FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION EASTERN REGION Short … · 2015. 10. 16. · CO Carbon monoxide...

Airport Name: Washington Dulles International Airport Identifier: IAD Proposed Project: Fuel and Convenience Concession Site This Environmental Assessment becomes a federal document when evaluated, signed, and dated by the Responsible FAA official. Responsible FAA Official Date

Short Environmental Assessment Form

for AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN REGION AIRPORTS DIVISION

Draft EA – September 2015 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................. iii

1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 2

3. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................................................................................... 2

4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................................ 3

5. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT .............................................................................................................. 3

6. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................................... 6

(A) AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................................................. 6

(B) BIOTIC RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................... 9

(C) COASTAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................. 9

(D) COMPATIBLE LAND USE .......................................................................................................................... 9

(E) CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................... 10

(F) SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 10

(G) ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES ..................................................................................... 11

(H) ENERGY SUPPLIES, NATURAL RESOURCES AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN ................................ 12

(I) ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE .................................................................................................................... 12

(J) FARMLANDS ............................................................................................................................................... 13

(K) FLOODPLAINS ........................................................................................................................................... 13

(L) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...................................................................................................................... 14

(M) HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL PROPERTY.......................... 15

(N) INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 15

(O) LIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL EFFECTS ......................................................................................... 15

(P) NOISE ........................................................................................................................................................... 16

(Q) SOCIAL IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................................... 16

(R) SOLID WASTE ............................................................................................................................................ 16

(S) WATER QUALITY ...................................................................................................................................... 17

(T) WETLANDS ................................................................................................................................................ 17

(U) WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ................................................................................................................... 18

(V) CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ......................................................................................................................... 18

7. PERMITS ............................................................................................................................................................ 20

8. MITIGATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 21

9. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 21

10. PREPARER CERTIFICATION ....................................................................................................................... 22

11. AIRPORT SPONSOR CERTIFICATION ..................................................................................................... 22

Draft EA – September 2015 iii

APPENDICES Appendix A – References Appendix B – Emissions Inventory Appendix C – Threatened and Endangered Species Coordination Appendix D – State Historic Preservation Office Consultation

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary and Comparison of Impacts for Considered Alternatives ............................................................... 4 Table 2. Construction Emissions Inventory Summary .................................................................................................. 7 Table 3. Operational Air Emissions ............................................................................................................................... 8 Table 4. Population by Race ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Table 5. Percentage in Poverty .................................................................................................................................... 13

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Figure 2: Location Map Figure 3: Site Overview Figure 4: Conceptual Site Layout Figure 5: FEMA Floodplains Map Figure 6: Jurisdictional Wetland Areas

Draft EA - September 2015

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS Airports Metropolitan Washington Authority Airports Authority

ALP Airport Layout Plan

CAA Clean Air Act

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

CO Carbon monoxide

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Plan

DCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

DEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

DGIF Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

DNH Department of Natural Heritage

DNL Day/night average sound level

DOT Department of Transportation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FR Federal Register

IAD Washington Dulles International Airport

INM Integrated Noise Model

LOS Level of Service

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MWCOG Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAVAID Navigational Aid

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOx Nitrogen oxides

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

O3 Ozone

ORVR Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery

Pb Lead

PM Particulate matter

PM2.5 Particulate matter (particles smaller than 2.5 microns)

PPM Parts per million

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 Sulphur dioxide

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S.C. United States Code

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

UST Underground Storage Tank

VAC Virginia Administrative Code

VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

VAFWIS Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service

VMRC Virginia Marine Resources Commission

WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Administration

WOUS Waters of the U.S.

Draft EA - September 2015 1

Complete the following information: Project Location Airport Name: Washington Dulles International Airport Identifier: IAD Airport Address: P.O. Box 17045 City: Washington, DC County: Fairfax State: VA Zip: 20041-0045 Airport Sponsor Information Point of Contact: Gregg Wollard Address: 45045 Aviation Drive City: Dulles State: VA Zip: 20166 Telephone: 703-572-0266 Fax: 703-471-8199 Email: [email protected] Evaluation Form Preparer Information Point of Contact: Erik Schwenke Address: 45045 Aviation Drive City: Dulles State: VA Zip: 20166 Telephone: 703-572-0268 Fax: 703-471-8199 Email: [email protected] 1. Introduction/Background: Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) is located in Fairfax and Loudoun counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia (Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map). It is approximately 26 miles west of the center of the District of Columbia. The IAD property is owned by the Federal Government and is leased to and managed by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (Airports Authority), who is responsible for the day-to-day operation of IAD. IAD comprises approximately 12,000 acres; approximately 3,000 acres are located in Fairfax County and approximately 9,000 acres are located in Loudoun County. Roughly 5,000 acres are used for airport operations with the remainder of the land used for airport/airline support services, airfield buffer zone, or reserved for future aviation and non-aviation development. In the subject action of this Environmental Assessment, the Airports Authority proposes a new, larger fuel and convenience store to replace the current concession, which will be de-commissioned. The proposed project site is located in Loudoun County, near the intersection of Rudder Road and Ariane Way, approximately 4,500 feet north of the main terminal. This is directly across Ariane Way from the existing fuel and convenience concession facility. This site is a previously disturbed area that provides adequate space to build all planned facilities, and is located in a convenient and easily accessible location to both incoming and outgoing airport traffic (Figure 2: Location Map and Figure 3: Site Overview). The proposed site is near the western terminus of the Dulles International Airport Access Highway (Access Highway) and is directly on the exit from the public Economy Parking lots. This location is also on the route to the rental car companies, the taxicab holding lot, and the cellphone lot (which serves both the waiting general public and waiting commercial drivers). The existing facility is one of the highest volume stations in Virginia, with over 5.5 million gallons sold in 2013. Because of the high volume of sales, the existing fueling and convenience store facilities often operate at or near capacity, resulting in frequent lines, delays, and congestion at the fuel pumps, food counter, and convenience store check-out. The existing facility is surrounded and constrained by other development and will prove to be inadequate as airport activity increases in the future.


This Environmental Assessment is being prepared to assess the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed construction of a new fuel and convenience concession site (Proposed Action), along with the closure of the existing facility. All appropriate permits and approvals will be obtained prior to initiating construction of this project. 2. Project Description (List and clearly describe ALL components of project proposal including all connected actions). Attach a map or drawing of the area with the location(s) of the proposed action(s) identified: The proposed fuel and convenience concession site will provide critical services and products to air passengers and their attending parties, patrons of other airport services, employees, and other service providers. The proposed project will provide fueling, concession, retail, and other services typical of a large fuel and convenience concession site, and will remain open and in operation 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. A conceptual layout of the proposed facility is shown in Figure 4: Conceptual Site Layout. The proposed new site is adjacent to the current facility, but at approximately 3.0 acres in size, it is roughly one acre larger than the existing site. There is also an additional adjoining lot of approximately 2.3 acres that will also be available for development if requested (and is therefore included in this Environmental Assessment). The proposed site is currently the southernmost portion of the economy (long-term) Blue Lot at Dulles, which typically serves the air traveling public leaving their vehicles during medium-to-long duration air trips. The site is currently paved and slopes to the east at approximately a 1.5 percent grade. The development of the fuel and convenience concession may make adaptive reuse of the existing paving or may be proposed with revised grades. The final station and store designs for the site, and any incorporation of the option/expansion area, will be required to incorporate a landscaped demising barrier between the leasehold and the remaining portions of the Blue Lot on the Site’s northern and eastern boundaries. Access to and from the Site will be via Ariane Way as shown in Figures 3 and 4. The proposed project will also include limited off-site access improvements to Ariane Way immediately west of the site, which will be aligned with the median divides, curb cuts, and the entrance/exit lanes from the Blue Lot. These are expected to be localized and modest in scale. Upon opening of the new site, the existing site will be taken out of service. Components of the existing site will be decommissioned and removed, including 18 fuel pumps, four 10,000 gallon underground storage tanks (USTs), all associated UST piping, self-serve tire air-pumps and vacuums, as well as the overhead canopy covering the fuel pumps. The existing convenience store building and carwash structure will remain for future reuse; however there are no plans to renovate these structures as part of this project. Removal of the existing facilities will be the responsibility of the existing leaseholder, and will be done in accordance with all applicable state and federal regulations. The existing leaseholder will also be responsible for testing the physical condition of the premises after tank removal to determine if any petroleum contamination (in excess of regulated limits) is present. If any corrective actions are required, the existing leaseholder will perform the corrective actions to the satisfaction of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), the state regulatory agency with jurisdiction over USTs. 3. Project Purpose and Need: Dulles Airport is currently served by one fuel and convenience site, which is operated via a concession lease with the Airports Authority. While the operation is one of the highest volume stations in Virginia with over 5.5 million gallons of gasoline sold in 2013, the successes of the station have manifested themselves in frequent lines, delays, and congestion at the pumps, food counter, and convenience store check-out.


The existing station and store were built in 1996 and opened in 1997. The current site is surrounded and constrained by other development, and will soon become inadequate as airport activity increases in the future. The Airports Authority believes that these are indicators that opportunities exist to improve the offerings available to customers, and to capture unsatisfied demand and lost revenue. Additionally, the Airports Authority is considering expanding the range of the amenities to allow, for example, drive-through or table service restaurants, coffee stores, or other similar types of businesses. 4. Describe the affected environment (existing conditions) and land use in the vicinity of project: The affected environment for the proposed project is likely to include minor and/or temporary impacts to the following environmental resource categories: air quality, hazardous materials, historic resources, noise, solid waste, and water quality. The specific impacts to each resource category are discussed in Section 6. Environmental Consequences. The environmental effects of the proposed fuel and convenience concession site are expected to be very minor; even when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in this heavily developed portion of IAD and Loudoun County. The land use in the vicinity of IAD is primarily utilized by commercial properties and industrial parks, office buildings, and warehouses. South of the airport, land use is predominantly industrial, with residential development south of Route 50 The primary land use west of the airport is Agricultural and Industrial, with a few residential communities located west of Old Ox Road (Route 606). To the east the land use is dominated by office parks and retail centers, with high density residential communities located beyond these areas. Land use north of the airport is dominated by industrial use along Route 606, and the Dulles Greenway corridor. Because the proposed project site is located in the middle of the Dulles Airport campus, there are no residential areas, places of worship, schools, publicly-owned parks or recreational areas, wildlife refuges, or waterfowl refuges located in the vicinity of the project area. 5. Alternatives to the Project: Describe any other reasonable actions that may feasibly substitute for the proposed project, and include a description of the “No Action” alternative. If there are no feasible or reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, explain why (attach alternatives drawings as applicable): In addition to the Proposed Alternative (described above), one preliminary alternative site was considered for the proposed fuel and convenience concession site. The location of the alternative site is depicted on Figure 3. Alternative Site #2 Alternative site #2 is the site of the old valet storage lot, located south of the existing site, across Rudder Road. Because of the location of Site #2 south of Rudder Road, access to Site #2 would be via right-in/right-out movements on northbound Autopilot Drive and eastbound Rudder Road. While meeting the purpose and need of expanded fuel and convenience concessions at Dulles Airport, this site was not selected because it lacked the direct access from inbound traffic on Rudder Road. Site development costs for Site #2 would be three to four those required for the Proposed Alternative, due largely to the availability of utility connections. The increased costs associated with this site resulted in little market interest when the site was unsuccessfully offered in 2012. A fuel and convenience store at Site #2 would also subdivide a larger parcel in a manner making the remainder of the parcel less attractive to future adjoining uses.


This site is also located within the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) eligible Dulles Airport Historic District, and would have therefore resulted in additional impacts to this historic district. For these reasons, Alternative Site #2 was dropped from further consideration. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, a new fuel and convenience concession site would not be constructed, and operations would continue at the existing facility which is both undersized and inadequate for current needs. The existing facility also cannot support the projected increases in usage as airport traffic is expected to increase in the future. Failure to construct the proposed project would also result in decreased revenue opportunities for the Airports Authority as the existing site cannot fully satisfy demand. Alternatives Summary Of the preliminary alternatives considered during the development of this project, the proposed Build Alternative best meets the purpose and need, while resulting in the fewest overall impacts. Therefore, the only two alternatives carried forward in this analysis are the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. A comparison of the environmental consequences of the Proposed Alternative and the No Action Alternative is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Summary and Comparison of Impacts for Considered Alternatives

Resource Category Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Air Quality No impact; below de minimis thresholds. No impact.

Biotic Resources No adverse impact to biotic resources. No impact.

Coastal Resources No impact to coastal resources; project occurs outside the state coastal zone.

No impact.

Compatible Land Use No impact; project constructed on airport land; no disruption of communities; no relocation of businesses.

No impact.

DOT Section 4(f) Resources

No impact; no parks, recreational areas, or refuges will be directly or indirectly affected.

No impact.

Endangered and Threatened Species

No adverse impact to threatened or endangered species.

No impact.

Energy Supplies, Natural Resources, and Sustainable Design

No adverse impact to energy supplies, natural resources, or sustainable design.

No impact.

Environmental Justice No impact; minority and low-income communities not present.

No impact.


Resource Category Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Farmlands No impact to farmlands. No impact.

Floodplains Minor impacts to floodplains associated with right-in/ right-out ramp. No impact to downstream floodplain elevations.

No impact.

Hazardous Materials No adverse impact to hazardous materials. Existing USTs will be removed, and new USTs will be installed in accordance with state and federal guidelines.

No Impact.

Historic, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources

No adverse effect to the Dulles Airport Historic District. No potential to affect archeological resources.

No impact.

Induced Socioeconomic Impacts

No impact; no relocation of residences/businesses; beneficial impact to economic activity in area.

No impact.

Light Emissions and Visual Effects

No impact; proposed project includes lighting but will not affect nearby residences.

No impact.

Noise No noticeable increase in noise. No impact.

Social Impacts No impact to surface traffic patterns. No impact.

Solid Waste Temporary increase in generation of waste during construction.

No impact.

Water Quality Minor impact to an adjacent tributary associated with the right-in/right-out ramp. The proposed project will use approved stormwater management techniques and E&S methods. Runoff treatment will be enhanced within the project site (through adherence to new more stringent stormwater management requirements), compared to runoff now collected from the equivalent portion of the existing Blue Lot.

No impact.

Wetlands Minor impact to an adjacent tributary associated with the right-in/right-out ramp.

No impact.

Wild and Scenic Rivers No impact; Wild and Scenic Rivers not present in project area.

No impact.


6. Environmental Consequences – Special Impact Categories (refer to the Instructions page and corresponding sections in Appendix A of 1050.1E and the Airports Desk Reference for more information and direction. The analysis under each section must comply with the requirements and significance thresholds as described in the Desk Reference). (A) AIR QUALITY (Please note this analysis must meet requirements for both National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements). Clean Air Act (a) Is the proposed project located in a nonattainment or maintenance area for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established under the Clean Air Act and does it result in direct emissions (including construction emissions)? (If Yes, go to (b), No, go to the NEPA section below. The VDEQ implements the federal and state air quality programs in the state of Virginia. The federal program was established under the authority of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended. Under the CAA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for six criteria pollutants: ozone (O3), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), and particulate matter (PM). Areas that are not in compliance with a criteria pollutant standard are defined as being in nonattainment for that pollutant. The project is located in Loudoun County (which is within the Washington Metropolitan area), which is currently in attainment for all criteria pollutants except ozone and PM. The Washington Metropolitan area is currently classified as moderate nonattainment for the new 8-hr ozone standard (0.08 ppm), however the area was designated as a marginal nonattainment area by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in July of 2012 (Federal Register, Vol 77, No. 98, May 21, 2012). Similarly, the area is currently classified as nonattainment for fine particulate matter (PM2.5, particles smaller than 2.5 microns), however since the designations for PM2.5 were published in 2005, the air quality in the Washington Metropolitan nonattainment area has improved due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions, and PM2.5 concentrations have been reduced below the established standard. In May of 2013, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) officially requested that the EPA redesignate the PM2.5 nonattainment area to “attainment” pursuant to the provisions under §107 of the CAA. The MWCOG prepared and submitted CAA mandated State Implementation Plans (SIP) for both ozone and PM2.5, identifying actions to be taken to reduce pollution to levels at or below the NAAQS. (b) Is the proposed project an “exempted action,” under the General Conformity Rule or Presumed to Conform (See the Federal Register, vol.72 no. 145, pg 41565)? (If Yes, cite exemption and go to NEPA section below; No, go to (c)). No, the proposed project is not an “exempted action” under the General Conformity Rule, nor is it presumed to conform under 72 FR 41565 (c) Would the proposed project result in a net total of direct and indirect emissions that exceed the threshold levels of the regulated air pollutants for which the project area is in non-attainment or maintenance? (Attach emissions inventory). (If Yes, consult with Airport District Office). No. The proposed action will result in emissions associated with both the construction of the site, and operation of the gasoline dispensing facility; however those emissions will be below the de minimis thresholds established by EPA for each pollutant. The de minimis levels for CO, SOx, NOx and VOC are 100 tons/year, 100 tons/year, 100 tons/year and 50 tons/year, respectively. The EPA has also established a de minimis level of 100 tons/year for PM2.5.


The construction phase (and demolition of components of the existing site) would result in an increase in temporary emissions from construction equipment, over a period of approximately 9 to 12 months, ending when construction was completed. The assessment of criteria pollutant emissions from construction was estimated to include all emissions from construction vehicles and equipment. A summary is provided in Table 2: Construction Emissions Inventory Summary. The emissions inventory is located in Appendix B.

Table 2. Construction Emissions Inventory Summary

Emissions Inventory of Criteria Pollutants (tons per year)

CO Carbon Monoxide

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

NOx

Nitrogen Oxides

SOx

Sulfur Oxides

PM10

Particulate Matter, 10 microns

Project Construction Emissions

2.17 7.59 5.08 0.45 0.55

NAAQS Threshold levels for Nonattainment Area

100 50 100 100 100

Emissions associated with the operation of the gasoline dispensing facilities are also anticipated. These are likely to include evaporative emissions associated with the filling of USTs (where gasoline vapors in the tank are displaced to the atmosphere by gasoline being loaded in to the tank), evaporative emissions resulting from UST breathing (caused by evaporation and barometric pressure change), evaporative emissions from vehicle refueling activity (where vapors inside the automobile tank are displaced by dispensed gasoline), and fuel spillage (from prefill and postfill nozzle drip, spit-back, and vehicle tank overflow). Evaporative emissions from gasoline dispensing facilities across the region have been minimized by strict requirements enacted by the EPA and the VDEQ. These regulations require submerged tank filling (or bottom filling), where the pipe discharge opening is entirely submerged when the liquid level is six inches above the bottom of the tank [9 Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 5-40-5210]. For gas stations with a monthly throughput of 100,000 gallons or more (such as both the existing station and the proposed station), the gasoline dispensing facility must also operate a vapor balance system, in which the fueling truck retrieves the vapors displaced during filling (9 VAC 5-40-5220-5230). According to the EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors (AP-42), Volume I, Chapter 5, the combination of submerged filling and the vapor balance system typically reduces discharge into the atmosphere of at least 90 percent, by weight, of VOC emissions. These practices are commonly referred to as Stage I Vapor Recovery Requirements. Other regulations include Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems, which were required by the 1990 Amendments to the CAA in many ozone nonattainment areas. The Stage II systems were designed to reduce gasoline vapor emissions containing VOCs that were released by vehicle refueling activities. The Stage II systems collected these vapors at the vehicle fill pipe and returned them to the UST through the use of a special hose and nozzle. However, with the development and widespread use of onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems (designed to transfer gas vapors from the tank to an activated carbon canister which absorbs the vapors until the engine is in operation, at which point the vapors are drawn through an intake manifold to be used as fuel), Stage II systems have become redundant. On May 9, 2012 the EPA waived the statutory requirement for Stage II vapor recovery systems, citing the fact that ORVR equipment had be phased in on all new passenger vehicles since 1998, and in 2001 for light and heavy duty trucks. The EPA estimates that ORVR equipment has been installed on 99 percent of all new vehicles since 2006. The existing station does not currently utilize Stage II equipment, and the use of stage II equipment will not be required for the proposed new station.


To estimate the operational emissions of the proposed action, evaporative emissions factors from the EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors (AP-42), Volume I were applied to actual and projected fuel throughput volumes of the existing and proposed station, to calculate VOC emissions. The results are included in Table 3: Operational Air Emissions. Additional information can be found in Appendix B. Because the replacement of the existing station will likely result in an increased capacity for fuel sales, and projected sales are unknown due to market fluctuations, two future scenarios were considered for this analysis: Scenario 1 assumes an overall increase in gasoline sales of 10 percent over the current (2014) sales; Scenario 2 assumes a 20 percent future increase.

Table 3. Operational Air Emissions

Annual

Throughput (gallons)

VOC Emissions (tons per year)

Filling of Tank1

Tank Breathing1

Vehicle Refueling2

Spills1 Total

Existing Station (2014 actual)

5,637,261 0.85 2.82 4.37 1.97 10.01

10 percent future increase3

6,200,987 0.93 3.10 4.81 2.17 11.01

Increase over 2014 563,726 0.08 0.28 0.44 0.20 1.00

20 percent future increase3

6,764,713 1.01 3.38 5.24 2.37 12.01

Increase over 2014 1,127,452 0.16 0.56 0.87 0.40 2.00

EPA de minimis threshold for VOC 100 1Based on emissions factors published in the EPA publication AP-42, Table 5.2.7, Evaporative Emissions from Gasoline

Service Station Operations 2Assuming a 85.9 percent efficiency for VOC reduction using ORVR, as indicated by EPA testing (EPA, 2011, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking. Air Quality: Widespread Use of ORVR Recovery and Stage II Waiver) 3Based on 2014 actual throughput

The EPA has determined that projects having de minimis emissions would not be likely to cause an exceedance of any NAAQS, and therefore are presumed to be consistent with the applicable SIP. Because the projected emissions considered for each growth scenario are well under the EPA de minimis threshold, the proposed action is not expected to result in any significant air quality impacts. NEPA (a) Is the airport’s activity levels below the FAA thresholds for requiring a National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) analysis? (If Yes, document activity levels and go to Item 2, No, go to (b)). No, however the emissions associated with proposed action were determined to be below the de minimis thresholds (see Table 2). Therefore, a NAAQS analysis is not required. The proposed action will not result in any delay in attainment of any NAAQS, nor would it worsen any existing NAAQS violation. (b) Do pollutant concentrations exceed NAAQS thresholds? (Attach emissions inventory). No. See Emissions Inventory in Appendix B. (c) Is an air quality analysis needed with regard to state indirect source review? No.


(B) BIOTIC RESOURCES Describe the potential of the proposed project to directly or indirectly impact plant communities and/or the displacement of wildlife. (This answer should also reference Section T, Wetlands, if jurisdictional water bodies are present). The proposed project will have very little impact on plant communities or wildlife. The site of the proposed project was constructed as a remote parking lot over 30 years ago, and has remained in that use with very little change. The proposed project will result in only minor impacts to previously undisturbed ground associated with the right-in/right-out access; therefore impacts to any biotic resources or habitat will be minor. (C) COASTAL RESOURCES (a) Would the proposed project occur in a coastal zone, or affect the use of a coastal resource, as defined by your state's Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP)? Explain. No. The proposed project is located in Loudoun County which is not located within the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Coastal Zone. (b) If Yes, is the project consistent with the State's CZMP? (If applicable, attach the sponsor's consistency certification and the state's concurrence of that certification). The proposed project is not located within the Coastal Zone. (c) Is the location of the proposed project within the Coastal Barrier Resources System? (If Yes, and the project would receive federal funding, coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and attach record of consultation). No. The proposed project is not within the Coastal Barrier Resources System. (D) COMPATIBLE LAND USE (a) Would the proposed project result in other (besides noise) impacts that have land use ramifications, such as disruption of communities, relocation of residences or businesses, or impact natural resource areas? Explain. The area surrounding the airport is zoned for a variety of uses including agriculture/low density residential, light/heavy industrial, industrial/office parks, and retail/commercial uses. The Airports Authority routinely works with both Loudoun County and Fairfax County authorities to ensure that proper zoning and other necessary land use controls are put into place near the airport, to protect against incompatible uses. This includes the adoption of zoning laws, to the reasonable extent possible, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate area of the airport to activities compatible with normal airport operation. The project will be constructed entirely on airport property and will not disrupt any communities, relocate residences or businesses, or impact natural resource areas in the vicinity of IAD.


(b) Would the proposed project be located near or create a wildlife hazard as defined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, "Wildlife Hazards On and Near Airports?" Explain. The proposed project would be located near the existing Dulles Lake, which is considered a wildlife hazard as defined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, “Wildlife Hazards On and Near Airports.” However, the construction and operation of the proposed facility would not introduce any additional wildlife hazards, or affect Dulles Lake in any way. (E) CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS Would construction of the proposed project increase ambient noise levels due to equipment operation; degrade local air quality due to dust, equipment exhausts and burning debris; deteriorate water quality when erosion and pollutant runoff occur; and/or disrupt off-site and local traffic patterns? Explain. Overall, the construction phase of the Proposed Action is expected to create minor and temporary impacts in the immediate area. These impacts will be short-term, lasting only for the duration of the construction activities (and demolition of components of the existing station) over a period of approximately 9 to 12 months. It is expected that construction noise will be localized to the proposed project site, and the site of the existing station. The equipment used, including all heavy construction equipment, will create localized increases in noise levels. Any temporary noise impacts will not exceed noise levels of the airport, therefore, no impacts to surrounding land use or airport operations are expected. Construction is not expected to adversely affect air quality. Emissions from construction equipment will be temporary and limited to the duration of the construction project. The SIP includes an allowance for construction emissions region-wide. There will be no open burning of debris at the project site. Also, during construction, fugitive dust will be kept to a minimum by using applicable control methods outlined in 9 VAC 5-10-10 et seq. of the Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution, including timely applications of water and implementation of best management practices. Contractors will be required to provide an erosion and sediment control plan that complies with the latest version of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and General Criteria, including the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, as required in the Authority Design Manual. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for construction activities will also be required. Water quality is not expected to be adversely affected from either erosion or runoff as a result of the Proposed Action. During the construction period, construction-related vehicles will be traversing the airport access roads and internal roadways to deliver materials and equipment and to transport construction workers to their job sites. The use of public access roads will be minimized and coordinated with the Airports Authority. The use of internal roadways will be maximized to limit the disruption on the public use roadways. This may create a slight increase in traffic congestion, but significant delays are not expected. (F) SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES Does the proposed project have an impact on any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or an historic site of national, state, or local significance? (If Yes, contact FAA, contact appropriate agency and attach record of consultation).


There are no public parks, recreation areas, or wildlife or waterfowl refuges subject to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 303 et seq.) of 1966 or Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 4601 et seq.) of 1965 directly or indirectly affected by this project. The project does not have any impact to historic sites of significance at the national, state, or local scale. The project will occur within the airport boundaries and will conform to the provisions of the Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan. No adverse impacts to Section 4(f) resources are expected. (G) ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES (a) Would the proposed project impact any federally or state-listed or proposed, endangered, or threatened species of flora and fauna, or impact critical habitat? (Attach record of consultation with federal and state agencies as appropriate). The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), as amended, is administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered species of animals and plants, and the habitats in which they are found. Endangered species are those that are in danger of extinction through all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened species are those that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. Online consultation with the USFWS was initiated on February 9, 2015, during which the USFWS Virginia Ecological Services Field Office provided a database listing of known threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat that may occur within the boundary of the proposed project, or may be affected by the proposed project. No listed species or critical habitats were identified within the vicinity of the Fuel and Convenience Concession Site project (Appendix C). The VDGIF, as the Commonwealth of Virginia’s wildlife and freshwater fish management agency, exercises enforcement and regulatory jurisdiction over wildlife and freshwater fish species in Virginia, including state or federally listed endangered or threatened species. The VDGIF is responsible for determining likely impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and habitat, and recommending appropriate measures to avoid, reduce, or compensate those impacts. According to VDGIF records, the state-listed threatened wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) and state-listed threatened upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) have been documented in the vicinity of the project area. However, based on the scope and location of the proposed work, and the fact that the majority of the project will occur on previously disturbed grounds, no adverse impacts to either of these species are anticipated. A copy of the VDGIF records are included in Appendix C. (b) Would the proposed project affect species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act? (If Yes, contact FAA). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. § 703-712), as amended, prohibits the taking or attempting to take any migratory bird, nest egg, or parts thereof, except as permitted by the USFWS. It is unlikely that any migratory birds protected under the MBTA breed or nest in the proposed project site, because the existing site is currently paved, and used as a parking lot. The Proposed Action is not expected to adversely affect migratory birds.


(H) ENERGY SUPPLIES, NATURAL RESOURCES AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN What effect would the proposed project have on energy or other natural resource consumption? (Attach record of consultations with local public utilities or suppliers if appropriate.) The Proposed Action would not significantly change energy consumption beyond current levels. The proposed expanded station will allow for increased fuel sales, and therefore result in an increase of approximately 10 to 20 percent over the existing sales volume. However, this increase is not expected to result in noticeable changes to regional fuel sales or availability in this area of Loudoun County. The project will connect to existing airport utilities (including water, sewer, gas, electric, and telecommunications), all of which are within 250 feet of the proposed project site. Utility connections will be constructed as part of the construction of the project. (I) ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Would the proposed project have a disproportionate impact on minority and/or low-income communities? Consider human health, social, economic, and environmental issues in your evaluation. Explain. Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” requires federal agencies to consider the environmental and human health effects of their policies, procedures, and projects on minority and low-income populations. Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, or incomes, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Each federal agency was mandated to make environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Department of Transportation (DOT) issued Order 5610.2 on April 15, 1997 confirming the agency’s compliance with Executive Order 12898, stating that “it is the policy of DOT to promote the principles of environmental justice (as embodied in the Executive Order) through the incorporation of those principles in all DOT programs, policies, and activities.” Table 4. Population by Race

Population White Black or African

American

American Indian

and Alaska Native

Asian

Native Hawaiian and Other

Pacific Islander

Hispanic/ Latino*

Two or More Races

Loudoun County

312,311 68.7% 7.3% 0.3% 14.7% 0.1% 12.4% 4.0%

Virginia 8,001,031 68.6% 19.4% 0.4% 5.5% 0.1% 8.2% 2.9% (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) *Hispanic/Latino populations can be of any race A low income or minority community exists when the percentage of people in a minority group, or living in poverty within the area under consideration is significantly greater than the region. The U.S. Census Bureau defines six minority groups on the basis of race: Black or African American, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Other Single Race, and Two or More Races. The demographic data from the county where the Proposed Action is located was used to describe the characteristics of the surrounding population. The overall racial distribution in the vicinity of the project site, as shown in Table 3, is 68.7% white, 7.3% black, 14.7% Asian, 0.3% American Indian/Alaska Native, 0.1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 12.4% Hispanic/Latino, and 4.0% multi-racial, with an overall population of 312,311 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).


Table 5. Percentage in Poverty

2009-2013 Median

Household Income ($)

2007-2011 % Individuals

Below Poverty Line

Loudoun County

$122,238 5.5%

Virginia $63,907 10.7% (Source: 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates)

Low-income populations were defined as the number of people living in poverty, according to the 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table 4 shows the percentage of the population living in poverty in Loudoun County. The median household income for Loudoun County was $122,238, well above the median household income of $63,907 for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Since the proposed project will occur within the IAD property boundary, it will not result in any adverse human health or environmental effects to minority or low-income populations. The area in the vicinity of the proposed project is not considered a minority community or a low-income area. The Proposed Action will not adversely affect minority and low-income populations within the surrounding area. Since the proposed project involves construction located entirely within the airport boundary, the proposed fuel and convenience store will not result in the relocation of residences and businesses or disrupt established communities or planned development. (J) FARMLANDS Does the project involve acquisition of farmland, or use of farmland, that would be converted to non-agricultural use and is protected by the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act? (If Yes, attach record of coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, including form AD-1006.) The Proposed Action project area is not protected by the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq.) of 1981, and no formal consultation is required for land that was purchased prior to August 6, 1984 (FAA, 1985). Therefore, the lands at IAD do not qualify as prime or unique farmland, and no impacts are expected. (K) FLOODPLAINS (a) Would the proposed project be located in, or would it encroach upon, any 100-year floodplains, as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)? FEMA designated 100-year floodplains are present in the southern portion of the project area, along an unnamed tributary to Horsepen Run. A crossing of the unnamed tributary and floodplains are planned in this area, to provide right-in/right-out access to the proposed fuel and concession site. The impact will be minor, and the stream crossing will be designed so as not to result in any net change to upstream or downstream flood elevations. (b) If Yes, attach the corresponding FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and describe the measures to be taken to comply with Executive Order 11988. 100-year floodplains are depicted on Figure 5: FEMA Floodplain Map (FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map number 51107C0380D). Impacts to the 100-year floodplain are minor (less than a tenth of an acre), and will not result in increased risk of flood loss, impacts on human safety, health and welfare, and will not affect the overall value or function of the floodplain. Because the mapped floodplain area runs along the entire southern border of the proposed site, there is no way to provide right-in/right-out access without crossing the


floodplain. The proposed access road crossing will be designed so as not to block or impede the passage of normal or high flows of the stream, and will not affect upstream or downstream flood elevations. Floodplain coordination will occur as part of the permitting process, once a final design has been prepared. The crossing will be designed in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards and guidelines. (L) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the proposed project involve the use of land that may contain hazardous materials or cause potential contamination from hazardous materials? (If Yes, attach record of consultation with appropriate agencies). Explain. There is no evidence of any hazardous materials concerns associated with the proposed site, as it has been utilized as a parking lot for the past 30 plus years. Prior to construction of the parking lot, the site was used as an agricultural field. Due to the past use of the site, no adverse impact is expected at the site of the proposed fuel and convenience concession site. Because of the existence of four 10,000 gallon USTs at the existing gas station site, the potential for encountering hazardous materials during the closure and removal of these tanks is possible. However, there are no records of any releases or tank leakage occurring at this site, therefore the potential for encountering hazardous materials is limited. The existing leaseholder will be responsible for the removal of the existing USTs, piping, pumps, and any equipment which may have stored hazardous chemicals, in accordance with all state and federal laws and regulations. Within 30 days of the removal of this equipment, the existing leaseholder will also be responsible for testing the physical condition of the premises to determine if any petroleum products are present (in excess of regulated limits). If any contamination is identified, the existing leaseholder will be responsible for performing corrective actions to the satisfaction of the VDEQ. As a standard operating procedure, if contaminated soil is encountered during construction or tank removal activities, dependent upon the type and extent of contamination, the Airports Authority will notify VDEQ to determine if additional actions are required at that time As with all USTs in Virginia, the tanks associated with the existing and proposed gas stations are regulated by the VDEQ. The technical requirements for USTs are included in Virginia regulation 9 VAC 25-580 et seq. entitled "Underground Storage Tanks: Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements." These regulation require all regulated USTs to have spill containment provisions at the fill pipe; overfill devices to alert the owner when overfills may occur; corrosion protection on both tank and product lines; release detection on both tank and product lines; and, demonstrate sufficient financial responsibility to respond to potential releases. The proposed site will also require oil/water separates, in accordance with the Airports Authority’s design standards, which will isolate and collect any oil or gasoline contaminates from the stormwater leaving the site. Other hazardous materials, including retail-sized containers of motor oil, additives, or other automotive fluids would likely be stored and sold at the site during operation of the new facility. Any concerns resulting from the storage or use of these products would be negligible.


(M) HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL PROPERTY (a) Describe any impact the proposed project might have on any properties in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. (Include a record of your consultation and response with the State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (S/THPO). The proposed project is located adjacent to, but outside of the National Register-eligible Dulles Airport Historic District. Because the existing gas station and store are modern structures (built in 1996, and opened in 1997), they are not contributing elements of the Dulles Airport Historic District. Therefore, the proposed demolition would not have the potential to affect the historic district. On June 25, 2015, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), who serves as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the Commonwealth of Virginia concurred that the removal of the existing gas station would have no effect on the adjacent Dulles Airport Historic District, and offered conditional concurrence that the proposed fuel and convenience concession site would have no adverse effect on the Dulles Airport Historic District. This concurrence is conditional based on the review and approval by the SHPO of the final design plans once they become available. A copy of the SHPO coordination letter is included as Appendix D. (b) Describe any impacts to archeological resources as a result of the proposed project. (Include a record of consultation with persons or organizations with relevant expertise, including the S/THPO, if applicable). Because of the location of the proposed project within the existing Economy Blue Lot, there is no potential to encounter significant archeological artifacts. This area had previously been considered for a Consolidated Rental Car Facility (CRCF). As part of the preliminary planning for that facility the existing parking lot was the subject of an integrated archeological investigation to assess the potential for archeological resources below the current paved surface. These investigations included detailed archival research, standard shovel test pits around the periphery of the lot, and both geotechnical borings and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey of the paved surfaces. Based on the results of the survey it was concluded that the potential for archeological resources under the parking lot was minimal and that no additional archeological investigations were warranted. Based on the results of the previous study, the current project has been determined to have no potential to effect archeological resources. The SHPO concurred with this determination on June 25, 2015. A copy of the SHPO coordination letter is included as Appendix D. (N) INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS Would the proposed project cause induced, or secondary, socioeconomic impacts to surrounding communities, such as change business and economic activity in a community; impact public service demands; induce shifts in population movement and growth, etc.? Explain. No induced socioeconomic impacts are expected as a result of this project. The proposed project is located entirely on airport property and will not result in the relocation of residences or disrupt established communities or planned development. The project will not induce shifts in population movement or growth. (O) LIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL EFFECTS Would the proposed project have the potential for airport-related lighting impacts on nearby residents? Explain.


Exterior lighting will be provided as part of the proposed project; however, the proposed lighting will not result in increased or intrusive light emissions that affect sensitive off-airport land uses or aircraft operations. The proposed project site is located within the airport boundaries away from sensitive off-airport receptors, and screening provided by the buffer zone of vegetation around the airport would shield adjacent properties from existing and proposed light sources. The existing service station, and parking lot where the new station is proposed are both currently lighted, so the net change will be negligible. (P) NOISE Will the project, when compared to the No Action alternative for the same timeframe, cause noise sensitive areas located at or above DNL 65 dB to experience a noise increase of at least DNL 1.5 dB? (Use AEM as a screening tool and INM as appropriate. See Airports Desk Reference, Chapter 17, for further guidance). The proposed fuel and convenience concession site will not create new or additional noise impacts to noise sensitive areas. The project does not include: new or extended runways and taxiways; navigational aid installation; land purchases for airport-related uses; substantial amounts of airport construction or demolition activities; substantial changes in aircraft operations involving numbers of aircraft, aircraft types, new or revised approach or departure profiles or tracks; or new or relocated airport access roadways (with the exception of a right-in/right-out access from Rudder Road). Furthermore, the proposed fuel and concessions site will create similar noise levels as the existing site, which are well within background noise levels created by existing aircraft operations and the extensive airport road network. Temporary noise created from construction would also be unnoticeable to potential receptors given the distance to those receptors and the background noise from the airport. (Q) SOCIAL IMPACTS Would the proposed project cause an alteration in surface traffic patterns, or cause a noticeable increase in surface traffic congestion or decrease in Level of Service? The proposed fuel and convenience concession site is not expected to adversely affect surface traffic patterns or result in a noticeable increase in surface traffic congestion outside of IAD boundaries. It will be located directly across Ariane Way from the existing fuel and convenience concession site, and share a similar primary access point from Ariane Way as the existing facility. The existing station also has a right-in/right-out access from Rudder Road, so the change in traffic patterns will be minor. (R) SOLID WASTE Would the operation and/or construction of the project generate significant amounts of solid waste? If Yes, are local disposal facilities capable of handling the additional volumes of waste resulting from the project? Explain. The operation and construction of the proposed fuel and convenience concession site are not expected to generate significant amounts of solid waste. Local disposal facilities are capable of handling any additional volumes requiring offsite disposal. Disposal of any solid wastes will be in accordance with all state and local regulations. Disposal of USTs and other equipment associated with the existing fueling station will be the sole responsibility of the existing leaseholder.


(S) WATER QUALITY (a) Does the proposed project have the potential to impact water quality, including ground water, surface water bodies, and public water supply system or federal, state or tribal water quality standards? (If Yes, contact appropriate agency and include record of consultation). All projects involving land-disturbing activity subject to the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law (§10.1-560 et seq. as amended), and the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations (9VAC25-840 et seq. as amended) are bound by the Airports Authority’s Annual Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control, which are submitted to the VDEQ for review and approval on an annual basis. These standards and specifications apply to all plan design, construction, and maintenance activities undertaken by the Airports Authority or contracted to external entities. The Annual Standards and Specifications require a site specific erosion and sediment control plan that must be reviewed and approved by the Airports Authority prior to any ground disturbing activity.

Permanent stormwater management will also be required, in accordance with Virginia standards. Stormwater from the existing parking lot is drained via sheetflow to two collection points on the south perimeter of the site, where it then drains into a tributary of Horsepen Run, ultimately draining into Horsepen Lake. The redevelopment of this site into the proposed fuel and convenience concession site, however, will require the Lessee to comply with the new VDEQ Stormwater Management regulations for quantity and quality under 9VAC 25-870. This will result in a net improvement to the runoff water quality, as it will replace older stormwater management systems designed as part of the existing Blue Lot. Additional features and treatment such as oil/water separators will also be added to the site, in accordance with the Authority’s Design Manual, to address the change of type and intensity of use. (b) Is the project to be located over a designated Sole Source Aquifer? (If Yes, attach record of consultation with EPA). The proposed fuel and convenience concession site is not located over a designated Sole Source Aquifer. (T) WETLANDS (a) Does the proposed project involve federal or state regulated or non-jurisdictional wetlands? (Contact USFWS or state agency if protected resources are affected) (Wetlands must be delineated using methods in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Delineations must be performed by a person certified in wetlands delineation). The proposed right-in/right-out access to the new fuel and convenience concession site will impact an open drainage swale immediately outside of the southern boundary of the project site. The wetland areas are shown on Figure 6: Jurisdictional Wetland Areas. This drainage swale was determined to be a jurisdictional wetland by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as part of a wetland survey conducted prior to the widening of Rudder Road. And additional wetland area is located east of the project site; however this area is located outside the limits of disturbance for this project. Although the project design is still conceptual, worst-case wetland impacts are anticipated to be approximately 0.05 acre (approximately 2,000 square feet). (b) If yes, does the project qualify for an Army Corps of Engineers General permit? (Document coordination with USACE). Wetland impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to be minor (less than one-tenth of an acre), and will therefore qualify under the USACE Regional Programmatic General Permit (12-SPGP-01),


for “Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Development Activities”. This Regional Permit authorizes the discharge of dredged or fill material into non-tidal waters of the United States, including wetlands, within the geographical limits of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Because the proposed impacts are less than one-tenth of an acre, mitigation is not required under the terms of this permit. (U) WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Would the proposed project affect a river segment that is listed in the Wild and Scenic River System or National Rivers Inventory? (If Yes, coordinate with the jurisdictional agency and attach record of consultation). The proposed fuel and convenience concession site project would not affect any portion of a Wild and Scenic River listed on the Wild and Scenic River Inventory. The nearest State designated Scenic River, Goose Creek, is located approximately five miles northwest of IAD. (V) CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Discuss impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects both on and off the airport. Would the proposed project produce a cumulative effect on any of the environmental impact categories above? Consider projects that are connected and may have common timing and/or location. For purposes of this Form, generally use 3 years for past projects and 5 years for future foreseeable projects. The secondary and cumulative effects analysis was developed in compliance with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 1508.25(c)). Cumulative effects are defined by the Council on Environmental Quality as “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” (40 C.F.R. 1508.7). Recently completed or ongoing projects within the past three years at IAD include:

Taxiway Z and Taxilane C Reconstruction: Reconstruction of Taxiway Z, Section 2, located

between Taxiway E and Taxiway Y9, for a length of approximately 1,300 feet (97,500 square feet), and reconstruction of Taxilane C, Section 1, starting immediately east of Taxiway Z, extending approximately 1,050 feet (105,000 square feet). Construction beganin late 2014, and is expected to becompleted in July 2015. A Categorical Exclusion was approved for this project in 2014, and it will not result in any meaningful environmental impacts.

Route 28 Bridge over the Dulles Airport Access Road Bridge Widening: VDOT under a Public Private Partnership is currently widening the Route 28 bridge over the Dulles Airport Access Road, in the northeast portion of IAD. The bridge widening project is a precursor to future widening of Route 28 from 6 to 8 lanes, and will only widen the bridge structure (in advance of the Metro Rail line being constructed). The bridge project will not increase the number of lanes on Route 28. Construction began in early 2015. No NEPA document was prepared for this project, as it was determined to not constitute a federal action

Dominion Substation Expansion: Construction of a substation expansion in the area to the east of

the existing Dulles Airport substation, and construction of six underground distribution circuits to connect to the existing regional distribution network. Construction began in late 2014, and is expected to last for approximately nine months. A Finding of No Significant Impact was issued in October 2014 for this project, as it will not result in any meaningful environmental impacts other than temporary impacts associated with construction.


United Airlines Maintenance Hangar: United Airlines constructed an aircraft maintenance facility

on an approximately 8-acre site at the north end of the airport, adjacent to existing hangar sites. The project included approximately 93,000 square feet of aircraft apron, an additional 103,000 square feet of hangar space, and other improvements. Construction was completed in early 2014. An EA document was prepared, which did not identify any significant environmental impacts. A FONSI was issued by the FAA in 2012.

Snow Equipment Storage Facility: Construction of a snow equipment storage facility adjacent to Stonecroft Boulevard on the south airfield of IAD, between Gate 313 and existing airport maintenance facilities. The building will maintain snow equipment in a ready condition and protect the equipment from ultraviolet (UV) light deterioration. Construction was completed in the Summer of 2014. A Categorical Exclusion was approved for this project in 2013, and it will not result in any meaningful environmental impacts.

Historic Air Traffic Control Tower Exterior Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation of the historic Air Traffic Control Tower was completed to stabilize the historic resource that was part of the original airport construction, and to allow for potential future adaptive reuse. The project included refinishing exterior surfaces of the tower and replacing the old Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE) enclosure on the top of the tower with a replica matching the appearance of the original historic radome. The project did not result in any meaningful environmental impacts.

As per guidance in FAA Order 5050.4B, Chapter 1, Paragraph 9.q, the following projects are considered reasonably foreseeable actions that warrant consideration as part of the cumulative effect assessment, and have been developed with enough specificity to provide some level of meaningful information in this analysis:

Police Range and Training Facility: Construction of a police range and training facility in the southern portion of the airport, south of the Automated People Mover Vehicle Maintenance Facility. The proposed facility will include one 300-yard range, two 50-yard ranges, one 98-foot by 60-foot modular training building, and ammunition storage building, gravel access roads, a gravel parking lot, and utility connections. Construction is expected to begin in the summer of 2015. A Short Environmental Assessment Form was recently completed, and a Finding of No Significant Impact is expected within the next few months, as it will not result in any meaningful environmental impacts.

Exterior Renovation of Cargo Buildings 1-4: Rehabilitation of the landside exterior of cargo buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4 to include demolition of existing portions of canopy roofing, flashings, edge metal and fascia, cleaning/repair of structural steel framing and installation of a new roofing system, roof drains, and lightning protection. Construction is currently unscheduled at this time. The project will not result in any environmental impacts other than temporary impacts associated with construction.

Dulles Metro Rail Project: A 23-mile extension to the existing Metro Rail system. It will be operated by WMATA and run from East Falls Church to IAD. This project includes 11 new Metro Rail stations, a new rail yard on Dulles Airport property, and improvements to an existing rail yard in West Falls Church. A “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project” was published in 2004, and the “Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project – Phase 2 Preliminary Engineering Design Refinements Environmental Assessment” was published in April 2012. The project is expected to be completed in 2016. The Rail Project has the potential to affect wetlands, traffic patterns, noise and vibration, land use, and historic resources, but a Record of Decision with mitigation measures (Federal Transit Administration, 2006) has been issued for the entirety of the project. Although air quality impacts were mentioned in the Rail EIS, it was determined that the


total operation emissions for Dulles Airport are below minimum levels and conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Route 606 Loudoun County Boulevard/Old Ox Road Reconstruction: VDOT has proposed a project to improve the capacity and safety of Route 606 in Loudoun County, and to provide a critical leg of the proposed Dulles Loop by widening the existing two-lane roadway to a four-lane roadway with divided median and signalized intersections. A construction date has not yet been established for this project. An EA document was prepared which did not identify any significant environmental impacts. Although impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands were noted, the project will require a State Programmatic General Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in which mitigation measures will be identified for the impacted resources. The Federal Highway Administration issued a FONSI is 2013.

Route 28 Corridor Project: VDOT under a Public Private Partnership intends to widen Route 28 in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia. The proposed project will include widening the existing Route 28 from six to eight lanes. The project limits extend from north of the intersection of Route 50 and Route 28 to north of the intersection of Sterling Boulevard and Route 28. Approximately 5 miles of the project is located adjacent to or within the Dulles International Airport property. These improvements will increase the capacity of Route 28 and improve the Level of Service (LOS) through the corridor. Some minor adjustments to the current Airports Authority easement for Route 28 are anticipated to be necessary, therefore Federal Aviation Administration authorization and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation is required. No federal funds are anticipated for use on this project. Funding for this project has not yet been finalized, so a projected start-finish date is not available at this time.

Taxilane B Reconstruction and Widening (East Section): Reconstruction and widening of Taxilane B, which is original Dulles pavement. The reconstructed pavement limits are approximately 75 feet wide by 4,400 feet long, and include the entire length of Taxilane B. The pavement will be widened approximately 35 feet to the north to accommodate ADG VI aircraft on a new centerline positioned 30 feet north. Construction on the East section, between Taxiway J to Gate A19 (for approximately 1,000 feet) was initiated in June 2015 and is expected to last one year. The remaining sections are not currently scheduled for construction. A Categorical Exclusion was approved for this project in January 2015, and it will not result in any meaningful environmental impacts.

The Proposed Action in combination with the reasonably foreseeable and recently completed federal projects comprise a small portion of the current and planned development activity in the Dulles region. It expected that the effects of the Proposed Action, when added to the effects of other proposed projects in the region will not result in a level of impact that exceed thresholds of significance. 7. PERMITS List all required permits for the proposed project. Has coordination with the appropriate agency commenced and what is the expected time frame of receiving a permit? Under Article 9 of the Virginia State Water Control Law, permits are required for the removal and installation of all USTs. The successful lessee will be responsible for filing these, or any additional permits with VDEQ. It is anticipated that a USACE Regional Programmatic General Permit (12-SPG-01) will be required for the proposed crossing of a tributary to Horsepen Run and minor wetland impacts associated with the proposed right-in/right-out access ramp from Rudder Road to the new facility. This permit will be the responsibility of the successful lessee, and must be acquired prior to construction.


The redevelopment of the premises will require the lessee to comply with the new VDEQ Stormwater Management regulations for quantity and quality under 9VAC 25-870. The additional detention for quality and quantity will be required to be developed onsite. Additional features and treatment such as oil/water separators will have to be added in accordance with the Authority’s Design Manual to address the change of type and intensity of use. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be required prior to beginning land disturbing activities. A Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration pursuant to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 77 will also be filed with the FAA to verify the Proposed Action does not alter the efficient use of the navigable airspace. The proposed project will require an update to the IAD Airport Layout Plan (ALP). 8. MITIGATION Describe those mitigation measures to be taken to avoid creation of significant impacts to a particular resource as a result of the proposed project, and include a discussion of any impacts that cannot be mitigated.

Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures will also be used during clearing and construction to prevent runoff from active construction areas. The design team will be expected to make every effort to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive environmental areas.

9. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Describe the public review process and any comments received. This draft Environmental Assessment is to be made available for a 30-day public review period. Any comments received during the review period will be addressed accordingly.

Proposed Fuel and Convenience Concession Site Figure 1 – Project Vicinity Map

June 2015

As Shown

N

= Project Location

Proposed Fuel and Convenience Concession Site Figure 2: Location Map

June 2015

NTS

Proposed Fuel and Convenience Concession Site Figure 3 – Site Overview

June 2015

NTS

N

N

RUDDER ROAD

AU

TO

PIL

OT

DR

IVE

Proposed Fuel and Convenience

Store Site

Existing Station

Option / Expansion

Area

Rental Car Returns

Economy Parking Egress

Blue Lot

Green Lot

Cell Phone Lot

Alternative Site #2 (eliminated

from further consideration)

AR

IAN

E W

AY

Proposed Fuel and Convenience Concession Site Figure 4 – Conceptual Site Layout

June 2015

NTS

N

Proposed Fuel and Convenience Concession Site - Figure 5 – FEMA Floodplain Map

Project Location

Proposed Fuel and Convenience Concession Site Figure 6 – Jurisdictional Wetland Areas

June 2015

NTS

N

Proposed Site

Existing Gas

Station

Economy Blue Lot

Potential location of right-in/right-

out access

Appendix A:

References

REFERENCES

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (1972). Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq. (1972). Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of National

Environmental Policy Act, 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508 (1978). Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 303 et seq. (1966). Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (1973). Environmental Protection Agency Region III Soul Source Aquifers. (2013). Retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/presentations/ssa/index.htm Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 3 C.F.R. Part 1198 (1977). Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations, Low

Income Communities and Low Income Population 3 C.F.R Part 12898 (1994). Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq. (1981). Federal Aviation Administration. (1985). FAA Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook,

Federal Aviation Administration.

Federal Aviation Administration. (2005). Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for New Runways, Terminal Facilities and Related Facilities at Washington Dulles International Airport. http://www.mwaa.com/dulles/991.htm

Federal Aviation Administration. (2013). Short Environmental Assessment Form for Airport

Development Projects, Washington Dulles International Airport, United Airlines Hangar. Dulles, VA. Retrieved from http://www.wmata.com/community_outreach/R12-01_landing/Dulles_EA- 01.pdf

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2001). Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel Number

51107C0380D Federal Transit Administration. (2006). Amended Record of Decision, Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project.

Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Dulles_Amended _ROD_w_Attachments.doc.

Federal Transit Administration. (2012). Finding of No Significant Impact, Dulles Corridor Metrorail

Project, Phase II Preliminary Engineering Design Refinements. Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from http://www.dullesmetro.com/documents/DCMP-2-FTA-FONSI-(17-Dec-12).pdf

Land and Water Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 4601 et seq. (1965). Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. (1918). National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4231 et seq. (1969).

National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C § 470 et seq. (1966). The International Council on Clean Transportation (2011), Freda Fung and Bob Maxwell. Working Paper

2011-12. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery: Evaluation of the ORVR Program in the United States.

United States Census Bureau. (2010). American Fact Finder. Loudoun County. Retrieved from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51/51059.html United States Census Bureau. 2009-2013 American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2008). Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors

(AP-42), Volume I, Chapter 5. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011). Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Air Quality:

Widespread Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recover and Stage II Waiver. Federal Register. United States Department of Transportation. (2012). Final DOT Environmental Justice Order, Order

5610.2(a). Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/ej_at_dot/order_56102a/

Virginia Administrative Code. Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution. 9 VAC 5-10-

10 et seq.

Virginia Administrative Code. Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution. 9 VAC 5-40- 5200 et seq.

Virginia Code. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Section 10.1-2100 et seq. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. (1999). Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control

Handbook, First Edition.

Appendix B:

Emissions Inventory

Assumptions: If different assumptions are used, enter them in the gray boxes

* cutback asphalts would be medium cured (MC-30 type, 40% solvent and 70% solvent would be vaporized as VOC, ie 28% VOC)* solvent is assumed to be kerosene with a density of 6.8 lb/gal (1.8 lb/L) 1.8 lb/L* application rate estimates for liquefied asphalt are taken from the taxiway pavement used for Mid-American Airport project:

tack coat: 0.076 liter/m2 3% VOCprime coat: 1.589 liter/m2 28% VOC

Results: ENTER YOUR INFORMATION IN YELLOW CELLS. INSERT ROWS AS NEEDED, BUT BE SURE TOTAL IS CORRECT.

PAVEMENT SURFACE AREA VOC VOC(yd2) (m2) (lbs) (tons)

21,000 17,559 14,134 70 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0

PAVING TOTAL 21,000 17,559 14,134 7

VOC Emissions from Asphalt Paving Activities

* emulsified asphalt (3% VOC) would be used for all tack coats* cutback ashpalt would be used for prime coats

PROJECTS OR PORTIONS OF PROJECTS

Access Road and Paved Lot

STD - C:\DONAHOO\PROJECTS\MISC\AIR_QUAL\Construction Emissions Spreadsheet 5/15/2015

IAD Fuel and Convenience Concession Site

Construction UsageProject Description Equipment (hrs) CO NOx VOC PM Aldehydes SOx

Paving Asphalt Pavers 700 278.62 896.81 53.37 78.36 17.41 80.97Drainage Pipe Instalation Plate Compactors 40 0.94 2.82 0.25 0.27 0.06 0.28Paving - Station Islands Concrete Pavers 200 178.13 390.56 43.77 35.08 7.80 36.25Aggregate Base Rollers 25 9.47 28.42 2.51 2.38 0.61 3.06

Scrapers 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Paving Paving Equipment 400 212.84 509.44 47.80 41.64 9.25 43.03Construction Signal Boards 80 4.34 6.94 1.06 0.87 0.17 0.81Underdrain/Utilities Trenchers 80 72.54 79.53 12.48 11.43 1.59 7.38

Bore/Drill Rigs 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Prepare base Excavators 600 717.49 1,483.27 98.38 198.69 27.60 128.32Sawcut joints Concrete/Indust. Saw 8 6.63 7.94 1.04 1.04 0.14 0.67Paving/construction Cement Mixers 400 24.99 59.81 5.62 4.89 1.09 5.05Buildings Cranes 500 386.21 947.13 118.90 132.41 18.39 85.52Final grading Graders 240 210.95 532.94 87.32 55.51 6.66 48.30contruction/transport Off-Highway Trucks 500 860.29 2,949.57 265.15 245.80 67.59 273.45Site prep Crushing/Proc. Equipment 250 502.30 601.12 78.78 78.62 10.92 50.78

Rough Terrain Lifts 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Rubber Tired Loaders 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Rubber Tired Dozer 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Construction Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 250 158.72 235.75 33.45 24.51 2.33 19.84Construction Crawler Tractors 180 173.45 372.20 46.72 40.11 6.14 30.72Construction Skid Steer Loader 550 252.09 268.89 60.02 40.33 5.60 26.05

Off-Highway Tractor 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Construction/transport Dumpers/Tenders 2200 118.69 406.95 36.58 61.04 8.48 37.73Building Materials Forklifts 250 163.56 377.86 43.27 43.18 5.67 25.10

Other Construction Equipment 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Paving Emissions XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX 14,134.03 XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

TOTAL (lbs): 4,332.26 10,157.94 15,170.53 1,096.18 197.51 903.30(tons): 2.17 5.08 7.59 0.55 0.10 0.45

Estimated Construction Activity Air Quality Emissions

Source: The above estimates were calculated using the methodology and information provided in theNonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study--Report, US EPA Doc 21A-2001, 1991.

Estimated Construction Time is 12 Months Approximately

Emissions (lbs)

STD - C:\DONAHOO\PROJECTS\MISC\AIR_QUAL\Construction Emissions Spreadsheet 5/15/2015

Estimate of Operational Air Quality Emissions

1 Based on emissions factors published in the EPA publication AP-42, Table 5.2.7, Evaporative Emissions from Gasoline Service Station Operations.


3 This calculation assumes a 85.9 percent efficiency for VOC reduction using ORVR, as indicated by EPA testing for 2016 (EPA, 2011, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Air Quality: Widespread Use of ORVR Recovery and Stage II Waiver). Uncontrolled displacement losses would be 11 lbs of VOC per 1,000 gallons based on EPA publication AP-42. Applying the 85.9 percent efficiency, the net result is 1.55 lbs of VOC per 1,000 gallons (or 0.00155 lbs per gallon).


Emissions

(pounds per

gallon)1

Pounds Tons

Emissions

(pounds per

gallon)2

Pounds Tons

Emissions

(pounds per

gallon)3

Pounds Tons

Emissions

(pounds per

gallon)4

Pounds Tons TOTAL5,637,261 0.0003 1,691 0.85 0.001 5637 2.82 0.00155 8,738 4.37 0.0007 3,946 1.97 10.01

6,200,987 0.0003 1,860 0.93 0.001 6201 3.10 0.00155 9,612 4.81 0.0007 4,341 2.17 11.01

6,764,713 0.0003 2,029 1.01 0.001 6765 3.38 0.00155 10,485 5.24 0.0007 4,735 2.37 12.01

Annual Gallons

of Throughput

Tank Breathing Refueling with ORVR System SpillageBalanced/Submerged Tank Filling

Excerpt from the 2008 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors (AP‐42)”:

Appendix C:

Threatened and Endangered Species Coordination

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEVirginia Ecological Services Field Office

6669 SHORT LANEGLOUCESTER, VA 23061

PHONE: (804)693-6694 FAX: (804)693-9032URL: www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/

Consultation Code: 05E2VA00-2015-SLI-0930 February 09, 2015Event Code: 05E2VA00-2015-E-00925Project Name: Proposed Fuel and Convenience Concession Site

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed projectlocation, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, aswell as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary ofyour proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfillsthe requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of theEndangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 ).et seq.

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution ofspecies, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free tocontact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts tofederally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed criticalhabitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 ofthe Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification canbe completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification becompleted by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning andimplementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requestedthrough the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosedlist.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species andthe ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2)of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 ), Federal agencies are requiredet seq.to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened andendangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangeredspecies and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings havingsimilar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of thehuman environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biologicalevaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project mayaffect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommendedcontents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation,that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, theagency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Servicerecommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressedwithin the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "EndangeredSpecies Consultation Handbook" at:

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden EagleProtection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 ), and projects affecting these species may requireet seq.development of an eagle conservation plan(http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projectsshould follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizingimpacts to migratory birds and bats.

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communicationstowers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at:http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm;http://www.towerkill.com; andhttp://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encouragesFederal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their projectplanning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number inthe header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your projectthat you submit to our office.

Attachment

2

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 02/09/2015 12:58 PM 1

Official Species List

Provided by: Virginia Ecological Services Field Office

6669 SHORT LANE

GLOUCESTER, VA 23061

(804) 693-6694

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/ Consultation Code: 05E2VA00-2015-SLI-0930Event Code: 05E2VA00-2015-E-00925 Project Type: Development Project Name: Proposed Fuel and Convenience Concession SiteProject Description: The proposed project will construct a fuel and convenience concession site onWashington Dulles International Airport, at a previously disturbed location currently used foreconomy parking. Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so itmay be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Codematches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by'section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.

United States Department of InteriorFish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Proposed Fuel and Convenience Concession Site


Project Location Map:

Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-77.4472051 38.9657582, -77.4429994 38.9656581, -77.4430241 38.9638262, -77.4471622 38.9639563, -77.4472051 38.9657582))) Project Counties: Loudoun, VA




Endangered Species Act Species List

There are a total of 0 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in

an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain

fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the

Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your

project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS

office if you have questions.

There are no listed species identified for the vicinity of your project.




Critical habitats that lie within your project areaThere are no critical habitats within your project area.



Site Location

is the Search Point38,57,52.6 -77,26,46.0

Show Position Rings

Yes No 1 mile and 1/4 mile at the Search Point Show Search Area

Yes No Search distance miles

radius3

Search Point is at map center

Base Map Choices Color Aerial Photography

Map Overlay Choices Current List: Position, Search, BECAR, BAEANests, TEWaters, TierII, Habitat, Trout, Anadromous

Map Overlay Legend

back Refresh Browser Page

Map Click

MapScale

ScreenSize

Help

Point of Search 38,57,52.6 -77,26,46.0Map Location 38,57,52.6 -77,26,46.0

Select Coordinate System: Degrees,Minutes,Seconds Latitude - Longitude

Decimal Degrees Latitude - Longitude

Meters UTM NAD83 East North Zone

Meters UTM NAD27 East North Zone

Base Map source: Color Aerial Photography 2002 - Virginia Base Mapping Program, Virginia Geographic Information Network

Map projection is UTM Zone 18 NAD 1983 with left 283270 and top 4320495. Pixel size is 16 meters . Coordinates displayed are Degrees, Minutes, Seconds North and West.Map is currently displayed as 600 columns by 600 rows for a total of 360000 pixles. The map display represents 9600 meters east to west by 9600 meters north to south for a total of 92.1 square kilometers. The map display represents 31501 feet east to west by 31501 feet north to south for a total of 35.5 square miles.

Page 1 of 2VaFWIS Map

3/30/2015http://vafwis.org/maps/zMapFormJava.asp?autoscale=14&coord=LL&displ...

| DGIF | Credits | Disclaimer | Contact [email protected] |Please view our privacy policy | © 1998- 2015 Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

Topographic maps and Black and white aerial photography for year 1990+- are from the United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey. Color aerial photography aquired 2002 is from Virginia Base Mapping Program, Virginia Geographic Information Network. Shaded topographic maps are from TOPO! ©2006 National Geographic http://www.national.geographic.com/topo All other map products are from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. map assembled 2015-03-30 16:29:40 (qa/qc December 5, 2012 8:04 - tn=642502.0 dist=4828.032 Visitor ) $poi=38.9646111 -77.4461111

Page 2 of 2VaFWIS Map

3/30/2015http://vafwis.org/maps/zMapFormJava.asp?autoscale=14&coord=LL&displ...

Help

Observations reported or potential habitat occurs within a 3 mile radius around point 38,57,52.6 -77,26,46.0 in 059 Fairfax County, 107 Loudoun County, VA

View Map of Site Location

VaFWIS Search Report Compiled on 3/30/2015, 4:29:22 PM

736 Known or Likely Species ordered by Status Concern for Conservation (displaying first 37) (37 species with Status* or Tier I** or Tier II** ) BOVA Code

Status* Tier** Common Name Scientific Name

010032 FESE II Sturgeon, Atlantic Acipenser oxyrinchus

060003 FESE II Wedgemussel, dwarf Alasmidonta heterodon

060006 SE II Floater, brook Alasmidonta varicosa

030062 ST I Turtle, wood Glyptemys insculpta

040096 ST I Falcon, peregrine Falco peregrinus

040129 ST I Sandpiper, upland Bartramia longicauda

040293 ST I Shrike, loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus

040379 ST I Sparrow, Henslow's Ammodramus henslowii

100155 FSST I Skipper, Appalachian grizzled

Pyrgus wyandot

060081 ST II Floater, green Lasmigona subviridis

040292 ST Shrike, migrant loggerhead

Lanius ludovicianus migrans

050022 FP Bat, northern long-eared Myotis septentrionalis

010038 FC IV Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus

010045 FC Herring, blueback Alosa aestivalis

100248 FS I Fritillary, regal Speyeria idalia idalia

040093 FS II Eagle, bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus

100154 FS II Butterfly, Persius duskywing

Erynnis persius persius

100166 FS II Skipper, Dotted Hesperia attalus slossonae

060029 FS III Lance, yellow Elliptio lanceolata

Page 1 of 5VAFWIS Seach Report

3/30/2015http://vafwis.org/fwis/NewPages/VaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.asp?...

Anadromous Fish Use Streams

Impediments to Fish Passage ( 2 records ) View Map of All Fish Impediments

080340 FS Caddisfly, Buffalo Springs Ceratopsyche etnieri

030063 CC III Turtle, spotted Clemmys guttata

030012 CC IV Rattlesnake, timber Crotalus horridus

010077 I Shiner, bridle Notropis bifrenatus

040372 I Crossbill, red Loxia curvirostra

040225 I Sapsucker, yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius

040319 I Warbler, black-throated green

Dendroica virens

040306 I Warbler, golden-winged Vermivora chrysoptera

040038 II Bittern, American Botaurus lentiginosus

040052 II Duck, American black Anas rubripes

040029 II Heron, little blue Egretta caerulea caerulea

040036 II Night-heron, yellow-crowned

Nyctanassa violacea violacea

040213 II Owl, northern saw-whet Aegolius acadicus

040105 II Rail, king Rallus elegans

040186 II Tern, least Sterna antillarum

040320 II Warbler, cerulean Dendroica cerulea

040304 II Warbler, Swainson's Limnothlypis swainsonii

040266 II Wren, winter Troglodytes troglodytes

To view All 736 species View 736

* FE=Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened; FP=Federal Proposed; FC=Federal Candidate; FS=Federal Species of Concern; CC=Collection Concern

** I=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier I - Critical Conservation Need; II=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier II - Very High Conservation Need; III=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier III - High Conservation Need; IV=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier IV - Moderate Conservation Need

N/A



Threatened and Endangered Waters

Managed Trout Streams

Bald Eagle Nests

Habitat Predicted for Aquatic WAP Tier I & II Species

( 6 Reaches )

View Map Combined Reaches from Below of Habitat Predicted for WAP Tier I & II Aquatic Species

ID Name River View Map

1221 DULLES AIRPORT DAM TR-HORSEPEN RUN Yes

1220 HORSEPEN DAM HORSEPEN RUN Yes

N/A

N/A

Bald Eagle Concentration Areas and Roosts

N/A

N/A

Stream NameTier Species

View Map

Highest

TE*BOVA Code, Status*, Tier**, Common & Scientific Name

(20700081) ST 030062 ST ITurtle, wood

Glyptemys insculpta

Yes

(20700101) ST 030062 ST ITurtle, wood

Glyptemys insculpta

Yes



Habitat Predicted for Terrestrial WAP Tier I & II Species

Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Blocks ( 6 records )

View Map of All Query Results Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Blocks

Public Holdings:

Broad Run (20700081)

ST 030062 ST ITurtle, wood

Glyptemys insculpta

Yes

Cub Run (20700101)


Glyptemys insculpta

Yes

Horsepen Run (20700081)


Glyptemys insculpta

Yes

Stallion Branch (20700081)


Glyptemys insculpta

Yes

N/A

BBA ID

Atlas Quadrangle Block Name

Breeding Bird Atlas SpeciesView MapDifferent

Species

Highest

TE*Highest

Tier**

51204 Herndon, CE 59 III Yes

51203 Herndon, CW 29 IV Yes

51202 Herndon, NE 51 IV Yes

51201 Herndon, NW 47 ST I Yes

51216 Sterling, SE 72 IV Yes

51215 Sterling, SW 6 III Yes

N/A Summary of BOVA Species Associated with Cities and Counties of the Commonwealth of Virginia:



FIPS Code City and County Name Different Species Highest TE Highest Tier

059 Fairfax 559 FESE I

107 Loudoun 438 FPST I USGS 7.5' Quadrangles: Herndon Sterling USGS NRCS Watersheds in Virginia:

N/A USGS National 6th Order Watersheds Summary of Wildlife Action Plan Tier I, II, III, and IV Species:

HU6 Code

USGS 6th Order Hydrologic Unit

Different Species

Highest TE

Highest Tier

PL17 Broad Run-Lenah Run 49 FSST I

PL18 Horsepen Run 60 FSST I

PL19 Broad Run-Beaverdam Run 52 FSST I

PL21 Sugarland Run 61 FSST I

PL45 Cub Run 68 FSST I

Compiled on 3/30/2015, 4:29:23 PM V642502.0 report=V searchType= R dist= 4828.032 poi= 38,57,52.6 -77,26,46.0



Appendix D:

State Historic Preservation Office Consultation

Figure 1: Proposed Fuel and Convenience Concession FacilityExisting and Proposed Facility LocationsWashington Dulles International Airport, Loudoun County

Figure 2: Proposed Fuel and Convenience ConcessionHistoric District Boundary and Existing and Proposed Facility LocationsWashington Dulles International Airport, Loudoun County

Proposed Fuel andConvenience Concession

Existing Fuel andConvenience Concession

Figure 3: Proposed Fuel and Convenience ConcessionHistoric District Boundary and Proposed Facility LocationWashington Dulles International Airport, Loudoun County

Historic District Property Boundary

Figure 4: Proposed Fuel and Convenience ConcessionExisting and Proposed Facility LocationWashington Dulles International Airport, Loudoun County

Figure 5: Proposed Fuel and Convenience ConcessionHistoric District Boundary and Proposed Facility LayoutsWashington Dulles International Airport, Loudoun County

Historic District Property Boundary

Proposed Fuel andConvenience Concession

Figure 6: Proposed Fuel and Convenience ConcessionPreviously Recorded Archeological Sites and Survey AreasWashington Dulles International Airport, Loudoun County

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION EASTERN REGION Short … · 2015. 10. 16. · CO Carbon monoxide...

Documents

Transcript of FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION EASTERN REGION Short … · 2015. 10. 16. · CO Carbon monoxide...