition, there are undeveloped areas within the cantonment area that can be used for passive recreation activities and picnics. A large portion of the cantonment area east of Third Avenue is designated for outdoor recreation. Most of this area is undeveloped woods (Fort Rucker, 2008).


Economic Development The Proposed Action would have temporary minor to moderate beneficial impacts on economic development. There would be temporary construction employment and associated wages. In addition, local suppliers could experience a short-term increase in the demand for construction-related materials. Construction associated with the Proposed Action would continue for the next 25 years and associated economic benefits would occur intermittently throughout that period. The Proposed Action would have no long-term impacts on employment or income on Fort Rucker or the surrounding area.



The sale of timber associated with land clearing for new facilities would result in minor short-term economic gains for Fort Rucker and minor long-term economic losses. In the short-term, there would be an estimated $73,031.50 gained from the sale of timber removed during implementation of the Proposed Action (Table 3-8). In the long term, there would be a loss of timber revenue due to the reduction in overall timber stand acreage. This negligible long-term impact to timber-generated revenue on Fort Rucker would be less than significant.

Table 3-8. Timber Sales Resulting from Implementation of the Proposed Action Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama

Project Type Cut Pine STa HW STb PCnSc PPWd HPWe Poles Canterwood

Redevelop Tank Hill District Regeneration $22,389 --- $14,127 $9,180 $2,775 $11,200 $314.50

Construct AVIM Hangar and Additional Parking at Lowe AHP Regeneration $3,060 $960 $595 $374 $1,230 --- ---


Regeneration $1,377 $3,660 $272 $153 $1,365 --- ---

Expand Intramural Sports Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk

Estimated Price $25.50 $30.00 $17.00 $8.50 $7.50 $56.00 $8.50

Estimated Value $26,826 $4,620 $14,994 $9,707 $5,370 $11,200 $314.50

Notes:

a Pine ST = Pine Sawtimber b HW ST = Hardwood Sawtimber c PCnS = Pine Chip-n-Saw

d PPW = Pine Pulpwood e HPW = Hardwood Pulpwood

Fire, Police, Emergency, and Medical Services The Proposed Action would have no adverse and minor beneficial impacts fire, police, emergency, and medical services. The Proposed Action would not affect off-post police, fire, and emergency services. Fort Rucker would provide police, fire, and emergency services to the new facilities. However, these services would be provided in the normal service area and would not unduly burden existing police, fire, or emergency services. The increase in construction-related traffic generated by the proposed RPMP projects is not expected to impact emergency vehicle response times.

Implementation of ADPs at Hanchey AHP and Lowe AHP would have long-term beneficial impacts on fire services. The proposed ADPs include construction of a new satellite fire station at Hanchey AHP and a replacement fire station at Lowe AHP.

Minor long-term beneficial impacts to fire, police, emergency, and medical services would also result from replacing outdated facilities on Fort Rucker that do not meet current standards. Some outdated facilities have substantiated reports of electrical fires and gas leaks due to old wiring and failing gas piping, as well as problems resulting from inadequate heating, ventilation, and air conditioning capabilities. The proposed modernized facilities would be compliant with all current applicable fire and safety standards and regulations.

Protection of Children The Proposed Action would have no direct adverse impacts on children. Construction and demolition areas would be secured and fenced, reducing potential safety concerns regarding children residing on-post. The hazardous materials storage buildings would be secured and located in an industrial area away



from places where children congregate. The golf course maintenance facility would be fenced and secured against unauthorized entry.

Potential less than significant indirect impacts from noise could occur due to construction in the vicinity of schools. These potential impacts are discussed in detail in Section 3.3.2.

Housing The Proposed Action would have no impact on housing communities at Fort Rucker or housing. Redevelopment of the Tank Hill District would include new barracks facilities, enlisted unaccompanied personnel housing, and overnight quarters but these would only be for students attending a specific training course or school.

Recreation The Proposed Action would have overall minor long-term beneficial impacts on recreational activities on Fort Rucker. The proposed expansion of intramural sports would mean upgraded and appropriately-sized facilities for solider and family fitness on the installation. No other RPMP projects would impact existing recreation areas on Fort Rucker.


There would be no change in current conditions under the No Action Alternative. There would be no expansion to intramural sports resulting in inadequate recreation facilities for Soldiers and their families and resulting in a negligible impact to recreation. No short-term increase in construction-related jobs, wages, or local sales of construction-related materials would occur and no long-term beneficial impacts to fire, police, emergency, and medical services or recreational facilities on Fort Rucker would occur.

3.9 Transportation Transportation and traffic resources generally include the roadway and street systems surrounding the affected environment. This section also considers the movement of vehicles, pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and mass transit.

3.9.1 Affected Environment Fort Rucker is easily accessible by highway, although it is not located near an interstate highway. U.S. Highway 231 is to the north and east of the installation, and U.S. Highway 84 extends to the west and south of Fort Rucker. Numerous Alabama state roads and county roads extend between the two U.S. highways and provide access to Fort Rucker. Satellite airfields are served by county and state roads.

A grid type roadway system services the cantonment area and provides the majority of public access to the installation. Alabama State Road 27 crosses the center of the installation and passes by Range Control and the impact area. Roadways from the period prior to Fort Rucker's ownership of the property service the outlying training areas, with some roads crossing from military to private land and back to military land. Many unimproved roads are located throughout the installation. There are 198 miles of roads on Fort Rucker (Fort Rucker, 2009).

There is limited public transportation in the Fort Rucker region. The only operational system is the Wiregrass Transit Authority, a public nonprofit organization providing transportation to the general public within the City of Dothan and Houston County (SEARP&DC, 2017).


The Proposed Action would result in short-term minor impacts on the transportation network from an increase in traffic and parking lot use associated with demolition and construction equipment and



contractor vehicles. The construction and demolition phases of the Proposed Action would require delivery of materials to, and removal of debris from, demolition and construction sites. It may be necessary to temporarily close sections of road during construction. Traffic control procedures, including flaggers and posted detours, would minimize impacts on traffic flow. Construction traffic would account for a small percentage of the total traffic on the installation. Many of the heavy construction vehicles would be driven to the site and kept onsite for the duration of construction and demolition activities, resulting in relatively few additional trips. The proposed RPMP projects would occur at different times and locations on Fort Rucker over a 25-year period, which would further reduce construction traffic. Any potential increases in traffic volume associated with the proposed demolition and construction activities would be temporary and less than significant.

The Proposed Action would result in long-term minor direct beneficial impacts on transportation by providing an increase in parking areas at Cairns AAF, Lowe AHP, Knox AHP, and Hanchey AHP. Proposed complexes in the Tank Hill District and the location of expanded intramural sports would also include new, appropriately-sized parking areas.

Proposed RPMP projects that would result in long-term minor impacts to roads and parking areas are discussed further below.

• Construct NCO Academy – Based on the high-volume of traffic on Andrews Avenue, access to and from the proposed NCO Complex would require a traffic study. Improvements to the existing roadways and intersections at the new NCO Academy would be designed and implemented as deemed necessary by the traffic study.

• Implement Cairns AAF ADP – Future expansion in the ADP area could potentially result in long-term minor impacts to traffic at Cairns AAF as a result of increased traffic delays at the existing entrance into the airfield. The existing entry road into Cairns AAF would be improved to a 4-lane divided access road to alleviate traffic congestion during shift changes and avoid long-term adverse impacts.

• Implement Hanchey AHP ADP – Implementation of the Hanchey AHP ADP could potentially include improvements to roads to accommodate new facilities.

• Implement Lowe AHP ADP – To alleviate traffic congestion during shift changes that could increase as a result of expansion, the existing entry road into Lowe AHP would be improved to a 4-lane divided access road.

• Repair Farrell Road Crossing an Unnamed Perennial Tributary of Claybank Creek – It is possible that long-term closures of Farrell Road would be necessary during construction at the crossing, requiring reroutes for an extended period of time.

Implementation of the proposed action would not increase or decrease demand for service provided by public transportation. No impacts on public transportation would result from the proposed action.


Implementation of the No Action Alternative would maintain current traffic flow patterns and volumes. There would be no long-term positive impacts from the development of additional parking areas at Cairns AAF, Lowe AHP, Knox AHP, and Hanchey AHP and POV parking would continue to not meet current demands. Farrell Road would be left unrepaired, which could eventually result in structural failure and permanent closure of Farrell Road.



3.10 Utilities 3.10.1 Affected Environment Potable Water

Most of Fort Rucker’s drinking water comes from wells. Seven wells collectively provide potable water to the main cantonment area and to Hanchey, Knox, and Lowe Airfields. Several other wells provide water for uses such as training, firefighting, and recreation. Cairns AAF is supplied by the City of Daleville, and Shell AHP is supplied by the City of Enterprise (Fort Rucker, 2017f).

All well water used is treated with chlorine for disinfection. Fluoride is added to the water in the main cantonment area for dental health (Fort Rucker, 2017f). The supply of water from the post’s seven supply wells and the capacity of the water distribution system on Fort Rucker are more than adequate to meet both existing and projected mission demands (Fort Rucker, 2008).

Fort Rucker has implemented a Source Water Assessment Program to protect water wells as required by federal and state regulations. This program identified potential water supply contaminant sources, determined the level of risk to wells, and identified protective measures such as containment walls, pits built around wells, and spill and emergency response procedures (Fort Rucker, 2017f).

Wastewater System Fort Rucker maintains compliance with wastewater standards under several NPDES permits. Wastewater on the main post and Cairns AAF is treated using on-post wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) operations. At Shell Army Heliport, the wastewater is routed to the City of Enterprise for treatment (Fort Rucker, 2017f). Wastewater services on the installation were privatized in 2003 and are provided by American Water Enterprises under a 50-year contract (Fort Rucker, 2008).

Based on a 1997 utilities assessment, the sewage treatment facilities serving the post are adequate to support an expanded mission. The effective population (EP) for this system is dependent upon the capacity of the WWTP. Currently, the supportable EP is 17,621 (Fort Rucker, 2008).

To comply with federal and state regulations, all washing and rinsing activities associated with mission or industrial processes are performed at an approved washrack. Washracks are equipped with an oil/water separator to capture oil and fuel residue from the water and routes the water onto a wastewater treatment plant. The only approved washrack for vehicle washing on Fort Rucker is the Transportation Motor Pool on Dilly Branch Road. Additional washracks for aircraft are located at the airfields (Fort Rucker, 2017g).

Energy Sources The Fort Rucker electrical utility system was privatized in 2003 and is managed under a 20-year contract by Alabama Power Company. The post is served by three distribution substations that can support an EP of 30,150, according to a 1997 utilities assessment (Fort Rucker, 2008). This capacity is limited in some instances by the capability of the electrical distribution system serving a given area of the post (Fort Rucker, 2008).

The natural gas system at Fort Rucker was privatized in 2003 and is managed by Southeast Alabama Gas District (Fort Rucker, 2008). Natural gas is delivered to the Fort Rucker distribution system via a single point in the main post area. The natural gas system is not population-dependent. Natural gas can be supplied in sufficient amounts to support additional missions at Fort Rucker (Fort Rucker, 2008).

Solid Waste A commercial contractor removes solid waste from dumpsters on Fort Rucker (Fort Rucker, 2017h). All recyclable materials, including aluminum cans, cardboard, paper, plastic bottles, printer cartridges,



metal, wood, electronics, used antifreeze, used batteries, used oil, fluorescent light bulbs, and plastic bags are segregated from waste streams prior to disposal or placement in a dumpster. These are collected for recycling by either private contractors or the Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services (DLADS) (Fort Rucker, 2017i). Commercial and industrial activities on Fort Rucker generate certain non-hazardous solid wastes, including tires, used oil, absorbent with petroleum products, adhesives, grease, latex paint, and scrap metal, that cannot be disposed of as general refuse. These materials are turned in by the generator to DLADS for recycling or disposal by a contractor. To address construction and demolition wastes and recyclables, Fort Rucker has adopted the goal of 60 percent diversion of construction and demolition materials from the landfill (Fort Rucker, 2014).


Potable Water, Wastewater System, Energy Sources Short-term negligible impacts on utilities would be expected from the Proposed Action. Short-term interruptions could occur when buildings are disconnected from or connected to utilities. Interruptions in services would be coordinated with area users prior to disconnection, to the extent practicable. Existing utilities in and near the construction footprint would be identified in advance of construction to limit impacts.

Long-term minor direct impacts on utility systems would be expected from the Proposed Action due to the increase in demand from the increased building space for select RPMP projects. Buildings erected in areas not currently occupied would require expansion of existing utility delivery to provide service, but there would be no change in infrastructure capacity. Energy supply, water supply, and wastewater treatment capacity are sufficient to accommodate the increased demand resulting from the new structures.

Minor long-term indirect positive impacts would also be expected from the Proposed Action as a result of demolishing old buildings with outdated utilities and constructing new buildings with updated systems. The Proposed Action would also have long-term direct beneficial impacts on utilities at Fort Rucker because Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver construction design would increase utility efficiency and reduce usage.

Solid Waste The Proposed Action would result in short-term minor impacts from an increase in demolition and construction debris. Solid waste generated from the proposed construction and demolition activities would consist of building materials such as solid pieces of concrete, metals, and lumber. Contractors would be required to recycle construction and demolition debris to the maximum extent practicable, thereby diverting it from landfills. Materials with possible recycling potential include glass, plastics, asphalt, concrete, metal, carpeting, and gypsum wallboard and lumber.

The Proposed Action would result in a long-term adverse effect by permanently using landfill capacity through the disposal of nonrecyclable construction and demolition debris. However, the quantity of waste generated would not exceed the capacity of regional facilities. There would be negligible long-term change in the future quantity of solid waste generated compared to existing levels because personnel and types of activities would remain about the same.


Under the No Action Alternative there would be no changes in current utility service areas or utility demands. There would be no long-term beneficial impacts from replacing buildings with outdated utilities with new buildings containing updated, efficient systems.



3.11 Hazardous and Toxic Substances 3.11.1 Affected Environment Fort Rucker hazardous waste streams result from site operations such as cleaning and maintenance of aircraft, vehicles, and buildings, as well as grounds maintenance and various other equipment operations at the installation. Also incorporated into the hazardous waste stream is the management of hospital wastes, lead-based paint, pesticides, herbicides, and UXO. Fort Rucker is considered a large quantity generator (i.e., generates greater than 1,000 kilograms or 2,200 pounds per month) of hazardous waste and submits a hazardous waste report every other year to the State of Alabama and the EPA. Cairns AAF and Shell AHP are not contiguous to the main installation and both have their own separate EPA ID numbers (Fort Rucker, 2017j).

Hazardous materials acquisition, use, handling, and disposition are managed by the Fort Rucker Hazardous Materials Control Center (HMCC). The Fort Rucker Logistics Readiness Center Office, Supply and Services Branch, is responsible for overseeing the HMCC and coordinating hazardous materials supply requirements for post-wide activities. Central visibility and tracking of hazardous materials by the HMCC provides a way to redistribute excess but serviceable items, thus helping to reduce expenditures and avoid hazardous waste disposal. Since the HMCC's establishment in 1998, the HMCC process has saved more than $1.5 million through efficient procurement, redistribution, avoiding disposition of excess hazardous materials, and shelf-life extensions (Fort Rucker, 2017k).

The requirements for accumulation, storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous waste on Fort Rucker are identified in Fort Rucker’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan (HWMP) (Fort Rucker, 2016d). This plan was developed in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement; the ADEM Administrative Code; and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended. The HWMP implements the requirements of AR 200-1, Chapter 10-1 and provides installation personnel with specific procedures and responsibilities to manage hazardous wastes consistent with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The requirements in the HWMP are applicable to all military, civilian, and contract personnel at Fort Rucker (Fort Rucker, 2016d).

Fort Rucker has an Installation Restoration Program (IRP) which tracks and monitors sites on Fort Rucker that may require restoration and remediation due to contamination. These areas are commonly referred to as solid waste management units (SWMUs) and areas of concern (AOCs). All SWMUs and AOCs on Fort Rucker are low risk, with relatively low potential to impact the natural environment or public. None of the SWMUs or AOCs have extensive groundwater contamination.


Hazardous waste and materials are managed in two facilities that do not meet current standards. Neither of the facilities are equipped to handle the current spacing/separation requirements of the materials. In addition, the hazardous condition requirements of the facilities due to the type of materials stored are not met. The hazardous waste and materials facilities also do not meet current life/safety/health standards.

Golf course maintenance and pesticide operations are currently conducted in four facilities. The facilities lack environmental protection required for storage of pesticides. Currently, chemicals and pesticides are housed in storage sheds in the lower elevations of the site. When flooded, the water washes through the chemicals.

At Lowe AHP, the outdated systems at the existing aircraft paint facility cannot meet current EPA regulatory requirements. The adjacent bead blast facility is inoperable due to an inability to renovate the facility to meet current environmental and safety requirements, such as clean rooms, air showers, locker rooms, showers, etc.




The Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts on the installation’s hazardous waste materials and wastes. The following sections describe the nonsignificant impacts on hazardous waste materials and wastes that would result from the Proposed Action.

Hazardous Materials and Petroleum Wastes The Proposed Action would result in short-term minor impacts on hazardous materials and petroleum products from construction and demolition activities. Demolition and construction would require the use of hazardous materials such as gasoline, oils, coolant, and lubricants commonly used by construction equipment, paints, welding gases, solvents, preservatives, and sealants. It is anticipated that the quantity of hazardous materials used during construction and demolition activities would be minimal and their use would be of short duration. Contractors would be responsible for the management of hazardous materials, which would be handled in accordance with federal and state regulations and Fort Rucker’s HWMP (Fort Rucker, 2016d). Contractors would use environmental protection measures to prevent releases so that any releases do not result in contamination.

A preconstruction environmental survey would be completed for each project prior to the start of construction that would evaluate the history of hazardous wastes stored and/or generated at the preferred site. Based on the findings, Fort Rucker’s DPW ENRD would classify the preferred site in one of the following categories:

• Category I – There is no reason to suspect contamination will be encountered during construction.

• Category II – There is no known contamination; there remains some potential that contamination may be encountered during construction

• Category III – The site is known to be contaminated or there is a strong suspicion contamination will be encountered during construction.

Based on the findings of preconstruction surveys already conducted, the preferred site for the NCO Academy is a Category I site, and the preferred sites for the AIT Complex and Hazardous Materials Storage/Hazardous Materials Waste Storage are Category II sites. Additional details on the Category II sites are presented below.

• Construct AIT Complex – The proposed AIT Complex site has a history of underground storage tanks (USTs), hazardous materials storage, and likely hazardous waste generation. The USTs have been removed and ADEM has determined that No Further Action is required. There are no records of spills occurring at the site. However, due to the nature of past operations, there is a potential for soil contamination to be encountered during grading activities.

• Construct Hazardous Materials Storage/Hazardous Materials Waste Storage – Two USTs associated with building 1421 were removed from this site along with contaminated soil and ADEM determined No Further Action is required. During the demolition of building 1413 in 2015, a pipe was discovered that had been cut and had residual petroleum product. Contaminated soil around the pipe was removed; however, it is possible that petroleum contaminated soil remains at the site. Additionally, there are records of hazardous wastes being generated at Bldgs 1414, 143, and 1405 on the preferred site, including paints, solvents, degreasers, lead solider, and boiler descaling compounds.

Proposed facilities where storage, handling, and/or generation of hazardous materials would occur include the hazardous materials storage complex, golf course maintenance facility, relocated motorpool, and the Aircraft Paint Facility at Hanchey AHP. These upgraded facilities would be compliant with all current EPA, OSHA, federal and state regulations, resulting in moderate long-term beneficial impacts to hazardous materials management on Fort Rucker.



The new golf course maintenance facility would include several upgrades to increase safety of hazardous materials storage and handling. A new building would be constructed to house solely pesticides and fertilizer and would include catch basins, a pesticide mixing area with roof only, eye wash and shower, and a fertilizer storage area.

Through implementation of requirements and emergency procedures in Fort Rucker’s HWMP (Fort Rucker, 2016d), no long-term adverse effects associated with hazardous materials management or hazardous waste generation would be anticipated from operation of the proposed new facilities. Installation waste streams would not be altered.

Asbestos, Lead Paint, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls The Proposed Action could result in short-term minor impacts associated with asbestos-containing material (ACM), lead paint, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). All demolition projects would have a complete survey conducted for ACM, lead paint, and PCBs in construction materials prior to initiating the demolition. Appropriate worker safety measures would be implemented for those workers who could encounter ACM and worker precautions would be taken to minimize potential exposure to lead-based paints when buildings are demolished and when the debris is disposed of.

Proposed RPMP project sites that could potentially contain ACM, lead paint, or PCBs are described below.

• Construct NCO Academy – Underground piping was left in place when buildings were demolished and buried asbestos piping is a possibility at the site of the proposed NCO Academy.

If any of the buildings to be demolished contain ACM, an asbestos abatement plan would be prepared using Fort Rucker U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence (USAACE) Form 2739 and in accordance with Fort Rucker Asbestos Abatement Procedures, EMS-WI-AS002 and submitted to the DPW for approval prior to work beginning. Prior to building demolition, all friable and Category II Non-Friable asbestos containing material would be removed using a State accredited asbestos abatement contractor. The DPW ENRD would be provided with a copy of the ADEM Form 496 (Notice of Demolition and/or Asbestos Removal) that would be submitted to the state ten (10) days prior to the abatement. The Asbestos Abated area would be inspected by DPW ENRD after the abatement and prior to any additional work being done in the area. Close out documents and air monitoring results would be submitted to the DPW ENRD once the abatement operation is complete. ACM would be shipped from the installation utilizing USAACE Form 2736. The form would be signed by the DPW ENRD prior to the ACM leaving the installation. The DP -ENRD would be notified at least 24 hours in advance of scheduled shipment (Fort Rucker, 2017l; Jahnke, 2017, personal communication).

If lead paint is present, a hazardous waste determination would be made on the demolition debris for proper disposal methods to be determined. Any hazardous waste would be turned into Fort Rucker's 90-Day Hazardous Waste Accumulation Site (Fort Rucker, 2017m; Jahnke, 2017, personal communication).

If PCB-contaminated materials and adjoining materials are determined to be present then an abatement plan would be prepared and submitted for review in accordance with 40 CFR § 761.61 (Fort Rucker, 2017n; Jahnke, 2017, personal communication).

Long-term minor beneficial impacts could occur from eliminating older buildings, which would result in less exposure to, and maintenance of, ACM, lead paint, and PCB-contaminated materials.

Ordnance In general, Fort Rucker is a military base and UXO could be present in the ground. There is no historical evidence that munitions were used in the vicinity of most proposed RPMP project sites. Therefore, there



is a low probability of encountering any UXO during construction at these sites. Proposed RPMP project sites where UXO surveys/clearance would be required are discussed below.

• Golf Course Maintenance Facility – The Golf Course Maintenance Facility is located in an area that was once part of an Infiltration Grenade Range and Anti-Tank/Rocket Grenade Range in the 1940s. Surveys for detection of UXO and clearance of any identified UXO would be completed prior to any ground-disturbing work on this project (Jahnke, 2017, personal communication).

If any suspected ordnance is encountered while digging, it would not be touched or handled, DPS and Range Control would be notified and work would stop immediately until the suspect material/object is identified and disposed of (Jahnke, 2017, personal communication).

IRP Sites The preferred sites of the future motorpool, hazardous materials storage, and hazardous materials waste storage facilities are located in the footprint of environmental study site AOC-S. The groundwater under these proposed RPMP project sites is contaminated with solvents. Vapors from the contamination could enter the new buildings through penetrations/cracks in the slab, so a passive vapor intrusion barrier system that prevents passage of volatile organic compound vapors would be required. As a result of the safety measure identified above, no impacts from hazardous sites are expected. All other proposed RPMP projects are located outside of land use controls associated with active SWMUs and AOCs and no impacts from hazardous sites are expected to occur (Fort Rucker, 2016e).


Implementation of the No Action Alternative would maintain current conditions at Fort Rucker. There would be no long-term beneficial impacts from replacing dated facilities with modernized facilities that meet current regulations for storage of hazardous materials and wastes. Hazardous materials would continue to be stored in existing, inadequate facilities that do not meet current environmental or safety standards.

3.12 Cumulative Impacts Summary In some cases, environmental impacts may not result directly from any particular action, but from the combination of impacts of multiple, independent actions over time. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA define a cumulative impact for purposes of NEPA as follows: Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to 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 (40 CFR § 1508.7). The range of alternatives considered must include the No Action Alternative as a benchmark against which to evaluate cumulative impacts.

The CEQ guidelines state that cumulative impacts analyses should be limited to the impacts that can be evaluated meaningfully by the decision-makers. The guidelines further state that the area to use in defining the cumulative impacts geographical boundary should extend to the point at which the resource is no longer affected significantly (CEQ, 1997).

Significant cumulative impacts would occur if incremental impacts of the Proposed Action (or the alternatives), added to the environmental impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, result in an adverse significant impact on regional resources. For an impact to be considered cumulative, these incremental impacts and potential incremental impacts must be related in space and time, so that they are either capable of combining (when considering potential incremental impacts of future projects) or have, in fact, combined (when considering impacts of current and past projects).



3.12.1 Projects Identified with the Potential for Cumulative Effects Geographically, potential cumulative effects are limited to Fort Rucker boundaries for most resource areas, although a larger area is considered for some resources areas. Fort Rucker projects would not have impacts that extend beyond the installation boundaries. Therefore, no interaction effects between activities on Fort Rucker and off-post activities beyond incremental short-term additions to regional air emissions, incremental changes in impervious surfaces within shared watersheds, and incremental loss of vegetative communities and wildlife habitat would result.

One transportation project within the region could potentially affect traffic conditions at Fort Rucker. This includes the resurfacing of U.S. Highway 84 West from east of Highway 123 to Beaver Creek, which would be completed in the spring of 2018 (Dothan Eagle, 2017). This project would not contribute to cumulative transportation impacts because it should be completed before the projects identified are started.

Past activities are the activities and actions that have occurred within the geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis and shaped the current environmental conditions of the project area. The effects of these past activities and actions are now part of the existing environment and are included in the description of the affected environment. Reasonably foreseeable actions are those that have been planned and could be completed within the timeframe of projects addressed in this EA.

• Fort Rucker Consolidated Elementary and Primary School (FY 2019) – construction and operation of a consolidated elementary and primary school serving Fort Rucker dependents

• Contractor-owned, Contractor-operated (COCO) Fuel Station (FY 2018) – construction and operation of a COCO retail service station and demolition of existing fuel station and propane peak plant

3.12.2 Preferred Alternative Demolition, construction, and improvement projects would be expected to result in minor to moderate short-term adverse effects, localized to individual project areas, on the noise environment, air quality, soils/geological resources, water resources, biological resources, transportation, hazardous materials and wastes, and incremental use of landfill space. Short-term minor beneficial effects would also be expected on socioeconomics as a result of construction/demolition expenditures and timber sales. This could result in localized short-term cumulative impacts if multiple proposed projects occur at the same time. Long-term minor cumulative beneficial effects would be expected on energy use and infrastructure from the construction of new facilities and demolition of older facilities.

Air Quality

Air quality impacts would be negligible and temporary. There could be incremental additions of dust from land disturbance associated with implementing all the proposed projects and unrelated planned or potential projects. Appropriate BMPs, as described in Section 3.2, would be implemented to minimize overall dust generation, as appropriate. There also would be minor short-term localized increases in combustion engine emissions from increased equipment use during construction or demolition, but these would not be expected to result in exceedances of air quality standards and, would be unlikely to contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality.

Noise

Most of the proposed new facilities would not be in proximity to SNRs. Noise associated with construction and demolition during implementation of all the proposed projects could contribute to short-term cumulative noise impacts with other projects at Fort Rucker. Multiple concurrent sources of periodic loud noises associated with construction or demolition could result in increased annoyance and disruption of outdoor activities compared to single sources. Predicted noise levels from the proposed projects would not be expected to interact with noise outside of the Fort Rucker boundary.



Geology

Increased erosion following soil disturbance from grading and excavation to support construction and from vegetation removal implementation of all the proposed projects could contribute to cumulative impacts to soils when combined with potential impacts from unrelated projects that may be implemented. Such impacts would be minor with implementation of BMPs. No potential for regional cumulative impacts to soils beyond the boundary of Fort Rucker would be expected.

Site grading could be a negligible contribution to cumulative changes to topography when combined with potential impacts from unrelated projects that may be implemented. No cumulative changes to geology would occur.

Water Resources

Indirect cumulative impacts to water resources could occur during construction and demolition and following construction projects. Development that results in increased impervious cover has the potential to impact water quality through increased runoff volume and intensity and associated increased erosion. Independent developments could have individually minor impacts that are magnified through incremental combination with other developments. The construction projects, both in the cantonment area and at airfields, would be designed with post-construction stormwater controls, including detention and infiltration areas and oil/water separators that would prevent future impacts on water quality and hydrology. These stormwater controls would eliminate or minimize the increase in runoff from the increased impervious area and prevent contaminants such as POLs from entering the surface water system. Because of the stormwater controls that would be implemented, no cumulative impacts on water quality and hydrology are anticipated.


Minor cumulative impacts to terrestrial biological habitat would occur as the result of the Proposed Action. All the proposed projects would result in the loss of approximately 77 acres of forested habitat. However, this loss of forested habitat would be less than significant (less than 0.2 percent) compared to the amount of this habitat that occurs on Fort Rucker. Areas that would be cleared have already been designated for development and are planned to accommodate installation growth. The loss of 0.2 percent of the forested land on Fort Rucker would not significantly impact forest resources in southeastern Alabama, either singly or in concert with other land clearing activities in the region. Because of the relatively small amount of clearing that would occur on Fort Rucker and the low potential for future forest clearing on other parts of the installation, resulting from the presence of numerous buildable parcels within the cantonment area that are already cleared, there is only limited potential for interaction with additional clearing that may occur outside Fort Rucker.

Transportation

Minor cumulative impacts to traffic could occur as a result of the Proposed Action. The increase in traffic and parking lot use associated with demolition and construction equipment and contractor vehicles would be temporary. Implementation of traffic control procedures would minimize impacts on traffic flow.

Socioeconomics

There would be minor cumulative beneficial impacts to socioeconomics from construction-related employment. The benefit would be limited to the duration of all the proposed projects that are implemented concurrently with other planned and potential projects at Fort Rucker. Because the Proposed Action would have no long-term impacts on employment or income on Fort Rucker or the surrounding area, no long-term socioeconomic impacts would result.



Utilities

Removal of inefficient buildings and construction of modern energy-efficient buildings would result in cumulative improvements to energy use, which would be a minor benefit to energy consumption in the region. A long-term cumulative benefit to air quality would be expected from this action due to the reduction in emissions resulting from the reduced demand for energy.


Construction and demolition projects could have the potential for incremental increased generation of hazardous wastes, which would require proper handling and disposal.

For the reasons discussed above, the potential for indirect and cumulative negative impacts resulting from interaction of the proposed action with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects is less than significant.

3.12.3 No Action Alternative Existing conditions would not change under the No Action Alternative. Thus, there would be no potential for interaction with other reasonably foreseeable projects resulting from the No Action Alternative.

SECTION 4

NG1218171723ATL 4-1

Findings and Conclusions 4.1 Findings No significant environmental or socioeconomic effects have been identified from the Proposed Action. Table 4-1 summarizes the consequences of the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative.

4.1.1 Consequences of the Preferred Alternative Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in adverse impacts on air quality, noise, soils, surface waters, stormwater, biological resources, traffic, solid waste, and hazardous and toxic substances. All of these impacts, however, would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation measures. There may be incidental wildlife mortality associated with construction, but animal losses would not threaten regional population levels. There would also be limited displacement of wildlife from the project areas, but the animals would either return to the adjacent areas or adjust to the new areas.

There would be minor beneficial impacts on the local economy resulting from construction-related jobs and construction-related purchases of supplies and materials; on stormwater management at the golf course maintenance facility; on recreation resulting from improved intramural sports facilities; on fire, police, emergency, and medical services resulting from replacing outdated facilities that do not meet current safety standards and the construction of two new fire stations; on transportation resulting from increased available parking areas; on utilities resulting from using LEED silver construction design; and on hazardous and toxic substances a result of upgraded storage facilities.

The potential for indirect and cumulative negative impacts resulting from interaction of the proposed action with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects is less than significant. Demolition, construction, and improvement projects could result in localized short-term cumulative impacts if multiple proposed projects occur at the same time. Long-term minor cumulative beneficial effects would be expected on energy use and infrastructure from the construction of new facilities and demolition of older facilities.

4.1.2 Consequences of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, conditions and facilities would remain as they are on Fort Rucker. Failure to accomplish the Proposed Action would result in continued use of outmoded and over-utilized facilities, continued less-than-optimal work at scattered facilities, and the inability to modify operations as new military needs arise. Stormwater drainage issues would continue at the golf course maintenance facility. The potential for electrical fires and gas leaks would heighten in buildings with failing utilities. Facilities that store hazardous materials would continue to fail to meet current safety and environmental requirements for hazardous materials stored. Farrell Road would be left unrepaired, which could eventually result in structural failure and permanent closure of Farrell Road.

4.2 Conclusions Based on the findings of this EA, we recommend that the Preferred Alternative, as it is written and proposed, be implemented and that a FNSI be issued for the Proposed Action.

SECTION 5 – REFERENCES


Table 4-1. Summary of Impacts Real Property Master Plan Projects EA, Fort Rucker, Alabama




Land Use No Impact No Impact

Air Quality Minor short-term fugitive dust emissions from soil disturbance during construction. Use of sprinkling/ irrigation, vegetative cover, and mulching as dust abatement measures during construction.

Minor short-term impacts from vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions during construction.

No Impact

Noise Minor short-term noise impacts during construction and demolition from heavy equipment. Construction and demolition activities would be limited to typical working hours, minimizing exposure of other personnel on Fort Rucker. Workers would be required to wear appropriate hearing protection.

No Impact

Geology

Geologic and Topographic Conditions

Minor to moderate long-term impacts to topographic conditions through grading for site preparation.

No Impact

Soils Minor to moderate short-term impacts from potential for soil erosion from disturbed soils during construction. Use of sediment barriers (silt fence or straw wattles), temporary detention basins, grade stabilization with seed and mulch, and geotextile slope stabilization to minimize impacts on soils.

No Impact

Water Resources

Surface Water Negligible short-term indirect impacts from site grading, demolition of facilities, and construction of facility. Use of sediment barriers (silt fence or straw wattles), temporary detention basins, grade stabilization with seed and mulch, and geotextile slope stabilization to minimize erosion and transport of sediments to surface waters. Use of work area containment and oil/water separators to prevent transport of POLs from motorpool areas to surface waters.

Minor long-term impacts associated with repairs to stream crossing at Farrell Road and installation of a stream crossing along the Lowe AHP AVIM hangar access road.

Potential for long term minor direct impacts to the unnamed tributary to Claybank Creek if Farrell Road is left unrepaired.

Groundwater No Impact No Impact

Floodplains No Impact No Impact

Wetlands No Impact No Impact

Stormwater Minor long-term impacts on stormwater systems resulting from a net increase in impervious surfaces.

Issues resulting from inadequate stormwater design would persist at the current golf course maintenance facility.


SECTION 4 – FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS






Vegetation Minor short-term impacts from removal of vegetation, including timber, during construction.

No Impact

Fish and Wildlife Negligible direct impact on wildlife could result from construction activities.

No Impact

Special-Status Species Minor direct impacts to gopher tortoise could result from construction activities if relocation of tortoises is necessary.

No Impact

Critical Habitat No Impact No Impact

Cultural Resources No Impact No Impact

Socioeconomics

Economic Development Minor to moderate short-term positive impacts on local economy associated with construction employment and wages and timber sales.

Negligible long-term impacts from loss of profitable timber stand acreage.

No Impact

Demographics No Impact No Impact

Fire, Police, Emergency, and Medical Service

Minor long-term positive impacts would result from replacing outdated facilities that do not meet current safety standards and the construction of two new fire stations.

The potential for electrical fires and gas leaks would remain if failing buildings are not replaced.

Environmental Justice No Impact No Impact

Protection of Children No Impact No Impact

Housing No Impact No Impact

Recreation

Minor long-term positive impacts on intramural sports would result from creating upgraded, appropriately sized facilities.

There would be no upgrade to current, inadequate facilities for solider and family fitness on Fort Rucker resulting in a negligible impact to recreation.

Transportation Minor short-term adverse impacts due to increased congestion on nearby roads from construction-related traffic.

Minor long-term impacts from changes in traffic patterns.

Minor long-term beneficial impacts would result from increased available parking areas.

Farrell Road would be left unrepaired, which could eventually result in structural failure and permanent closure of Farrell Road.

POV parking at the airfields would continue to not meet current demands.

Utilities

Potable Water Negligible short-term impacts could occur when buildings are disconnected or connected to utilities.

Minor long-term adverse impacts expected due to increase in demand from the RPMP projects. However, minor long-term positive impacts would also be expected because LEED silver construction








design would increase utility efficiency and reduce usage.

Wastewater System Negligible short-term impacts could occur when buildings are disconnected or connected to utilities.



Energy Sources Negligible short-term impacts could occur when buildings are disconnected or connected to utilities.



Solid Waste Minor short-term impacts would result from an increase in construction and demolition debris.

Long-term negligible impacts from permanently using landfill capacity.

No Impact


Negligible short-term impact from use of small quantities of potentially hazardous materials (e.g. oils, grease) during construction.

Demolition could result in minor short-term impacts associated with ACM, lead paint, and PCBs. Waste would be characterized and disposed of in an appropriate manner. Use of site inspections prior to demolition and appropriate removal and disposal techniques if hazardous/toxic materials are discovered.

Moderate long-term positive impacts would result from upgraded hazardous materials and wastes storage facilities that meet current standards.

Hazardous materials and wastes storage facilities would remain outdated and not up to current environmental and safety standards.

SECTION 5

NG1218171723ATL 5-1

References Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). 2016. Alabama’s Water Quality Assessment and Listing Methodology. January 1. http://adem.alabama.gov/programs/water/wquality/2016WAM.pdf. Accessed November 28, 2017.

Alabama Natural Heritage Program. 2017. The Rare, Threatened, & Endangered Plants & Animals of Alabama. August. http://www.alnhp.org/tracking_list.php. Accessed November 29, 2017.

Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee. 2014. Alabama Handbook for Erosion Control, Sediment Control and Stormwater Management on Construction Sites and Urban Areas. September. https://alconservationdistricts.gov/resources/erosion-and-sediment-control/. Accessed November 28, 2017.

American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery. 2018. Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in Children. http://www.entnet.org/content/noise-induced-hearing-loss-children. Accessed January 26, 2018.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act. January. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ-ConsidCumulEffects.pdf. Accessed on November 22, 2017.

Dothan Eagle. 2017. Trio of road construction projects underway in Wiregrass. http://www.dothaneagle.com/news/local/trio-of-road-construction-projects-underway-in-wiregrass/article_1e216aca-7be5-11e7-8f12-67a396480419.html. Accessed January 26, 2018.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2008. Real Property Master Plan Digest, Fort Rucker, Alabama. PBS&J. April.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2009. Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan 2010-2014. Fort Rucker, Alabama. Natural Resources Branch, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, Directorate of Public Works. July 29.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2011. U.S. Army Fort Rucker Installation Operational Noise Management Plan. U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence. Prepared by Operational Noise Program, Army Institute of Public Health, U.S. Army Public Health Command. September.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2014. Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP). U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence (USAACE). Fort Rucker, Alabama. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2015. Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan. U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence. Fort Rucker, Alabama. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. Prepared by Trinity Analysis & Development Corp. April.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2016a. Fort Rucker Real Property Vision Plan. Final. Prepared by Michael Baker Jr., Inc. – AECOM Joint Venture. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. Contract No. W91238-11-D-0016. May.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2016b. Consolidated Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence. Fort Rucker, Alabama. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Prepared by Trinity Analysis & Development Corp. August. https://www.fortrucker-env.com/documents.aspx?docID=995&cur=65. Accessed November 28, 2017.

http://adem.alabama.gov/programs/water/wquality/2016WAM.pdf

http://www.alnhp.org/tracking_list.php

https://alconservationdistricts.gov/resources/erosion-and-sediment-control/

http://www.entnet.org/content/noise-induced-hearing-loss-children

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ-ConsidCumulEffects.pdf

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ-ConsidCumulEffects.pdf

http://www.dothaneagle.com/news/local/trio-of-road-construction-projects-underway-in-wiregrass/article_1e216aca-7be5-11e7-8f12-67a396480419.html

http://www.dothaneagle.com/news/local/trio-of-road-construction-projects-underway-in-wiregrass/article_1e216aca-7be5-11e7-8f12-67a396480419.html

https://www.fortrucker-env.com/documents.aspx?docID=995&cur=65

https://www.fortrucker-env.com/documents.aspx?docID=995&cur=65



Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2016c. Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan Update, US Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker 2014-2018. US Army Corps of Engineers. Final Draft. August.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2016d. Hazardous Waste Management Plan. United States Army Aviation Center of Excellence. Fort Rucker, Alabama. September.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2016e. Land Use Controls Implementation Plan for SWMUs 2d/AOC-P, 4, 10/15, 14, and AOC-S. Fort Rucker, Alabama. August

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2017a. Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan 2017-2021. Fort Rucker, Alabama. Natural Resources Branch, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, Directorate of Public Works. September.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2017b. Fort Rucker 2017 Installation Fact Sheet. July.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2017c. Fort Rucker Real Property Master Plan [Powerpoint slides]. September.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2017d. Sustainable Fort Rucker: Spill Response. https://www.fortrucker-env.com/programs.aspx?cur=41&program=p. Accessed December 14, 2017.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2017e. Sustainable Fort Rucker: Forestry. https://www.fortrucker-env.com/programs.aspx?cur=60&program=p. Accessed January 6, 2018.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2017f. Sustainable Fort Rucker: Drinking Water. https://www.fortrucker-env.com/programs.aspx?cur=7&program=p. Accessed November 21, 2017.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2017g. Sustainable Fort Rucker: Wastewater Management. https://www.fortrucker-env.com/programs.aspx?cur=32&program=p. Accessed November 21, 2017.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2017h. Sustainable Fort Rucker: Solid Waste. https://www.fortrucker-env.com/programs.aspx?cur=42&program=p. Accessed November 28, 2017.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2017i. Sustainable Fort Rucker: Recycling Information. https://www.fortrucker-env.com/programs.aspx?cur=40&program=p. Accessed November 28, 2017.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2017j. Sustainable Fort Rucker: Hazardous Waste Management. https://www.fortrucker-env.com/programs.aspx?cur=28&program=p. Accessed December 21, 2017.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2017k. Sustainable Fort Rucker: Hazardous Material Management. https://www.fortrucker-env.com/programs.aspx?cur=27&program=p. Accessed November 29, 2017.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2017l. Sustainable Fort Rucker: Asbestos. https://www.fortrucker-env.com/programs.aspx?cur=4&program=p. Accessed December 21, 2017.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2017m. Sustainable Fort Rucker: Lead-based Paint. https://www.fortrucker-env.com/programs.aspx?cur=30&program=p. Accessed December 21, 2017.

Fort Rucker Army Installation (Fort Rucker). 2017n. Sustainable Fort Rucker: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). https://www.fortrucker-env.com/programs.aspx?cur=38&program=p. Accessed December 21, 2017.

Jahnke, Leigh B/Fort Rucker Environmental & Natural Resources Division. 2017. Personal Communication with Cynthia Ranchino/Fort Rucker and Betsy Jorgensen/CH2M. Additional Data Needed for Master Plan Project. November 14.

https://www.fortrucker-env.com/programs.aspx?cur=41&program=p













Mount, R.H. and A. Diamond. 1992. Fauna and Flora of Fort Rucker, Alabama. Contract No. DABT01-01-C-0162. Fort Rucker, AL. 210 pp + appendices.

Mount, R.H. and M.A. Bailey. 2003. Planning Level Survey for Threatened and Endangered Species, Fort Rucker, Alabama. Contract No. DABT01-01-P-0220, Fort Rucker, AL. 74 pp.

Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission (SEARP&DC). 2017. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, Five Year Plan 2017-2022. Southeast Alabama Economic Development District. Draft. October. www.gmrc.ga.gov/CEDS_2017_2022_DRAFT_08312017.pdf. Accessed November 29, 2017.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. American Fact Finder Demographic Profile, Housing, Race, Age, and Poverty Data. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed November 21, 2017.

U.S. Department of Transportation. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. December 2011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. NTID 300.1.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004. March.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017a. NAAQS Table – Criteria Air Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. Accessed November 21, 2017.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017b. Glossary of Climate Change Terms. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html. Accessed November 21, 2017.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017c. Alabama Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants. https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_al.html. Accessed November 22, 2017.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus Polyphemus), Eastern Population. December.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Resource List – Fort Rucker/Cairns AAF/Shell AHP, Dale County and Coffee County, Alabama. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac. Accessed December 21, 2017.

University of California, Davis California Soil Resource Lab. SoilWeb Earth (KML file). https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soilweb-apps/. Accessed December 30, 2017.

http://www.gmrc.ga.gov/CEDS_2017_2022_DRAFT_08312017.pdf

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html.%20Accessed%20November%2021

https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_al.html

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac

https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soilweb-apps/



This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A Correspondence

Subsequent to this draft EA being approved for public notice, letters of correspondence will be sent to the relevant agencies for their review and comments.

Environmental Assessment, Implementation of Real …...DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Implementation...

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Assessment, Implementation of Real …...DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Implementation...