Fort Drum PAL Final EA - August 2012

Final Environmental Assessment for the Implementation of the Privatization of Army Lodging Program at Fort Drum, New York
Prepared for Commander, Fort Drum, New York Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District With technical assistance from Tetra Tech, Inc.
August 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ORGANIZATION

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the proposed action to implement the Privatization of Army Lodging (PAL) Program at Fort Drum, New York. It has been developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 15001508) and the Army (32 CFR Part 651). Its purpose is to inform decision makers and the public of the likely environmental and socioeconomic consequences of the Preferred Alternative and other alternatives. An EXECUTIVE SUMMARY briefly describes the proposed action, environmental and socioeconomic consequences, and mitigation measures. CONTENTS SECTION 1.0: PURPOSE, NEED, AND SCOPE summarizes the purpose of and need for the proposed action and describes the scope of the environmental impact analysis process. SECTION 2.0: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES describes the proposed action to implement the PAL program at Fort Drum and examines alternatives to implementing the proposed action including a Preferred Alternative and a No Action Alternative. SECTION 3.0: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES describes the existing environmental and socioeconomic setting at Fort Drum and identifies potential effects of implementing the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative. SECTION 4.0: CONCLUSIONS summarizes the environmental and socioeconomic effects of implementing the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative. SECTION 5.0: REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED provides bibliographical information for cited sources and provides a listing of persons and agencies consulted during preparation of this EA. SECTION 6.0: LIST OF PREPARERS identifies the persons who prepared the document. SECTION 7.0: DISTRIBUTION LIST indicates recipients of this EA. APPENDIX A: Record of Non-Applicability and Emission Calculations APPENDIX B: Agency Coordination APPENDIX C: Economic Impact Forecast System Model APPENDIX D: Solid Waste Calculations An ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS list is provided at the end.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRIVATIZATION OF ARMY LODGING PROGRAM AT FORT DRUM, NEW YORK
Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District
________________________________________
________________________
STEVEN J. ROEMHILDT Colonel, Corps of Engineers Commanding
Date
Approved by Fort Drum
________________________________________
________________________
GARY A. ROSENBERG COL, SF Garrison Commander
Date
This page intentionally left blank.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
LEAD AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Installations, Energy, and Environment TITLE OF PROPOSED ACTION: Implementation of the Privatization of Army Lodging Program at Fort Drum, New York AFFECTED JURISDICTION: Fort Drum, New York PREPARED BY: Steven J. Roemhildt, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Commanding, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District APPROVED BY: Gary A. Rosenberg, Colonel, SF, Garrison Commander, Fort Drum, New York ABSTRACT: This Environmental Assessment (EA) considers the proposed implementation of the Privatization of Army Lodging (PAL) Program, including the transfer of lodging assets at Fort Drum, New York. The EA identifies, evaluates, and documents the effects of obtaining private sector funding for construction, maintenance, management, renovation, replacement, rehabilitation, and development of transient lodging facilities. This is the Armys Preferred Alternative. A No Action Alternative is also evaluated. Implementing the Preferred Alternative is not expected to result in significant environmental impacts. Preparation of an environmental impact statement, therefore, is not required, and a finding of no significant impact (FNSI) will be published in accordance with Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 651 (Environmental Effects of Army Actions) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). REVIEW COMMENT DEADLINE: The final EA and draft FNSI are available for review and comment for 30 days, beginning upon publication of a notice of availability in the Watertown Daily Times (Watertown, New York). Copies of the EA and draft FNSI are available for review and comment at the following local libraries: Robert C. McEwen Library, Fort Drum, New York; Gouverneur Public Library, Gouverneur, New York; Flower Memorial Library, Watertown, New York; and Lowville Free Library, Lowville, New York. The EA and draft FNSI are also available online at the following address: http://www.drum.army.mil/publicworks/pages/PALEA.aspx. Comments on the EA and draft FNSI should be submitted to Fort Drum, ATTN: Directorate of Public Works NEPA Coordinator, 85 First Street West, Fort Drum, NY 13602-5097, or by e-mail to drum.pwnepa@conus.army.mil. Comments on the EA and draft FNSI should be submitted no later than the end of the 30-day review period.
Final Environmental Assessment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 BACKGROUND
This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the proposal of the Privatization of Army Lodging (PAL) at Fort Drum, New York.
ES.2 PROPOSED ACTION

The Army has competitively selected Lend Lease as its development entity to privatize the Army lodging at Fort Drum. Lend Lease has formed a special-purpose entity, Rest Easy, LLC (Rest Easy) to execute the lease. Lend Lease would redevelop the lodging facilities, and InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG), its contracted hotelier, would assume responsibility for lodging operations. Lend Lease has completed a Lodging Development Management Plan (LDMP) to serve as the initial business plan for the project. The LDMP served as a guide to those developing the PAL lease. The PAL lease will be expanded to include additional installations, including Fort Drum. Upon implementation of the amended and restated PAL lease, transfer of assets and transition to privatized operations would begin. The Army would convey its lodging and ancillary support facilities to the developer under a long-term hold lease and separate support leases. In return, the Army would obtain the benefit of modern facilities and services equal to the standards prevailing in the commercial sector. Implementing the PAL program at Fort Drum would result in the conveyance of the Fort Drum Inn to Rest Easy for renovation as a Holiday Inn Express for long-term use, and construction of a new 235-room Candlewood Suites hotel. In addition, the Army would grant the short-term use of four other lodging facilities and three ancillary support facilities through support leases, until the new hotel is operational. These actions would occur over about a 7-year development period beginning in 2013 and provide a final inventory of about 346 lodging rooms. The proposed action would improve the quality of life for Soldiers, their families, and other personnel eligible to use Army transient lodging.
ES.3 PURPOSE AND NEED

The need for the proposed action is to improve the quality of life for Soldiers, their families, and other personnel eligible to use Army lodging. Many lodging facilities at Fort Drum are old, and their rehabilitation is not economically feasible. By leveraging scarce resources, the Army can obtain the benefits of capital improvements and professional management that are available through the private sectors investment and experience. In addition, the PAL program sets aside funds for the long-term sustainment of such facilities. Privatization of existing lodging and new lodging facilities to be constructed would enable the Army to focus its resources on its core competencies.
ES.4 ALTERNATIVES
This EA is an analysis of the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative. It also identifies alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. Implementing the PAL program at Fort Drum is the Armys Preferred Alternative. By implementing the LDMP, the Army proposes that Rest Easy assume the ownership, operation,
Fort Drum, New York August 2012
ES-1
and maintenance of transient lodging at Fort Drum, both by renovating inadequate existing facilities and constructing new lodging facilities. The Army would also grant to the developer a 46-year lease of the land underlying the existing Fort Drum Inn and a parcel of land for constructing a new 235-room hotel. In addition, the Army would grant the short-term use of four other lodging facilities and three ancillary support facilities through support leases, until the new hotel is operational. These actions are expected to achieve the purpose of and need for the proposed action. A No Action Alternative also is evaluated in detail in this EA. The No Action Alternative is prescribed by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations to serve as the baseline against which the Preferred Alternative and other alternatives are analyzed. Under the No Action Alternative, the Army would not implement the PAL program at Fort Drum, and would continue to provide lodging through the facilities funded by congressional appropriations and by Army lodging resources that rely on nonappropriated funds. In all likelihood, quality of life for personnel using the lodging would decline, given current funding levels. The alternative to the Preferred Alternative that was considered was to discontinue lodging operations at Fort Drum, and rely on private sector lodging services. In lieu of privatizing the function, the Army could exit the lodging business, resulting in patrons reliance on off-post hotels and motels for similar services. The use of off-post lodging, however, would lengthen Soldiers workdays because of commuting and increased transportation costs. In some instances, Soldiers would encounter shortages of lodging in adjacent communities. At Fort Drum, termination of the Armys lodging program would result in the abandonment and eventual demolition of five buildings with 261 lodging rooms. The Army would incur substantial costs demolishing of these buildings. The combination of the buildings standing idle until alternative uses could be determined and the time needed to achieve such alternative uses would contravene the Armys policy to manage its resources to optimal potential. For those reasons, the off-post hotel market alternative is not feasible and is not evaluated in detail in this EA.
ES.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This EA evaluates potential long- and short-term effects on land use, aesthetic and visual resources, air quality, noise, geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, socioeconomics (including environmental justice and protection of children), transportation, utilities, and hazardous and toxic substances. Implementing the Preferred Alternative would be expected to result in a mixture of short- and long-term minor adverse and short- and long-term minor beneficial effects on the subject environmental resources and conditions. Mitigation of adverse effects associated with implementing the PAL Program at Fort Drum includes compensatory wetland mitigation, as determined through correspondence with the New York District of the US Army Corps of Engineers regarding wetland impacts, and tree cutting restrictions for protection of bat species, including the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). For each resource area, the predicted effects from the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative are summarized in Table ES-1.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
ES-2
Table ES-1. Summary of potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences

Resource Land use Aesthetic and visual resources Air quality Noise Geology and soils Water resources Biological resources Cultural resources Socioeconomics Transportation Utilities Hazardous and toxic substances Environmental and socioeconomic effects Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative No effect Short-term minor adverse Long-term minor beneficial Short-term minor adverse Long-term minor adverse Short-term minor adverse Short-term minor adverse Short-term minor adverse Long-term minor adverse Short-term minor adverse Long-term minor adverse No effect Short-term minor beneficial Long-term minor beneficial Short-term minor adverse Long-term minor adverse Short-term minor adverse Long-term minor adverse No effect No effect Long-term minor adverse No effect No effect No effect No effect
No effect No effect Long-term minor adverse No effect No effect No effect
ES.6 CONCLUSION
On the basis of information available in preparation of this EA, it has been determined that implementing the Preferred Alternative would have no significant adverse effects on the quality of human life or the natural environment. Preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required before implementing the Preferred Alternative.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
ES-3
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
ES-4
CONTENTS
SECTION 1.0 Purpose, Need, and Scope ...............................................................................1-1 1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need...................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Scope of Analysis...................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Public Involvement.................................................................................................... 1-3 1.5 Privatization Authorities ............................................................................................ 1-4 1.6 Environmental Laws and Regulations ........................................................................ 1-4 SECTION 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3.1 Description of Existing Lodging and Available Land ...................................... 2-1 2.3.2 Proposed Lodging Actions ............................................................................ 2-10 2.4 Lodging Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study .................... 2-12 SECTION 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ................................3-1 3.1 Land Use................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Affected Environment..................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Aesthetics and Visual Resources................................................................................ 3-1 3.2.1 Affected Environment..................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 3-3 3.3.1 Affected Environment..................................................................................... 3-3 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................... 3-4 3.4 Noise 3-6 3.4.1 Affected Environment..................................................................................... 3-6 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................... 3-7 3.5 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................... 3-8 3.5.1 Affected Environment..................................................................................... 3-8 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................... 3-9 3.6 Water Resources...................................................................................................... 3-10 3.6.1 Affected Environment................................................................................... 3-10 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 3-11 3.7 Biological Resources ............................................................................................... 3-14 3.7.1 Affected Environment................................................................................... 3-14 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 3-16 3.8 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 3-18 3.8.1 Affected Environment................................................................................... 3-18 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 3-19 3.9 Socioeconomics....................................................................................................... 3-20
3.9.1 Affected Environment................................................................................... 3-20 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 3-22 3.10 Transportation ......................................................................................................... 3-24 3.10.1 Affected Environment................................................................................... 3-24 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 3-25 3.11 Utilities ................................................................................................................... 3-26 3.11.1 Affected Environment................................................................................... 3-26 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 3-28 3.12 Hazardous and Toxic Substances ............................................................................. 3-29 3.12.1 Affected Environment................................................................................... 3-29 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 3-30 3.13 Cumulative Effects Summary .................................................................................. 3-30 3.14 Mitigation Summary................................................................................................ 3-31 SECTION 4.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................................4-1 SECTION 5.0 References and Persons Consulted ..................................................................5-1 SECTION 6.0 List of Preparers..............................................................................................6-1 SECTION 7.0 Distribution List..............................................................................................7-1
Appendices
APPENDIX A: Record of Non-Applicability and Emission Calculations APPENDIX B: Agency Coordination APPENDIX C: Economic Impact Forecast System Model APPENDIX D: Solid Waste Calculations
Figures
Figure 1-1 Installation Location ............................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 2-1 Site Map ................................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2-2 Parcel B- Excluded From PAL-Approved Footprint ................................................ 2-5 Figure 2-3 Parcel A.................................................................................................................. 2-6 Figure 2-4 Parcel C .................................................................................................................. 2-7 Figure 2-5 Parcel D.................................................................................................................. 2-8 Figure 2-6 Parcel E .................................................................................................................. 2-9 Figure 2-7 Representative Photos of Existing Lodging Structures........................................... 2-10 Figure 3-1 PAL Parcels A and C Wetlands............................................................................. 3-12
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
ii
Tables
Table 1-1. Installations participating in PAL by group.............................................................. 1-1 Table 2-1. Existing lodging facilities, warehouse space, and developable land available to PAL at Fort Drum........................................................................................................... 2-4 Table 2-2. Fort Drum PAL Preferred Alternative.................................................................... 2-11 Table 3-1. 2007 annual emissions for significant statutory sources at Form Drum..................... 3-3 Table 3-2. Annual air emissions compared to applicability thresholds....................................... 3-4 Table 3-3. Common sounds and their levels ............................................................................. 3-6 Table 3-4. Estimated existing noise levels ................................................................................ 3-7 Table 3-5. Noise levels associated with outdoor construction.................................................... 3-8 Table 3-6. Labor force and unemployment ............................................................................. 3-21 Table 3-7. 2010 Income ......................................................................................................... 3-21 Table 3-8. Population............................................................................................................. 3-21 Table 3-9. EIFS model output ................................................................................................ 3-23 Table 3-10. Annual average daily traffic counts at Fort Drum gates ........................................ 3-25 Table 3-11. Summary of construction and renovation debris................................................... 3-28 Table 4-1. Summary of potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences................... 4-2
Acronyms and Abbreviations (at the end of the document)
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
iii
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
iv
SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE, NEED, AND SCOPE

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Army provides transient lodging for Soldiers and their families on temporary duty (TDY) and permanent change of station travel. Because funding shortfalls over many years have prevented the proper maintenance, repair, or replacement of facilities, approximately 80 percent of the Armys lodging inventory was found not to meet acceptable quality standards. The Privatization of Army Lodging (PAL) program is an initiative to improve facilities and services for transient lodging users. It is founded on the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) established in the 1996 Defense Authorization Act. 1 The MHPI authorizes the Army to obtain private capital by leveraging Government contributions, making efficient use of limited resources, and using a variety of private-sector approaches to build, renovate, and operate lodging. This environmental assessment (EA) evaluates implementation of the PAL program at Fort Drum, New York (Fort Drum or installation) (Figure 1-1). All Army installations in the Continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico that have a need for on-post transient housing will participate in the PAL program. The Army divided its installations into three groups (A, B, and C) for implementing the PAL program. Group A consisted of 10 installations; Group B consisted of 11 installations; and Group C, of which Fort Drum is a part, will involve implementing the program at the remaining 21 participating Army installations. The installations participating in the PAL program are identified in Table 1-1. Table 1-1. Installations participating in PAL by group
Group A installations Fort Hood, TX Fort Sam Houston, TX Fort Sill, OK Fort Riley, KS Fort Leavenworth, KS Fort Rucker, AL Fort Myer, VA Yuma Proving Ground, AZ Fort Polk, LA Fort Shafter Tripler AMC, HI Group B installations Fort Bliss, TX Fort Buchanan, PR Fort Belvoir, VA Fort Hamilton, NY Fort Gordon, GA White Sands Missile Range, NM Fort Huachuca, AZ Fort Leonard Wood, MO Fort Wainwright, AK Fort Knox, KY Fort Campbell, KY/TN Group C installations Fort Meade, MD Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD Fort Drum, NY USAG West Point, NY Fort McCoy, WI Dugway Proving Ground, UT Fort Carson, CO Carlisle Barracks, PA Fort Lee, VA Fort Bragg, NC Fort Jackson, SC Redstone Arsenal, AL Fort Hunter Liggett, CA Presidio of Monterey, CA Camp Parks, CA BT Collins, CA Fort Stewart, GA Hunter Army Air Field, GA Fort Benning, GA JB Lewis-McChord, WA Yakima Training Range, WA
Section 2801, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Public Law 104-106, as amended (codified at Title 10 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 28712885). Fort Drum, New York August 2012
11
1-1
1.2
PURPOSE AND NEED

The Army proposes to privatize operation of its lodging at Fort Drum. This is the Armys Preferred Alternative. The purpose of the proposed action is to transfer ownership and operation of the existing transient lodging and the new hotel to be constructed to the private sector under a long-term lease. The need for the proposed action is to improve the quality of life for Soldiers, their families, and other personnel eligible to use Army lodging. Many lodging facilities at Fort Drum are old, and their rehabilitation is not economically feasible. By leveraging scarce resources, the Army can obtain the benefits of capital improvements and professional management that are available through the private sectors investment and experience. In addition, the PAL program sets aside funds for the long-term sustainment of such facilities. Privatization of lodging would enable the Army to focus its resources on its core competencies.
1.3
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
This EA has been developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Army.2 An interdisciplinary team of environmental scientists, biologists, ecologists, geologists, planners, economists, engineers, archaeologists, historians, lawyers, and military technicians reviewed the proposed action in light of existing conditions, and has identified relevant beneficial and adverse effects associated with the assessed alternatives. The purpose of the EA is to inform Army decision makers and the public of the likely environmental consequences of privatizing transient lodging at Fort Drum. This EA focuses on evaluating environmental effects that are reasonably foreseeable within the initial development period (IDP), which is approximately the first 7 years of implementing privatization (described in detail in Section 2.3. This is the period during which the Armys privatization entity would accomplish demolition, renovation, and new construction of lodging, and assume responsibility for operation and maintenance of the on-post lodging facilities. Potential environmental effects beyond 2020 would be speculative; therefore, they are not analyzed in this EA.
1.4
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Army invites public participation in the NEPA process. Consideration of the views and information of all interested persons promotes open communication and enables better decision making. All agencies, organizations, and members of the public having interest in the proposed action, including minority, low-income, disadvantaged, and Native American groups, are urged to participate in the decision-making process. Army guidance provides for public participation in the NEPA process. If the EA concludes that the proposed action would not result in significant environmental effects, the Army may issue a draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI). The Army will then observe a 30-day period during which agencies and the public may submit comments on the EA or draft FNSI. The 30-
CEQ Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 15001508, and Environmental Analysis of Army Actions, 32 CFR Part 651. Fort Drum, New York August 2012
1-3
day comment period will serve as the publics opportunity to review and comment. Upon consideration of any comments received from the public or agencies, the Army may approve the FNSI and implement the Preferred Alternative. If, however, during the development of the EA, it is determined that significant effects would be likely, the Army will issue a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
1.5
PRIVATIZATION AUTHORITIES
The PAL program is founded on the MHPI. The essence of the MHPI is that it comprehensively allows access to private-sector financial and management resources for constructing, maintaining, managing, renovating, replacing, rehabilitating, and developing housing. In 2002 Congress amended the MHPI to clarify that unaccompanied personnel housing includes transient housing intended to be occupied by members of the armed forces on TDY. 3 The Army has competitively selected Lend Lease as its development entity to privatize the Army lodging at Fort Drum. Lend Lease has formed a special-purpose entity, Rest Easy, LLC (Rest Easy) to execute the lease. Lend Lease would perform the redevelopment of the lodging facilities, and InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG), its contracted hotelier, would assume responsibility for lodging operations. Lend Lease has completed a Lodging Development Management Plan (LDMP) to serve as the initial business plan for the project. The LDMP served as a guide to those preparing the PAL lease. The PAL lease will be expanded to include additional installations, including Fort Drum. Upon implementation of the amended and restated PAL lease, transfer of assets and transition to privatized operations would begin. The Army would convey its existing lodging facilities and new lodging facilities to be constructed to the developer and provide long-term hold (LTH) leases for the underlying land. In return, the Army would obtain the benefit of modern facilities and services equal to the standards prevailing in the commercial sector.
1.6
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Army decisions that affect environmental resources and conditions occur within the framework of numerous laws, regulations, and executive orders (EOs). Some of the authorities prescribe standards for compliance. Others require specific planning and management actions to protect environmental values potentially affected by Army actions. These include the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Noise Control Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Energy Policy Act, Energy Independence and Security Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act. EOs bearing on the proposed action include EO 11988 (Floodplain Management); EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands); EO 12088 (Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards); EO 12580 (Superfund Implementation); EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations); EO 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks); EO 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments); EO 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds); EO 13423 (Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management); and EO 13514 (Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy,
Section 2803(b), National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law 107-314. August 2012
Fort Drum, New York
1-4
and Economic Performance). Where useful to better understanding, key provisions of these statutes and EOs are described in more detail in the text of the EA. 4
The text of EOs can be accessed at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/, and the text of public laws can be accessed at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/. Fort Drum, New York August 2012
1-5
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
1-6
SECTION 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Army proposes to implement the PAL program at Fort Drum. The Army would convey specified lodging facilities to Rest Easy. The Army would also grant a 46-year lease of the land underlying the existing facilities and other land for constructing new lodging facilities. Rest Easy would be expected to meet Fort Drums lodging requirements by operating and maintaining the existing facilities, renovating inadequate facilities, and constructing new lodging. When siting facilities, garrison commanders take into account the following criteria: availability of developable land, consistency with land use allocations of the installations master plan, compatibility with adjacent functions, proximity to relevant community services (e.g., Commissary, Post Exchange, and recreation and entertainment venues), and avoidance of environmental areas of concern, natural resources and cultural resources (e.g., wetlands, protected species, archaeological sites, past hazardous waste sites). Fort Drum officials gave substantial weight to the proximity of new lodging facilities to existing lodging facilities and their required support functions to enable efficient and cost-effective management of operations. Those criteria resulted in the siting locations identified in Figure 2-1. This section presents the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative. It also identifies alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. The proposed action presented in Section 2.3 is the Armys Preferred Alternative.
2.2
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No Action Alternative, whose inclusion is prescribed by CEQ regulations, serves as a baseline against which the impacts of the Preferred Alternative and other alternatives can be evaluated. Under the No Action Alternative, the Army would not implement the PAL program at Fort Drum. The Army would continue to provide lodging through the use of facilities funded by congressional appropriations and by Army lodging resources that rely on nonappropriated funds. On the basis of historical trends, it is assumed that the Government will be unable to dedicate additional resources to support the Army lodging operation, and that maintenance backlogs would remain at present levels or increase. If the PAL program were not implemented, the Army would forego opportunities to leverage private sector financing for the lodging function. Quality of life for personnel using the lodging facilities would in all likelihood decline, given current funding levels.
2.3
2.3.1
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Description of Existing Lodging and Available Land Fort Drum provides on-post transient lodging services through the use of 486 lodging units (rooms) in more than 24 buildings across the installation. Most of the rooms are around Officers Loop, also known as the 2200 area. Officers Loop consists of World War II (WWII)-Era buildings that are considered inadequate by Army lodging standards. The primary lodging facility, the Fort Drum Inn, accounts for 111 rooms and is booked first (before the inadequate
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
2-1
lodging supply is used). The inventorys remaining rooms are scattered among several other buildings and range from aging, pet-friendly rooms to luxurious distinguished visitors quarters suites. Fort Drums lodging inventory exceeds the installations lodging demand. In addition, much of the lodging is old, and maintenance of the structures is costly. Therefore, Fort Drum is in the process of removing several of these buildings from its lodging inventory. Before the proposed PAL transition in the spring of 2013, the lodging inventory will be reduced to about 261 rooms in five buildings. The conversion of the buildings being removed from the lodging inventory before the proposed PAL lease is implemented as a separate action, and therefore it is not part of the proposed action addressed in this EA. The lodging inventory to be conveyed to Rest Easy will include the main lodging facility (Fort Drum Inn [Building B4205] on Parcel A), and a parcel of land (Parcel C) on which new lodging would be built as part of the PAL program. In addition, four lodging buildings in the 2200 block of Officers Loop (WWII Lodges) (Parcel D, Buildings T-2203, T-2204, T-2205, and T-2217), and would be leased to Rest Easy under a support lease for short-term use as lodging until the new hotel becomes operational. Doing so would allow Rest Easy to maintain an optimal number of available rooms during the IDP. Army lodging provides for its maintenance and storage needs in two ancillary support facilities in Parcel D (Buildings T-2220 and T-2248), and by using space in a warehouse in Parcel E (Building S-79) for furniture storage. Rest Easy would continue to use those facilities for the same purposes in the short term under support leases. At the outset of the PAL planning process, an area of undeveloped land adjacent to the Fort Drum Inn was offered by the installation for consideration as a possible location for a new hotel. The land, identified at that time as Parcel B, was surveyed for the purposes of metes and bounds, and monuments were set. However, it was quickly discovered that nearly 65 percent of the parcel (about 25 acres) was covered by wetlands as shown in Figure 2-2. Upon learning of the extent of wetlands on the property the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy, and EnvironmentInstallations, Housing and Partnerships (OASA IE&E IH&P) rejected any consideration of Parcel B in the PAL footprint because it does not meet their stated screening criteria that any property offered to the PAL Program be free of any known or suspected environmental issues. As such, Parcel B was never part of the OASA IE&E IH&P's approved PAL footprint. At the direction of OASA IE&E IH&P, Parcel B is not addressed in either the EA or Environmental Condition of Property report. Table 2-1 identifies the existing Fort Drum lodging facilities, ancillary support facilities, and developable land under consideration for use by the PAL program. Figures 2-3 through 2-6 provide aerial views of the approved PAL parcels, and Figure 2-7 shows photos of the lodging structures. Parcel A. This 9.97-acre parcel consists of the Fort Drum Inn (P-4205), as shown in Figure 2-3. The parcel is accessed via Po Valley Road south of its intersection with Conway Road. Fort Drum Inn was constructed as a private hotel in 1986. It is a two-story, 57,320-square-foot structure with 111 standard hotel rooms. The hotel was transferred to Army lodging in April 1992, when was renamed the Fort Drum Inn. The building is in good condition.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
2-3
Table 2-1. Existing lodging facilities, warehouse space, and developable land available to PAL at Fort Drum
Parcel Parcel A Parcel C Building(s) P-4205 N/A T-2203 T-2204 T-2205 T-2217 T-2220 T-2248 Parcel E S-79 Building name Fort Drum Inn N/A Officers Loop WWII Lodges Year built 1986 N/A Lodging rooms 111 N/A Square footage 57,320 N/A 7,670 7,670 7,670 7,760 6,805 2,250 10,491 Notes Primary lodging facility Undeveloped land Lodging Lodging Lodging Lodging Linen storage Maintenance and storage Furniture storage
1941
150
Parcel D
Officers Loop Warehouses N/A
N/A 1941 1941 N/A N/A 261
Total lodging rooms

Note: N/A = not applicable
Parcel C. This 20.46-acre parcel is southwest of the intersection of Enduring Freedom Drive and Mount Belvedere Boulevard, as shown in Figure 2-4. The site is relatively flat and includes undeveloped scrub vegetation and woodland. This parcel would be available for constructing new lodging. Parcel D. This parcel has four lodging buildingsT-2203, T-2204, T-2205, and T-2217and two buildings (T-2220 and T-2248) used for storage and maintenance by Army lodging. The buildings are in the 2200 block of Officers Loop, as shown in Figure 2-5. All six buildings, constructed in 1941, are part of a larger group of 17 buildings commonly known as the WWII Lodges. The four buildings used as lodging provide about 150 rooms. Building T-2220 is used for the storage of linens and as classroom space and building T-2248 serves as the carpentry and maintenance shop for Army lodging. None of the buildings is considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Parcel D consists of the buildings only. No underlying or adjacent land is associated with this parcel for the PAL action. Parcel E. This parcel consists of Building S-79, only a portion of which is being made available for short-term use under the PAL action. No underlying or adjacent land is associated with this parcel. The building belongs to the Family Morale Welfare Recreation Services Division. The half of the building that is shared with Army lodging for furniture storage would be included under the support lease. Parcel E is shown in Figure 2-6.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
2-4
Parcel A. Fort Drum Inn (Building P-4205)
Parcel D. WWII lodges at Officers Loop (Building T-2205 shown)
Figure 2-7 Representative Photos of Existing Lodging Structures
2.3.2
Proposed Lodging Actions Implementing the PAL program at Fort Drum would involve two types of lease actionsLTH and Support Leasealong with renovation and construction actions, as described in the following paragraphs and listed in Table 2-2. Upon conveyance and grants of the leases noted below, Rest Easy would assume responsibility for all transient lodging assets, and IHG would assume operations as provided for in the leases. Initial market demand analyses performed by OASA IE&E IH&P and Rest Easy indicate that Fort Drum requires as many as 346 on-post lodging rooms based on current and future mission requirements. Due to the condition and configuration of much of the existing on-post lodging inventory, only 261 of the 486 rooms available will in fact be transferred to the PAL program. The on-post inventory will remain at 261 rooms until the completion of the proposed 235-room new hotel. As a result of the PAL program, Fort Drums overall lodging inventory would decrease from 486 rooms, to no more than 346 rooms at the end of the IDP (approximately 2020). This would result in a net decrease of 140+ rooms from the 486 rooms that have been in the available on-post inventory for the past several years. LTH Lease Actions and New Construction. The existing lodging and land in Parcel A (Fort Drum Inn) would be conveyed to Rest Easy under a 46-year lease. Rest Easy would renovate the Fort Drum Inn, brand the hotel as a Holiday Inn Express, and continue to operate it as a lodging facility during the 46-year lease period. Renovations would include making safety upgrades and any necessary functional repairs, updating the interiors (e.g., new linens, dcor, fixtures, furnishings, and equipment), adding recreational facilities and improved public spaces for guests, and making interior and exterior renovations and structural modifications associated with the Holiday Inn Express brand standard.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
2-10
Table 2-2. Fort Drum PAL Preferred Alternative

Rooms Beginning End state state
Acres
Building(s)
PAL action Renovate and brand as a Holiday Inn Express. Build 235-room Candlewood Suites
Parcel A (Fort Drum Inn) LTH 9.97 P-4205 111 111
Parcel C (New Build Site) LTH 20.46 New Build
235
Parcel D (WWII Lodges) Support Lease T-2203 T-2204 150 T-2205 T-2217 N/A T-2220 0 T-2248 0
Minor renovations for short-term use as lodging during IDP, then demolish or return upon lease termination. Linen storage during IDP, then vacate at lease termination. Carpentry, maintenance and paint storage during IDP, then vacate at lease termination. Furniture storage during IDP, then vacate at lease termination.
0 0
Parcel E (Storage Warehouse) Support Lease N/A Total lodging rooms S-79 0 261 0 346
Notes: LTH = long-term hold; N/A = not applicable
Rest Easy plans to replace the outdated lodging infrastructure at Fort Drum by building a CWS hotel with as many as 235 guest rooms 5. The new hotel would provide a combination of single rooms, family suites, and distinguished visitors quarters. The Army would grant Rest Easy a 46year lease of Parcel C (undeveloped land at southwest corner of Mount Belvedere Boulevard and Enduring Freedom Drive) for the new hotel. Support Lease Actions. The six buildings in Parcel D (T-2203, T-2204, T-2205, T-2217, part of T-2220, and T-2248) would be made available to Rest Easy for short-term use under a support lease. The four lodging buildings would be used during the IDP to maintain an appropriate number of available rooms while new lodging is being built. Building T-2220 would continue to be used for linen storage until space is made available either through the renovation of the Fort Drum Inn, or until the new hotel is completed. Building T-2248 would continue to serve as a carpentry and maintenance shop while the new hotel is under construction. Rest Easy would perform minor renovations to the four lodging buildings, such as making safety and critical
The projected room count analyzed in this EA is based on the demand analysis performed by OASA IE&E IH&P, Lend Lease, and IHG using historical demand and projected demand resulting from changing mission requirements. The EA assumes the largest possible build out. It is possible that Rest Easy might build a smaller hotel with fewer than 235 rooms based on subsequent analysis and the availability of project funds. In that case, the project would be altered to reflect fewer rooms, but the NEPA analysis and process will have covered the broadest possible action. Fort Drum, New York August 2012
5
2-11
repairs, and upgrading room interiors. At the end of the IDP or as the new hotel became operational, the support lease would terminate. Upon lease termination, Rest Easy would vacate the two warehouses. The four lodging buildings would either be returned to the Army for conversion to non-lodging uses, or be demolished by Rest Easy in coordination with the garrison commander. For the purposes of analysis, the EA assumes that the buildings would be demolished. A support lease for use of part of the interior of Building S-79 (Parcel E) might also be executed to allow for the continued storage of furniture and goods until the new hotel is completed. At the end of the IDP or as the new hotel became operational, the support lease would terminate and Rest Easy would vacate the space.
2.4 LODGING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY

Sources of Lodging Services. The Army now provides transient lodging to Soldiers, their dependents, and other authorized patrons. In lieu of privatizing the function, the Army could choose to discontinue all lodging operations on Army installations. This would require prospective lodging patrons to rely entirely on private-sector hotels and motels for their lodging. Eliminating on-post lodging would lengthen Soldiers workdays because of commuting, increase their transportation costs (Without specific authorization, personnel on TDY might be ineligible for rental vehicle reimbursement), and, in some instances, cause them to encounter lodging shortages, or room rates in excess of their lodging per diem, in adjacent communities. Local hospitality providers could experience wide swings in occupancy rates. Furthermore, moving Soldiers and their families off-post would increase commuting distances and the use of single occupancy vehicles, which would be in direct conflict with the Armys mandates to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At Fort Drum, termination of the Armys lodging program would result in abandoning eight buildings, five buildings with 261 lodging rooms and three storage buildings. If the Army chose to demolish these buildings, it would incur substantial costs, and such action could contravene the Armys policy to manage its resources to optimal potential. For those reasons, this alternative is not feasible and is not evaluated in detail in this EA.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
2-12
SECTION 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1
3.1.1
LAND USE
Affected Environment Fort Drum occupies 107,265 acres along the Black River in portions of Jefferson and Lewis counties in upstate New York. Watertown is 10 miles to the southwest, and the installation is about 70 miles north of Syracuse, New York, and 30 miles south of Canada. The PAL footprint, in the western portion of the Cantonment Area in the southwest corner of the installation, is in Jefferson County. All the PAL parcels are in the installations Cantonment Area. The land use designation for Parcels A, D, and E is community, which is defined as lands that encourage a mix of uses (US Army 2011a). Facilities allowed within lands designated as community include religious, family support, personnel service, professional, medical, community, housing, commercial, and recreational. The designated land use for Parcel C is residential, which defines areas used primarily for family housing, senior unaccompanied housing, family services, and other neighborhood services associated with community land uses nearby. Parcel C is designated as an undeveloped housing area in the Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) developed for Fort Drum (USACE Mobile District 2004) and is east of the Boulder Creek Housing Area. Land uses adjacent to Parcel C are community and residential. No land use incompatibilities in or adjacent to the proposed PAL parcels are known to exist.
3.1.2
Environmental Consequences
3.1.2.1 Preferred Alternative No effects would be expected. No land use incompatibilities would be created from implementing the PAL program. The new build site is in a developable area, and is not identified as having any environmental constraints for development (US Army 2011a). Surrounding land uses would not interfere with use of the proposed PAL sites for Army lodging, and use of the proposed parcels for lodging would not conflict with adjacent land use. 3.1.2.2 No Action Alternative No effects on land use would be expected. The proposed PAL action would not be implemented under the No Action Alternative; therefore, the No Action Alternative would not result in any changes in land use.
3.2
3.2.1
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

Affected Environment Aesthetics and visual resources are the natural and man-made features on the installation landscape. They include cultural and historic landmarks, landforms of particular beauty or significance, water surfaces, and vegetation. Together, those features form a viewers overall impression of the area or its landscape.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-1
The PAL program area is in the St. Lawrence Valley Ecoregion of Fort Drum (US Army 2011b). This ecoregion is characterized by vegetative communities that are associated with clay-loam soils, such as grasslands dominated by grass and forb species. Although the PAL program parcels are in developed areas of Fort Drum, the surrounding landscape is primarily forested upland habitat, interspersed with forested wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, and scrub upland habitat. The Cantonment Area at Fort Drum is in an area of relatively flat topography, scattered with low-lying areas. Buildings vary in size, with a majority constructed between the 1970s and present day. The existing buildings that are included in the PAL program were constructed in 1941 (Parcel D and Parcel E) and 1986 (Parcel A). Most buildings are separated by grassy areas and other landscaped areas containing ornamental trees and shrubs. The visual landscape in the PAL area reflects the support functions and activities of the Fort Drum Cantonment Area and some open and treed vistas. Views from the PAL parcels vary from urban and industrial, to forested vistas. Overall, the visual impression of Fort Drum is one of focused activity in a military environment that blends past development with present conditions in an attractive manner wherever possible. Because maintenance is provided at a relatively high level, there is little trash or debris. The installation has a general appearance of cleanliness and order. 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences
3.2.2.1 Preferred Alternative Short-term minor adverse and long-term minor beneficial effects on aesthetics and visual resources would be expected. Short-term minor adverse effects would result from construction activities, which are inherently aesthetically displeasing. During the construction and renovation phases of the PAL program, views from various vantage points on the installation would be disrupted by construction equipment and construction material staging areas. The visually disrupting effects from renovation and construction activities would be for a short term and localized to the areas under renovation/construction. Renovation and construction activities would be limited to daylight hours; therefore, nighttime activities and associated lighting would not occur. Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected from the overall improvement in the aesthetic appeal of the lodging areas that would be part of the LTH lease. Renovations to repair or update the exterior of the Fort Drum Inn would further improve the buildings appearance. The proposed new hotel would be constructed as a modern lodging facility in accordance with established installation design guidelines (US Army 2011c). Demolition of the four WWII lodges in Parcel D would create more open vistas and green space. 3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative Long-term minor adverse effects on aesthetics and visual resources would be expected. The Army would continue to perform regular maintenance on existing lodging, but those activities would be conducted on a constrained budget. Without implementing the PAL program, the Army would forego opportunities to leverage private-sector financing for the lodging function. Aesthetic and visual appeal of lodging facilities could decline, given current funding levels.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-2
3.3
3.3.1
AIR QUALITY
Affected Environment The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulate air quality in New York. The Clean Air Act (Title 42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 7401-7671q), as amended, gives EPA responsibility to establish the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 50) that set acceptable concentration levels for six criteria pollutants: particulate matter (measured as both particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter [PM10] and, fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter [PM2.5]), sulfur dioxide [SO2] , carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), ozone, and lead. Short-term NAAQS (1-, 8-, and 24-hour periods) have been established for pollutants contributing to acute health effects, and long-term NAAQS (annual averages) have been established for pollutants contributing to chronic health effects. Each state has the authority to adopt standards stricter than those established under the Federal program; New York State (NYS) has adopted slightly stricter standards for NOX (0.05 parts per million) and 3-Hour SO2 (0.050 parts per million), and has standards for total suspended particulates (TSP), and non-methane hydrocarbons (NYSDEC 2012a). Federal regulations designate Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) in violation of the NAAQS as nonattainment areas. Federal regulations designate AQCRs with levels below the NAAQS as attainment areas. According to the severity of the pollution problem, nonattainment areas can be categorized as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. Jefferson County (and therefore Fort Drum) is in the Central New York Intrastate AQCR (AQCR 158) (40 CFR 81.127). EPA has designated Jefferson County as in moderate nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone (O 3) NAAQS (USEPA 2012a). Fort Drum is considered a major source of air emissions and holds a Title V operating permit (No. 6-9906-00006/00076), which was issued in 2008 and expires in 2013 (NYSDEC 2012b). The permit requirements include annual inventory for all significant stationary sources of air emissions and covers monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Fort Drums 2011 installation-wide air emissions for all significant stationary sources are tabulated in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. 2007 annual emissions for significant statutory sources at Form Drum
Pollutant Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Nitrogen oxides (NOx) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Fine particulate matter (PM10)
Source: US Army 2011d
Emissions (tons/year) 18.5 47.1 0.6 17.5
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. GHGs are components of the atmosphere that trap heat relatively near the surface of the earth, and therefore contribute to the greenhouse (or heat trapping) effect and climate change. Most GHGs occur naturally in the atmosphere, but increases in their concentration result from human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Global temperatures are expected to continue to rise as human activities continue to add carbon dioxide
3-3
(CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and other GHGs to the atmosphere. Whether rainfall will increase or decrease remains difficult to project for specific regions (USEPA 2012b; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, outlines policies intended to ensure that Federal agencies evaluate climate-change risks and vulnerabilities, and to manage the short- and long-term effects of climate change on their operations and mission. The EO specifically requires the Army to measure, report, and reduce its GHG emissions from both direct and indirect activities. The Department of Defense (DoD) has committed to reducing GHG emissions from non-combat activities 34 percent by 2020 (DoD 2010). In addition, the CEQ recently released draft guidance on when and how Federal agencies should consider GHG emissions and climate change in NEPA analyses. The draft guidance includes a presumptive effects threshold of 27,563 tons per year (25,000 metric tons per year) of CO2 equivalent emissions from a Federal action (CEQ 2010). 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences
3.3.2.1 Preferred Alternative Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected. Implementing the Preferred Alternative could affect air quality through airborne dust and other pollutants generated during construction, and by introducing new stationary sources of pollutants, such as boilers. Air quality effects would be considered minor unless the emissions would be greater than the General Conformity Rule applicability thresholds, would exceed the GHG threshold in the draft CEQ guidance, or would contribute to a violation of any Federal, state, or local air regulation. Construction emissions were estimated for fugitive dust, on- and off-road diesel equipment and vehicles, worker trips, architectural coatings, and paving off-gases. Operational emissions would primarily be caused by heating emissions for the building and patron vehicle trips. The estimated emissions from the Preferred Alternative would be below the General Conformity Rule applicability thresholds; therefore, the General Conformity Rule does not apply (Table 3-2). These effects would be minor. A Record of Non-Applicability and Emission Calculations are in Appendix A. Table 3-2. Annual air emissions compared to applicability thresholds
Emissions (tons/year) Activity Construction Operations
a
CO 8.4 0.4
NOx 15.8 0.4
VOC 2.5 0.1
SOx 0.0 < 0.1
PM 10 2.3 < 0.1
PM 2.5 1.0 < 0.1
De minimis threshold 100(50)

a
Would emissions equal/exceed de minimis levels? No
Note: SO x = oxides of sulfur, VOC = Volatile Organic Compound, NO x = oxides of nitrogen De minimis threshold for VOC is 50 tons per year.
For analysis purposes, it was assumed that all the construction/demolition would be compressed into one 12-month period. Therefore, regardless of the ultimate implementation schedule, annual emissions would be less than those shown here. Small changes in the facilities siting, the ultimate design, and moderate changes in the quantity and types of equipment used would not
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-4
have a substantial influence on the emission estimates, and would not change the determination under the general conformity rule or level of effects under NEPA. The leased hotel on Parcel C would be equipped with individual furnaces or boilers for heating. These stationary sources of air emissions could be subject to Federal and state air permitting regulations, including New Source Review, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, or New Source Performance Standards. Operational emissions could be reduced by using more energy-efficient units than previously used in the lodging slated for renovation and storage. The new lodging facility would be owned, operated, and maintained by Rest Easy and IHG on property leased by Fort Drum. In general, leased activities would not be considered under the direct control of Fort Drum. These leased activities would normally be considered tenants and Rest Easy and IHG would need to perform an air quality regulatory analysis to determine if any Clean Air Act permitting is required for operating any sources of air emissions. However, leased activities may be considered under common control when they also have a contract-for-service relationship to provide goods or services to a military controlling entity at that military installation. Given the variety and complexity of leased and contract-for-service activities at Fort Drum, case-by-case determinations would be necessary to determine if the existing sources of emissions would remain on, or new sources would be added to, Fort Drums Title V permit. NYSDEC outlines requirements with which the developer must comply when constructing the new facilities, such as controlling fugitive dust and open burning. All persons responsible for any operation, process, handling, transportation, or storage facility that could result in fugitive dust would take reasonable precautions to prevent such dust from becoming airborne. Reasonable precautions might include using water to control dust from building construction, road grading, or land clearing. In addition, construction would be accomplished in full compliance with current NYSDEC Chapter III-Air Quality Regulations requirements, with compliant practices or products. These requirements include the following: Control of Open Burning and Incineration (NYSDEC Chapter III, Part 215) Control of Particulate Emissions (NYSDEC Chapter III, Subpart 257-3) Control of Organic Emissions (NYSDEC Chapter III, Part 212) Control of Fuels (NYSDEC Chapter III, Part 225)
This listing is not all-inclusive; the Army and any contractors would comply with all applicable air pollution control regulations. Beyond the best management practices (BMPs), no mitigation measures would be required for the Preferred Alternative. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. Under the Preferred Alternative, all construction/demolition activities combined would generate approximately 1,324 tons (1,201 metric tons) of CO2. A minute increase in GHG would result from implementation of the PAL program. Regardless, the GHG emissions associated with the Preferred Alternative would be well below the CEQ threshold. By using new heating and cooling systems and centrally locating the lodging, Fort Drum would be taking steps to help the Army reach its GHG reduction goals in accordance with EO 13514.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-5
3.3.2.2 No Action Alternative Selecting the No Action Alternative would result in no effect on ambient air quality. No construction would occur, and no new lodging operations would take place. Ambient air-quality conditions would remain as described in Section 3.3.1.
3.4
3.4.1
NOISE
Affected Environment Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air, and are sensed by the human ear. Noise is defined as any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with communication, is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise intrusive. Human response to noise varies depending on the type and characteristics of the noise, distance between the noise source and the receptor, receptor sensitivity, and time of day. Noise is often generated by activities essential to a communitys quality of life, such as construction or vehicular traffic. Sound varies by both intensity and frequency. Sound pressure level, described in decibels (dB), is used to quantify sound intensity. The dB is a logarithmic unit that expresses the ratio of a sound pressure level to a standard reference level. Hertz are used to quantify sound frequency. The human ear responds differently to frequencies. A-weighing, measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA), approximates a frequency response expressing the perception of sound by humans. Sounds encountered in daily life and their dBA levels are provided in Table 3-3. Table 3-3. Common sounds and their levels
Outdoor Motorcycle Tractor Noisy restaurant Downtown (large city) Freeway traffic Normal conversation Rainfall Quiet residential area
Source: Harris 1998
Sound level (dBA) 100 90 85 80 70 60 50 40
Indoor Subway train Garbage disposal Blender Ringing telephone TV audio Sewing machine Refrigerator Library
The dBA noise metric describes steady noise levels, although very few noises are, in fact, constant. Therefore, A-weighted day-night sound level (DNL) has been developed. DNL is defined as the average sound energy in a 24-hour period with a 10-dB penalty added to the nighttime levels (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). DNL is a useful descriptor for noise because (1) it averages ongoing yet intermittent noise, and (2) it measures total sound energy over a 24-hour period. In addition, equivalent sound level (Leq) is often used to describe the overall noise environment. Leq is the average sound level in dB.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-6
The Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-574) directs Federal agencies to comply with applicable Federal, state, and local noise control regulations. In 1974 EPA provided information suggesting that continuous and long-term noise levels in excess of DNL 65 dBA are normally unacceptable for noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches, and hospitals. Neither NYS nor Jefferson County maintains noise ordinances. Watertown municipal code includes a general nuisance noise ordinance without specific not-to-exceed sound levels. Both on- and off-post individuals could be subjected to multiple sources of noise during the day including local road traffic, aircraft overflights, rotorcraft (helicopter) activities, and natural noises such as the rustling of leaves and bird vocalizations. Training exercises in the Range Area on south-post near Wheeler-Sack Army Airfield (WSAAF) include small- and large-caliber training ranges, firing of mortar and artillery munitions, rotary wing gunnery training, and missile fire training. WSAAF is approximately 3 miles from the Preferred Alternative locations. Background noise levels (Leq and DNL) were estimated for the surrounding areas using the techniques specified in the American National Standards Institutes Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound Part 3: Short-term measurements with an observer present (ANSI 2003). The parcels are in areas that would normally be considered quiet urban residential or quiet suburban. Table 3-4 outlines the closest receptors to the construction and renovation activities. Table 3-4. Estimated existing noise levels
Closest noise sensitive area Location Parcel A Parcel C Parcel D Distance 630 ft (190 m) 480 ft (147 m) 77 ft (23 m) Direction East West West Type School Residence Residence Estimated existing sound levels (dBA) Land use category Quiet Suburban Residential DNL 53 Leq (daytime) 48 Leq (nighttime) 42
Source: ANSI 2003 Note: ft = feet; m = meter
3.4.2
Environmental Consequences
3.4.2.1 Preferred Alternative Short-term minor adverse effects would be expected. Short-term increases in noise would result from the use of construction equipment. Table 3-5 presents typical noise levels (dBA at 50 feet) that EPA has estimated for the main phases of outdoor construction. Individual pieces of construction equipment typically generate noise levels of 80 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. With multiple items of equipment operating concurrently, noise levels can be relatively high in the daytime at locations within several hundred feet of active construction sites. The zone of relatively high construction noise typically extends to distances of 400 to 800 feet from the site of major equipment operations. Locations
3-7
farther than 800 feet from construction sites seldom experience noteworthy levels of construction noise. Table 3-5. Noise levels associated with outdoor construction
Construction phase Ground clearing Excavation, grading Foundations Structural Finishing
Source: USEPA 1971
Leq (dBA) 84 89 78 85 89
Given the temporary nature of proposed construction and demolition activities and the limited amount of noise that construction equipment would generate, this effect would be minor. Noise from construction activities would be minimal and confined primarily to construction areas. Limited truck and worker vehicle traffic might be audible at some nearby locations. These effects would be negligible. No long-term increases in the overall noise environment (e.g., Leq, DNL) would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. No military training activities, use of weaponry, demolitions, or aircraft operations would occur. Therefore, no long-term changes in the existing noise environment associated with these sources would be expected. 3.4.2.2 No Action Alternative Selecting the No Action Alternative would result in no effect on the noise environment. No construction or demolition would occur, and no new lodging operations would take place. Noise conditions would remain as described in Section 3.4.1.
3.5
3.5.1
GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Affected Environment Ecoregions at Fort Drum include the Black River Valley, Eastern Ontario Plains, Indian River Transition, St. Lawrence Valley, and Western Adirondack Transition. The PAL program area is in the St. Lawrence Valley Ecoregion (US Army 2011b). Elevations in the St. Lawrence Valley ecoregion range from 410 to 747 feet above mean sea level, with an average elevation of 580 feet and an average slope of 2.9 percent. Elevations at Fort Drum range from approximately 400 feet above mean sea level at the western boundary to approximately 900 feet above mean sea level at the northeastern boundary (USACE Mobile District 2004). Soils of the St. Lawrence Valley Ecoregion are characterized as clay-loam (US Army 2011b). Soils in the PAL program area are underlain by Pleistocene silty sand up to 120 feet thick that form the Black River delta (Pine Plains), sandy tills with gravel, and silty clay lacustrine deposits (USACE Mobile District 2004). Unconsolidated sediments are underlain by the Theresa Formation of Upper Cambrian age, which ranges from 0 to 40 feet thick (USACE Mobile District
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-8
2004). The Theresa Formation is underlain by Potsdam Sandstone, also of the Cambrian age. Potsdam Sandstone is a medium- to thickly bedded, tan, grayish-white, quartz sandstone with siliceous and calcareous cement and a basal conglomerate zone, and represents the primary bedrock aquifer (deep groundwater supply) in the area. Generally, Plainfield sands dominate soils the PAL program area, which are dark brown to yellowish-brown (23 feet below the ground surface) and are underlain by a yellowish-brown sand substratum (5 feet or more below ground surface). This soil is highly permeable with a low water-holding capacity and can be subject to wind erosion in lowland areas that are unvegetated. Shallow groundwater wells that include Fort Drum and domestic water supply wells are screened in the Plainfield sand. Plainfield sand is underlain by lacustrine silt and clay up to 70 feet thick that was deposited in ancient Lake Iroquois. The silty clay is underlain by a thin, clayey gravel and till zone and a sandy boulder till, both less than 10 feet thick. PAL Parcels A, D, and E are on developed land in Fort Drum. Soils in Parcel A are dominated by Wareham Series loamy fine sands; Benson-Galoo Complex, Granby Series, and Galway Series soil types are also present. These soils series represent silt loams on slopes ranging from 0 to 8 percent, or mucky, loamy fine sands on slopes up to 3 percent (USDA NRCS 2012). Soils in Parcel D and Parcel include Plainfield sand, 08 percent slopes, with Plainfield-Windsor soils also present in Parcel D. Parcel C contains undeveloped land, and is the proposed site for a new lodging facility. Soils in this parcel consist of Amenia and Nellis Series soils, with a small amount of Udorthents, refuse substratum soils present. The Amenia and Nellis Series consist of silt loams on slopes ranging from 0 to 15 percent. All the Amenia Series soils and the Nellis loam, 38 percent slopes, in Parcel C; and the Galway silt loam soils of Parcel A are classified as prime farmland (USDA NRCS 2012). The Nellis loam, 815 percent slope soils in Parcel C, and the Wareham soils in Parcel A are considered farmland of statewide importance. However, the Armys Environmental Law Division has determined that the Farmland Protection Policy Act does not apply to land withdrawn for military or national defense purposes and is, therefore, not subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act. All the soils in Parcel C, with the exception of the Udorthents soils, are classified as hydric, and all the soils in Parcel A are classified as hydric, except for the Benson-Galoo and Galway soil types (USDA NRCS 2012). 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences
3.5.2.1 Preferred Alternative Short-term minor adverse effects on soils would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. In the short term, some vegetation removal or soil disturbance would be expected during site preparation and construction proposed for Parcel C, and demolition of the WWII lodges in Parcel D. No vegetation removal is associated with demolition of the WWII lodges; however, soil disturbance would be expected. Vegetation removal, demolition, and other site preparation and construction-related activities would be expected to increase soil exposure, making soils more susceptible to erosion by wind or water. Such effects would be minimized by using appropriate site-specific BMPs for controlling erosion and runoff. Examples of erosion control devices that could be used include silt fencing for construction areas, and placing gravel or planting native plants for final stabilization. Installing a 3-foot silt fence typically involves burying approximately 6 inches of the fencing below ground to capture silt, sand, and debris from
3-9
storm water runoff. The fence would remain in place until construction is completed and all exposed soils are stabilized as a result of revegetation. Construction of the new hotel on Parcel C would be conducted in accordance with applicable Federal, state, and installation regulations to ensure appropriate erosion and sediment control is provided. All construction activities would be conducted in accordance with a site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and in accordance with requirements of the NYS Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activity, GP-0-08-001. In addition, special authorization from NYSDEC Region 6 would be obtained for construction activities that disturb 5 acres or more of land in accordance with NYS Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activity, GP-0-10-001, and would require preparation of a Water Quality and Quantity Control Plan and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. No effect on soils would be expected for PAL parcels A and E, because project activities would be limited to interior and exterior building renovations and would not include ground-disturbing activities. No effects on geologic or topographic conditions, or on prime farmland, would be expected under the Preferred Alternative. 3.5.2.2 No Action Alternative No effects on geologic or topographic conditions, or soils would be expected from implementing the No Action Alternative. No ground-disturbing activities would occur.
3.6
3.6.1
WATER RESOURCES
Affected Environment Precipitation. The mean total annual precipitation at Fort Drum is 43.2 inches with a monthly mean of 3.6 inches (The Weather Channel 2012). On average, the least amount of precipitation occurs in February and March (2.7 inches for each month), and the most precipitation occurs in November (4.6 inches). Surface Water. Fort Drums surface water resources are in the Black River (Hydrologic Unit Code 04150101) and Indian River (Hydrologic Unit Code 04150303) watersheds. The Black River flows westward toward Lake Ontario, and the Indian River flows into the Oswegatchie River, which drains into the St. Lawrence River. The PAL parcels are in the West Creek and Pleasant Creek subwatersheds of the Indian River Watershed, and the Black River subwatershed in the Black River watershed (US Army 2011b). No streams are in any of the PAL parcels; however, Pleasant Creek is east of Parcel C and northwest of Parcel A, and the Black River is south of Parcels D and E. Surface water quality at the installation is monitored as part of routine data assimilation under the Integrated Training Area Management program, following the Fish and Wildlife Management Implementation Plan, and the general water quality program administered by the state (USACE Mobile District 2004). Typical parameters collected include dissolved oxygen, total alkalinity, total hardness, conductivity, and pH. Total alkalinity and hardness levels have been slightly lower than those routinely reported by NYSDEC for freshwater communities (USACE Mobile District 2004).
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-10
NYS classifies waterbodies in the vicinity of PAL parcels as Class C surface waterbodies. Class C waterbodies are suitable for fish propagation and survival, and sport fishing. Water quality is suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation (USACE Mobile District 2004; US Army 2011b). The Clean Water Act section 303(d) requires states to identify and develop a list of impaired waterbodies for which technology-based and other required controls have not provided attainment of water quality standards. All the waterbodies in the vicinity of PAL parcels meet NYS water quality standards (NYSDEC 2012c; USACE Mobile District 2004). Wetlands. PAL Parcels D and E do not contain any wetlands. Parcel A contains a 0.6-acre wetland, and Parcel C contains approximately a 0.4-acre wetland (Figure 3-1). Groundwater. Fort Drum uses two primary producing aquifers as a source of water in the Cantonment Area near WSAAF (US Army 2011b). Eleven wells are associated with these two aquifers, and these wells have the capacity to produce between 100150 gallons per minute. No specific data on groundwater quality were identified for the PAL parcels. Floodplains. None of the PAL parcels is within a 100-year floodplain (USACE Mobile District 2004). 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences
3.6.2.1 Preferred Alternative Short- and long-term minor adverse effects on water resources would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. In the short term, staging, site preparation, demolition, and new construction activities in PAL Parcels C and D would be expected to involve some soil disturbance or compaction and vegetation removal (Parcel C). These activities could result in an increase in dissolved solid, sediment or other waterborne pollutants in surface water runoff that could reach groundwater through infiltration through the porous soils, either during overland sheet flow or infiltration of storm water runoff. The NYSDEC Storm Water Program requires permit coverage for storm water discharges from construction activities disturbing more than 1 acre of land. Rest Easy would develop a sitespecific SWPPP for the new hotel construction project proposed for Parcel C. The SWPPP would specify BMPs that address common erosion control practices, which would reduce the potential for movement of sediments on the site during construction and minimize sedimentation into nearby waterbodies. The SWPPP also would detail the appropriate methods for collection, treatment, or discharge of storm water runoff after construction. Construction plans and the new facility would be designed, constructed, and maintained by Rest Easy in accordance with the NYS Stormwater Design Manual and all applicable storm water management regulations and permits. Potential adverse effects on the groundwater and surface water systems would be minimized by using appropriate site-specific BMPs to control erosion and runoff in accordance with all applicable Federal, state, and installation regulations, and by preparing and adhering to site-specific SWPPPs and the requirements of the NYS Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activity, GP-0-08-001.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-11
Long-term minor adverse effects on water resources would be expected from construction activities proposed for Parcel C, in association with the net loss of pervious ground cover (vegetation) and surface soils, and the net increase in impervious surface area. Increased impervious surface areas associated with driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, and rooftops can result in increased runoff (in the forms of increased volume, velocity, and peak flows), increased erosion, increased pollutant loads (e.g., dissolved solids, petroleum hydrocarbon debris from vehicles) and sediment loads, and reduced ground absorption and infiltration of runoff that would otherwise recharge groundwater aquifers. Long-term minor adverse effects would be minimized by complying with all applicable regulations for storm water management, applicable permits, and incorporating BMPs for storm water management into the site design. Any minor adverse impacts resulting from new impervious surface associated with the new hotel would be further offset by the demolition of the WWII lodging on Parcel D, which would result in replacing impervious surfaces with vegetated cover, or nonvegetated, land-stabilizing gravelscaping. Constructing the new hotel in Parcel C could affect up to 0.4 acre of palustrine wetlands, resulting in long-term minor adverse effects on wetlands. The wetland data available for Parcel C are from a wetland delineation and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional wetland determination that is no longer valid (US Army 2012a). An inspection of the existing wetland delineation would be conducted to determine if the existing wetland data is still valid or if a new wetland delineation is needed. Once the existing wetland delineation has been verified or updated, the USACE would need to review and verify the wetland boundaries before siting of the new hotel. Siting of the new building in Parcel C would be conducted to avoid wetlands to the extent practicable; however, it is expected that some wetland impacts would be unavoidable because of the location of the wetland habitat in Parcel C (Figure 3-1). To fill wetlands, Lend Lease and Rest Easy would be required to obtain permits for any wetland draining or filling activities from the New York District of the USACE. Compensatory mitigation would be required for wetland impacts. Demolition activities proposed for Parcel D could result in negative effects on water resources, from storm water runoff, erosion and sedimentation. During and after the demolition of the WWII lodges in Parcel D, appropriate BMPs would be used to protect water resources, and the site would be revegetated to stabilize exposed soils. As a result of a reduction in the amount of impervious surfaces, a slight decrease in storm water runoff, and a slight increase in groundwater recharge could occur. However, if water is used as a dust suppression measure during demolition, the net increase in groundwater recharge would be expected to be zero. No effects on surface water, wetlands, or groundwater resources would be expected on PAL Parcels A and E, because the only activities on these parcels would be limited to interior and minor exterior building renovations. No effects on floodplains would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. 3.6.2.2 No Action Alternative No effects on water resources would be expected under the No Action Alternative.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-13
3.7
3.7.1
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Affected Environment
3.7.1.1 Vegetation The loam and clay soil types that are associated with the Fort Drum Cantonment Area support common vegetative communities that occur within the St. Lawrence Valley ecoregion, including grasslands associated with clay-loam soil types, shrub thickets, and successional and mature northern hardwood forests (US Army 2011b). Grassland communities are dominated by forbs, including timothy (Phleum pratense), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), and vetch (Vicia cracca). Common shrub species in areas that are in the process of converting from grassland to shrub habitat include dogwood (Cornus spp.), cherry (Prunus spp.), and meadowsweet (Spiraea alba). Tree species associated with successional and mature northern hardwood forest communities include maple (Acer spp.), yellow birch (Betula allegheniensis), gray birch (B. populifolia), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). The understory of the forest communities is similar to what is described for the grassland and shrub communities above. Although the Cantonment Area contains some invasive species populations, the focus of invasive species management at Fort Drum is in areas outside the Cantonment Area. Vegetation of the developed PAL parcels (Parcels A, D, and E) is a mixture of landscaping trees, ornamental shrubs, and maintained lawns. Vegetation in Parcel C is a mixture of grassland, shrub, and mixed hardwood and pine forest habitat. Grasslands in the Cantonment Area are dominated by a mixture of native and introduced species such as common hairgrass (Deschampsia flexuosa), stiff-leaved aster (Ionactis linariifolius), poverty oat grass (Danthonia spicata), timothy, Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa), old-field cinquefoil (Potentilla simplex), and vetch (USACE Mobile District 2004). Shrublands support blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), serviceberry (Amelanchier sp.), and scattered oak trees (Quercus spp.) but also have an herbaceous component composed of timothy, old-field cinquefoil, rough-leaved goldenrod (Solidago patula), and meadowsweet. Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) is the primary conifer species in the forested regions of the Cantonment Area, and eastern hemlock is the second most common conifer species. Dominant deciduous tree species are aspen (Populus sp.), black cherry (Prunus serotina), red maple (A. rubrum), sugar maple (A. saccharum), American beech, and northern red oak (Quercus rubra). Emergent palustrine wetland systems support herbaceous species such as forbs, grasses, and sedges, while forested wetlands primarily feature trees like red maple, alder (Alnus sp.), and American elm (Ulmus americana) (USACE Mobile District 2004). A small amount (approximately 0.4 acre) of palustrine wetland habitat also is in Parcel C. Appendix 5 of the Fort Drum Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) contains a detailed list of plant species associated with Fort Drum (US Army 2011b). 3.7.1.2 Wildlife Wildlife species tolerant of human activity would be expected to occur in lodging areas and adjacent natural vegetation in the Cantonment Area. Common mammals include the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and deer mouse (P. maniculatus)
3-14
(USACE Mobile District 2004). Birds typically found in the open uplands of Fort Drum are the savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). Many bird species commonly occur in the late successional forest habitat, similar to what is present on Parcel C, including cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulean) and red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), two species of interest because of their recent population declines. Common bird species associated with shrublands and early successional forest habitats, which are also present in Parcel C, are American woodcock (Scolopax minor), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), black-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus), bluewinged warbler (Vermivora cyanoptera), golden-winged warbler (V. chrysoptera), prairie warbler (Setophaga discolor), Canada warbler (Cardellina canadensis), and willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). While Parcel C contains habitat to support bird species associated with successional forest habitats, most of these bird species are not known to occur within this parcel (US Army 2012b). No streams or waterbodies are in any of the PAL parcels; therefore, no fish species occur in the PAL program area. Appendix 6 of the Fort Drum INRMP contains a detailed list of wildlife species associated with Fort Drum (US Army 2011b). White-tailed deer are a management concern in the Cantonment Area. The Cantonment Area is fenced, and although this limits the movement of deer in and out of the Cantonment Area, deer can and do jump the fence, and can walk in and out of open gates. In an attempt to manage the deer population and reduce deer-vehicle collisions and impacts of deer on vegetation, archery hunting is allowed in designated areas of the Cantonment Area. Archery hunting in the Cantonment Area is restricted to active and retired military personnel, military dependents, and DoD civilian staff and contract personnel. 3.7.1.3 Sensitive Species Flora. No federally listed plant species are known to occur at Fort Drum. A total of 22 state listed plant species have been documented at Fort Drum, as determined by the NYS Natural Heritage Program (US Army 2011b). Because of the developed nature of PAL Parcels A, D, and E, no state-listed flora are expected to occur on these parcels. Parcel C has not been surveyed for the presence of sensitive or rare plant species; however, of the 22 state-listed species that occur at Fort Drum, three-seeded mercury (Acalypha virginica) has the potential to occur. Three-seeded mercury is a New York endangered species, and is frequently found along roadsides and in vacant lots and fallow fields at Fort Drum. There is a low potential for three-seeded mercury to occur within Parcel C due to its rarity. The common three-seeded mercury (A. rhomboidea) is more likely to occur within Parcel C, which is more widespread (US Army 2012b). Appendix 7 of the Fort Drum INRMP contains a complete list of state-listed species that occur at Fort Drum (US Army 2011b). None of the NYS Natural Heritage Program rare ecological communities that have been identified at Fort Drum is associated with the PAL parcels. Fauna. The endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is the only federally listed species known to occur on Fort Drum and was first confirmed at the installation in 2006 (US Army 2011b). Indiana bat is also listed in New York as an endangered species, and NYSDEC has also identified Indiana bat as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need, due to declines in their population.
3-15
Indiana bats are known to roost and forage in the Fort Drum Cantonment Area (US Army 2011b). Fort Drum received a Biological Opinion from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on 2 February 2012 for potential impacts to Indiana bat resulting from proposed wind energy projects and use of smoke in training areas (USFWS 2012). To provide protection for known roosting and foraging sites for this species, Fort Drum has established the Bat Conservation Area, a 2,200-acre area located primarily in the Cantonment Area. This area was established to provide continuity of the known habitat and roosting sites for Indiana bat located in the Cantonment Area, and along West Creek and Pleasant Creek corridors. Tree cutting and application of herbicides is restricted within the Bat Conservation Area without further consultation with USFWS. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was removed from the Federal list of threatened and endangered wildlife on 9 July 2007 (US Department of the Interior 2007). The bald eagle and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703712), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668668c). Nearly all bird species that occur at Fort Drum are protected by the MBTA. A total of 31 state-listed wildlife species also occur at Fort Drum (US Army 2011b). Because of the developed nature of PAL Parcels A, D and E, sensitive wildlife species are not expected to occur on these parcels. Parcel C has not been surveyed for the presence of sensitive wildlife species. Of the Federal and state listed wildlife species that have been documented at Fort Drum (US Army 2011b), only the Indiana bat has been identified as having the greatest potential to occur in Parcel C, as determined from information contained in the Fort Drum INMRP (US Army 2011b) and personal communication received during preparation of this EA (US Army 2012b). Appendix 7 of the Fort Drum INRMP contains a complete list of Federal and state listed wildlife species that occur at Fort Drum (US Army 2011b). 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences
3.7.2.1 Preferred Alternative Short-term minor adverse effects and long-term minor adverse effects on biological resources of Parcel C would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative at Fort Drum, as described below. Vegetation. Long-term minor adverse effects on vegetation would be expected from removing vegetation when constructing the new hotel in Parcel C. All disturbed areas would be revegetated with native species when construction is complete. Trees cut from the site could be sold as marketable timber, depending on the amount and value of the trees removed. Tree cutting restrictions are required for protection of Indiana bat, and these are described below for sensitive species. Wildlife. Short-term minor adverse effects on wildlife inhabiting Parcel C, and long-term minor adverse effects to the wildlife habitat of Parcel C would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. Parcel C is in the Cantonment Area, which is largely developed. Land clearing and construction activities associated with a new hotel in Parcel C could displace resident wildlife and cause any resident white-tailed deer to temporarily move to another area on Fort Drum (USACE Mobile District 2004). Permanent removal of wildlife habitat would also occur on Parcel C. Because Parcels A, D, and E provide little to no wildlife habitat, and
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-16
disruptive actions would be limited to the demolition of the four WWII lodges at the end of the IDP, no adverse effects on wildlife would be expected in those parcels. Sensitive Species. Short-term minor adverse effects on sensitive species inhabiting Parcel C would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. Parcel C contains suitable habitat that could support the sensitive species described in Section 3.7.1.3; however, this parcel is not part of a large, contiguous tract of undeveloped land, which reduces the likelihood for sensitive wildlife species to occur. There are no federally listed plant species known to occur at Fort Drum; however, a NYS endangered species, the three-seeded mercury, might occur in Parcel C. Although Federal facilities are not required to mitigate effects on state-listed species, installations are encouraged to cooperate with state authorities in an effort to conserve state-listed species that could be affected by Federal actions. In a letter from USFWS in 2003 as part of coordination conducted by Fort Drum for the EA prepared for the RCI, in which Parcel C is located, the USFWS indicates that no federally listed species are under its jurisdiction in the RCI area (USACE Mobile District 2004). However, since the RCI EA was prepared, the federally endangered Indiana bat has been documented in the Cantonment Area. The Biological Opinion received from USFWS for proposed wind energy projects and training exercises that involve smoke (USFWS 2012) stated that other activities, such as construction, forest management, establishment of easements, other military training activities, mechanical vegetation management, prescribed fire, pesticide application, wildlife management/vertebrate pest control activities, and outdoor recreation activities would not be expected to result in adverse effects to Indiana bat. Fort Drum has established the Bat Conservation Area, a 2,200-acre area located primarily within the Cantonment Area that protects known roosting and foraging areas for Indiana bat at Fort Drum. The Bat Conservation Area provides continuity of the known habitat and roosting sites for Indiana bat located in the Cantonment Area, and areas along West Creek and Pleasant Creek corridors. Tree cutting and application of herbicides is restricted with the Fort Drum Bat Conservation Area unless further consultation with USFWS is performed. To ensure protection of Indiana bat, cutting of trees in Parcel C would be restricted from 16 April to 15 October, when bat species, including the Indiana bat, are most likely to be roosting in trees. Fort Drum has initiated consultation with the USFWS, requesting information on federally listed species that could be affected from implementing the PAL program at Fort Drum, including birds protected by the MBTA that might occur in Parcel C. Copies of agency correspondence are provided in Appendix B. No effects on biological resources on the developed PAL parcels (Parcels A, D and E) would be expected because these parcels are developed and contain little to no native vegetation. Furthermore, activities associated with these parcels would not affect biological resources because they are limited to renovations to the interior and exterior of the existing buildings and demolition of the WWII lodges in Parcel D at the end of the IDP. 3.7.2.2 No Action Alternative No effects on biological resources would be expected under the No Action Alternative. No vegetation or animal species would be disturbed under the No Action Alternative.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-17
3.8
3.8.1
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Affected Environment Fort Drum is responsible for identifying, evaluating, and protecting important cultural resources on the installation in compliance with the NHPA and other Federal laws, regulations, and standards. Managing cultural resources on the installation is guided, in accordance with Army Regulation 200-1, by an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP), which is updated every 5 years. That plan integrates cultural resources management into other missionrelated activities. The most recent Fort Drum ICRMP was prepared in 2010. It contains detailed information on area prehistory and history, including a history of Fort Drum itself. The ICRMP contains a discussion of regulatory frameworks and compliance status, party and agency roles and responsibilities, studies conducted to date, known site data, standard operating procedures (SOPs), and memoranda and agreements applicable to managing cultural resources. Eighteen SOPs in the ICRMP define protocols for cultural resource management practices such as accidental or inadvertent discoveries, which can be used to avoid significant impacts on cultural resources during project construction, renovation, or operation (US Army 2010a). As an overview, numerous cultural resources studies have been conducted at Fort Drum. Resource types associated with the installation include buildings, structures, objects, sites, and one historic landscape that are eligible for listing or have been listed on the NRHP.
3.8.1.1 Archaeological Sites As of 2010, approximately 87 percent of Fort Drum had been systematically inventoried for archaeological resources and the action resulted in the identification of more than 940 archaeological sites (US Army 2010a). Prehistoric and historic-era archaeological resources have been identified through surveys at Fort Drum. Known archaeological sites range from transient Paleo-Indian occupations to WWII firing points. Once identified, recorded archaeological sites are added to Fort Drums geographic information system (GIS) data layers and to the Cultural Resources Program (CRP) inventory. All archaeological sites are treated as NRHP-eligible and protected until receipt of a New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO) concurrence for resources determined not eligible for NRHP listing (US Army 2010a). The Area of Potential Effect for the proposed PAL undertaking includes the buildings and structures that would be conveyed or leased, areas of any potential ground disturbance, and historic landscape areas in the vicinity of the PAL footprint. The PAL footprint includes existing lodging in Parcels A and D, and an undeveloped portion of Parcel C. Parcel E involves the use of only a portion of the interior of an existing warehouse. The existing developments have little possibility for containing intact archaeological resources because of the extensive disturbance from construction. Parcel C is undeveloped and was surveyed in 2001, 2003, and 2004 by the Fort Drum CRP. During those surveys, prehistoric and historic cultural materials were identified. Prehistoric materials consisted of several non-diagnostic pieces of stone tool manufacture by-products. Historic materials consisted of debris associated with the installations Farmstead Occupation period. Because of the lack of significant cultural material recovered and intact cultural features identified, the Fort Drum CRP determined that no further archaeological testing of Parcel C was required after the 2004 field effort (US Geological Survey n.d.).
3-18
3.8.1.2 Native American Resources Two traditional cultural properties have been identified on the installation; however, no Native American resources have been identified on any of the PAL parcels (US Army 2010a). Fort Drum has initiated consultation with the Oneida Indian Nation, the Onondaga Nation, and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe regarding the proposed PAL project. Copies of the coordination letters sent to the tribes and responses received are in Appendix B. 3.8.1.3 Historic Architecture Fort Drum contains one historic landscape, the LeRay Mansion Historic District. Within the historic landscape are five designated historic buildings. In addition, in 2003 the USACE Research and Development Center conducted a Needs Assessment for Historic Landscapes Identification. The assessment identified five potentially significant landscapes on the installation, including: WWII Officers Loop, Generals Row, Division Hill, 1920 Pine Camp, and the Solstice Site. Fort Drums review of the assessment rejected the inclusion of WWII Officers Loop, Generals Row, and Division Hill as historic landscapes, as these sites no longer meet the criteria for an historic landscape, due to the absence of historic architecture (US Army 2012c). The 1920 Pine Camp is currently being managed as an archaeological site, and the Solstice Site is currently being managed as one of the two traditional cultural properties mentioned in Section 3.8.1.2. The installation also has 13 cemeteries and 5 monuments (US Army 2010a). None of the existing structures in the PAL parcels is listed, or is eligible for listing, in the NRHP. The Fort Drum Inn, in Parcel A, was constructed in 1986 and does not meet NRHP eligibility requirements. Although the WWII Officers Loop is considered a potentially significant landscape district, the Officers Loop WWII lodges, in Parcel D, were constructed in 1941 and are considered temporary wooden structures, and are not eligible for the NRHP (US Army 2012d and Garner 1993). Building S-79, in Parcel E, was also constructed in 1941 and does not meet NRHP eligibility requirements (US Army 2012d and Garner 1993). In accordance with the requirements set forth in section106 of the NHPA, a coordination letter regarding the proposed action was sent to the NYSHPO (Appendix B). 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences
3.8.2.1 Preferred Alternative No adverse effects on archaeological sites, Native American resources, or historic architecture would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. Archeological Sites. No adverse effects on archaeological sites would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. The involved parcels contain no NRHP-eligible archaeological sites. Native American Resources. No adverse effects on Native American resources would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. The involved parcels do not contain any identified resources of significance to a Native American tribe. Historic Architecture. No adverse effects on historic architecture would be expected under the Preferred Alternative. None of the existing structures in the PAL parcels are listed, or are eligible
3-19
for listing, on the NRHP, nor are they in an NRHP-eligible, or potentially eligible historic district or landscape. Maintenance, repair, and renovation of the existing structures would be limited to the Fort Drum Inn, which was built in 1986, and the four wooden WWII lodges, which have been determined ineligible for the NRHP. Furthermore, the only structure being conveyed to Rest Easy (leaving Federal control) is the Fort Drum Inn. The WWII lodges and warehouses would be used under a support lease and remain within Federal control. As approved by the programmatic agreement between DoD, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record regarding the demolition of WWII temporary buildings (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1986 and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1991), the four WWII lodges would be demolished at the end of the IDP. Parcel C was originally part of a ground lease for RCI program established for Fort Drum. A provision would be included in Exhibit E of the ground lease regarding accidental or inadvertent discoveries of archaeological sites, Native American resources, or historic architecture. The lease provision would be based on SOP 7 in the ICRMP, which establishes steps to take when the accidental discovery of potential archaeological resources occurs on a project. Rest Easy would fully comply with management measures identified in the lease documents. 3.8.2.2 No Action Alternative No effects on cultural resources would be expected under the No Action Alternative. All Army actions affecting the involved parcels would conform to installation policies, the ICRMP, and relevant regulatory frameworks.
3.9
3.9.1
SOCIOECONOMICS
Affected Environment This section describes the economy and the sociological environment of the region of influence (ROI) surrounding Fort Drum. An ROI is a geographic area selected as a basis on which social and economic impacts of project alternatives are analyzed. The ROI for the social and economic environment is defined as Jefferson County, New York. Socioeconomic data for NYS and the United States are presented for comparative purposes.
3.9.1.1 Regional Economy Employment and Industry. Civilian labor force and unemployment data are shown in Table 3-6. The regions labor force increased 11 percent between 2000 and 2010, which is higher than the state and national labor force growth of 5 percent and 8 percent, respectively. The ROI 2010 annual unemployment rate was 10 percent, which is the same as the national unemployment rate and is 1 percent higher than the state unemployment rate (9 percent). As of December 2011 (the most recent unemployment data available), preliminary unemployment data indicate a 10 percent unemployment rate for the ROI, and an 8 percent unemployment rate for the state and the nation (BLS 2012).
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-20
Table 3-6. Labor force and unemployment

2000 civilian labor force 45,041 9,166,972 142,583,000 2010 civilian labor force 49,859 9,630,854 153,889,000 Percent change in labor force, 20002010 11% 5% 8% 2010 annual unemployment percent 10% 9% 10%
Location ROI New York United States

Source: BLS 2012
The primary sources of ROI employment were government and government enterprises (which include Federal, military, and state and local government); retail trade; and health care and social assistance. Those three industry sectors account for more than 60 percent of regional employment (BEA 2011). Fort Drum is the largest employer in northern New York, employing more than 19,400 active duty military personnel and 4,800 civilian personnel (including tenants and contractor employees) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. For FY 2010, military and civilian payrolls (including tenants and contractors) totaled more than $973 million and $193 million, respectively (US Army 2010b). Income. ROI income levels were lower than state and national income levels (Table 3-7). The ROI per capita personal income (PCPI) was $22,514, compared to the state level PCPI of $30,011 and the national PCPI of $26,059. The ROI median household income was $43,557, compared to the state median household income of $54,148 and the national median household income of $50,046 (USCB 2011a). Table 3-7. 2010 Income
Source: USCB 2011a
PCPI $22,514 $30,011 $26,059
Median household income $43,557 $54,148 $50,046
Population. The ROIs 2010 population was 116,229, which represented an increase of almost 4,500 persons since 2000. The ROIs population growth of 4 percent was higher than the NYS population growth of 2 percent, but lower than the national population growth of 10 percent (Table 3-8). Table 3-8. Population
Percent change in population, 20002010 4,491 (4%) 401,645 (2%) 27,323,632 (10%)

Source: USCB 2012
2000 population 111,738 18,976,457 281,421,906
2010 population 116,229 19,378,102 308,745,538
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-21
3.9.1.2 Quality of Life Lodging. The Fort Drum lodging facilities are described in Section 2.3. Fort Drum Army lodging data for the past three fiscal years (2009-2011) lists the number of room nights accommodated on-post as 97,617 in 2009; 99,887 in 2010; and 98,900 in 2011. Hotel Valuation Services (an independent contractor) conducted a professional market study to assess the Fort Drum area hotel market supply and demand conditions. The study analysis projected that the proposed actions to construct a 235-room CWS hotel and to renovate the 111-room HIE on Fort Drum would result in 99,470 room nights accommodated on-post. Comparing the Fort Drum Army lodging historic data to the market study data shows that the projected number of on-post accommodated room nights would remain about the same. Emergency Services. The Fort Drum Directorate of Emergency Services provides law enforcement, physical security, and fire and emergency response on Fort Drum, including the lodging areas. Fort Drum has three fire stations. Medical care for active duty Soldiers, retirees, or family members is available at Fort Drums Guthrie Ambulatory Health Care Clinic. Local civilian hospitals that provide inpatient medical needs are the Samaritan Medical Center and the Carthage Area Hospital. 3.9.1.3 Environmental Justice EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Lowincome Populations, was issued by President Clinton on 11 February 1994. The EO requires that Federal agencies take into consideration disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects of governmental decisions, policies, projects, and programs on minority and low-income populations. According to the 2010 Census, minority populations composed 14 percent of the ROIs population. That is much lower compared to New Yorks minority population of 42 percent and the national minority population of 36 percent (USCB 2011b). The ROI, NYS, and national poverty rate was 14 percent (USCB 2012). 3.9.1.4 Protection of Children EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks, issued by President Clinton on 21 April 1997, requires Federal agencies, to the extent permitted by law and mission, to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that might disproportionately affect children. Children are present at Fort Drum as residents and visitors (e.g., residing in on-post family housing or lodging, using recreational facilities, attending events). The Army takes precautions for their safety through a number of means, including using fencing, limiting access to certain areas, and requiring adult supervision. 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences
3.9.2.1 Preferred Alternative EIFS Model Methodology. The economic effects of implementing the proposed action are estimated using the Economic Impact Forecast System (EIFS) model, a computer-based economic tool that calculates multipliers to estimate the direct and indirect effects resulting from a given action. Changes in spending and employment caused by renovation and construction of Fort Drum lodging facilities represent the direct effects of the action. Using the input data and
3-22
calculated multipliers, the model estimates ROI changes in sales volume, income, employment, and population, accounting for the direct and indirect effects of the action. For purposes of this analysis, a change is considered significant if it is outside the historical range of ROI economic variation. To determine that range, the EIFS model calculates a rational threshold value (RTV) profile for the ROI. That analytical process uses historical data for the ROI and calculates fluctuations in sales volume, income, employment, and population patterns. The historical extremes for the ROI become the thresholds of significance (i.e., the RTVs) for social and economic change. If the estimated effect of an action is above the positive RTV or below the negative RTV, the effect is considered significant. Appendix C discusses the methodology in more detail, and presents the model inputs and outputs developed for this analysis. EIFS Model Results. Short-term minor beneficial economic effects on the regional economy would be expected from implementing the PAL program. The expenditures and employment associated with the Fort Drum lodging renovation and construction would increase ROI sales volume, employment, and income, as determined by the EIFS model (Table 3-9) and Appendix C). The economic benefits would last for the duration of the development and construction period. Such changes in sales volume, employment, and income would be within historical fluctuations (i.e., within the RTV range) and would be considered minor. Table 3-9. EIFS model output
Variable Sales (business) volume Income Employment Population
Source: EIFS model
Projected total change $10,550,000 $1,871,547 55 0
Percent change 0.44% 0.08% 0.09% 0.00%
RTV range -5.26% to 23.83% -3.40% to 18.27% -2.73% to 11.12% -1.02% to 6.44%
Lodging. Long-term minor beneficial effects on lodging would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. The availability of quality, on-post lodging facilities at a cost that meets Government per diem rates is important to Soldiers when they are on TDY or permanent change of station. It also is important to the Army to be able to accommodate Soldiers and visitors in suitable lodging equal to that of off-post lodging. Under the Preferred Alternative, the developer would renovate existing lodging and construct new lodging to provide a sufficient number of on-post rooms and parking spaces to meet Fort Drums lodging requirements. The installation would have modern hotels with amenities preferred by todays travelers such as Internet access, continental breakfast, business and fitness centers, and guest laundry. These improvements would benefit the quality of life of those who stay at the Fort Drum lodging. The Hotel Valuation Services hotel market study analysis (see Section 3.9.1.2) concluded that the proposed action would result in little to no change in the number of on-post accommodated room nights, which would therefore have no adverse effect on off-post hotel demand and the local economy. Based on Fort Drum Army Lodging historic data and the market study data, no more and no fewer rooms would be accommodated on-post. It is possible that Rest Easy (on the basis of future analysis and the availability of project funds) would build a smaller CWS hotel with fewer than 235 rooms (see Section 2.3.2). Under this circumstance, the number of
3-23
accommodated on-post rooms would likely go down, which would also have no adverse effect on the off-post hotel market or the local economy. Emergency Services. No effects on law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical response would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. The subject lodging buildings are on Fort Drum property in the jurisdiction of the Fort Drum Directorate of Emergency Services, which would continue to respond to emergencies at the privatized lodging facilities as they do with the existing lodging facilities, at a cost-reimbursable basis to the developer. Rest Easy also would negotiate a multiple services agreement with the local community police, fire, and emergency response service departments to provide additional aid if needed. The proposed new hotel on Parcel C would be built to comply with the Fort Drum Installation Design Guide (US Army 2011c), and would have all the safety requirements required by law (such as smoke alarms, fire alarms, sprinklers). Environmental Justice and Protection of Children. No adverse effects on environmental justice and the protection of children would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative of renovation and construction of lodging facilities on Fort Drum would not result in disproportionate adverse environmental or health effects on low-income or minority populations or children. The Preferred Alternative is not an action with the potential to substantially affect human health or the environment by excluding persons, denying persons benefits, or subjecting persons to discrimination. 3.9.2.2 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would be expected to have long-term minor adverse effects on quality of life. Continuation of the present lodging programs would perpetuate deficiencies in quality of life for Soldiers, their families, or visitors eligible to use Army lodging. The Army would continue to do regular maintenance on existing lodging, but those activities would be conducted on a constrained budget. Without implementing the PAL program, the Army would forego opportunities to leverage private-sector financing for the lodging function. Quality of life for personnel using lodging facilities would, in all likelihood, decline given current funding levels.
3.10
TRANSPORTATION
3.10.1 Affected Environment Transportation in and around Fort Drum is achieved mainly via road and street networks, pedestrian walks, trails and bike paths. The transportation system serves installation traffic consisting of everyday work, living, and recreations trips. On-Post Roadways and Gate Traffic. Transportation challenges exist on roadways in and around Fort Drum during the morning and evening peak periods because off-post roadways are congested and queues form at the gates for access into the installation. Local roadways include State Route 11 and County Route 342. The Fort Drum on-post road network primary roadways link the gates with major facilities on the installation. The roadways on Fort Drum are classified as primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary roads serve as main arteries carrying traffic on and off the installation and connecting the main portions of the installation. Table 3-10 provides the average daily traffic counts and peak traffic at each installation gate.
3-24
Table 3-10. Annual average daily traffic counts at Fort Drum gates
Gate name Gas Alley (#1) Mt. Belvedere (#2) North (#3) Black River (#4) WSAAF (#5) 45 Infantry Division Location East (Tank Trail) West (County Route 342) West (US 11) South (Nash Boulevard) Southeast (County Route 3) East (Martin Street Road US 26) Average daily traffic count 6,006 4,344 13,158 3,995 2,298 5,157 Peak hour traffic count 402 256 1,058 538 181 669 Peak hour p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. a.m. a.m.
Source: NYSDOT 2008; US Army 2011e
Queues often form at the gates in the morning and afternoon peak periods as people wait to be checked. Visitors may enter only at the North Gate (#3), commercial vehicles may enter only at the Gas Alley Gate (#1), and ammunition trucks may enter only at the WSAAF Gate (#5). Interstate (I)-81 is congested during the morning and afternoon peak hours. To alleviate that congestion, a new four-lane expressway (I-781) is under construction with access from I-81 and Route 11 and an exit that leads directly to the North Gate (NYSDOT 2010). Parking capacity at Fort Drum is appropriate for existing demand. Barracks and larger facilities have dedicated parking lots, and parallel parking is provided on many streets. Pedestrian traffic is accommodated by a system of sidewalks along many streets and walkways between buildings. Troop pathways are provided between foot traffic, high-volume areas. Off-Post Roadways. Fort Drum is approximately 25 miles southeast of the Canadian border, 70 miles north of Syracuse, and 140 miles northwest of Albany, New York. I-81 is the closest interstate to the installation and runs north-south parallel to US Highway 11, both to the west. Annual average daily traffic for I-81 near the installation is 21,912 at Exit 47 southwest of Mt. Belvedere Gate, and 9,090 near Exit 48 north of the installation access point (NYSDOT 2008). Air, Rail, and Public Transportation. The closest airport to the PAL footprint area is WSAAF, about 2 miles northeast of the Cantonment Area, and the closest commercial airport is Watertown International Airport approximately 11 miles west of the installation. Rail spurs run throughout the installation. 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences 3.10.2.1 Preferred Alternative
Short-and long-term minor adverse effects on transportation would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. Short-term effects would be due to construction-related traffic. Long-term effects would be due to change in on- and off-post traffic from the proposed hotel. Construction vehicles would be scheduled and routed to minimize conflicts with other traffic. During these phases, construction vehicles and day labor traffic would be expected to have a minor adverse effect.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-25
On-Post Roadways, Gate Traffic, and Parking. The proposed hotel would generate 2,045 vehicle trips per day on weekdays either originating at or destined to Parcel C. Specifically, traffic from patrons and staff would be rerouted to Parcel C as opposed to off-post hotels and Parcel D. In general, that would correspond to a net increase in the miles traveled on the installation, and a small net benefit by reducing traffic passing through the gates each morning and evening. Parcel C can be accessed from Mt. Belvedere Boulevard, Enduring Freedom Drive, South Riva Ridge Loop or all roadways. The project is in the preliminary design stage; ingress and egress issues would be taken into consideration before actual construction. Individuals accessing the new hotel would use similar gates as currently used to access the existing lodging facilities. A small increase in traffic would result; however, it is not expected that traffic at any gate would change substantially from implementing the Preferred Alternative. The project is currently in the preliminary design stage; and adequate parking would be provided for the additional lodging facilities. Off-Post Roadways. The net increase in lodging would constitute a corresponding increase of approximately 740 vehicle trips per day at full occupancy either originating at, or destined to the installation (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2003). Many of these trips would occur at peak periods, and would account for some small amount of off-post traffic. This would constitute a minute change in off-post traffic, and not appreciably affect any nearby roadways or intersections. Notably, overall increases in the traffic would be due to the changes in mission requirements, and not PAL in and of itself. Effects on off-post roadways would be minor. Air, Rail, and Public Transportation. The Preferred Alternative would have no appreciable adverse effect on air, rail, or public transportation. 3.10.2.2 No Action Alternative
Selecting the No Action Alternative would result in no effect on transportation resources. No construction would occur, and no new lodging operations would take place. Traffic and transportation conditions would remain as described in Section 3.10.1.
3.11
UTILITIES
3.11.1 Affected Environment All utility services, including water, wastewater, gas, electricity, and communications, are available near the proposed parcels. The utility components discussed in this section are water supply, sanitary sewer and wastewater systems, storm water drainage, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste management. Potable Water. Watertowns water plant supplies potable water to the installation by transmission system operated by the Development Authority of the North Country (DANC). The installation also operates 11 wells near WSAAF. This mix provides 40 percent well water and 60 percent DANC-supplied water. DANC services all Fort Drum and surrounding counties with its water treatment facilities from the main water sourcethe Black River. Lake Ontario also provides water supply to the installation. DANC pumps water from Watertowns clearwell using one of three 75-horsepower centrifugal pumps through a 20-inch ductile iron pipeline to Fort Drums 750,000-gallon ground storage tank on the installation (DANC 2010).
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-26
Wastewater System On-Post. Most of the sewer lines on-post (99 percent) are separate sanitary and storm sewers. All sanitary wastewater collected on Fort Drum is sent off-post for treatment through three connections: (1) North Gate pump station; (2) Old Fort Drum wastewater treatment plant off Nash Boulevard; and (3) gravity connection at Military Road near the housing east of the Belvedere Gate. The total sanitary wastewater flow from Fort Drum rarely exceeds 2.5 million gallons daily (mgd). The capacity of the existing collection system and off-post connections is ample. For example, the North Gate pump station is rated for 8 to 10 mgd, but the average daily wastewater flow from Fort Drum was only approximately 1.6 mgd in FY 08 (US Army 2011f). The existing infrastructure for wastewater conveyance could easily support a 50 percent increase in demand. Wastewater System Off-Post. Sanitary wastewater from Fort Drum is piped to the wastewater treatment plant in Watertown via a pipeline owned and operated by DANC. DANC is contracted to treat Fort Drum sanitary wastewater, and DANC meters the off-post connections. The pipe from Fort Drum to the Watertown treatment plant varies in size from 12 to 36 inches. This line serves Fort Drum and the town of LeRay. The capacity of the pipeline is 10 mgd; the capacity could be increased to 16 mgd if another pump were added. The 12-mile DANC pipeline goes to the Watertown wastewater treatment plant, owned and operated by Watertown. Flow peaks in the spring and fall because 40 percent of the area served has combined sewers, which collect both sanitary wastewater and storm water. The existing infrastructure for off-post wastewater treatment could easily support a 50 percent increase in demand from Fort Drum. Storm Water System. Most of the installation is in the St. Lawrence River Basin. A small portion of land at the southern end of the installation drains to the Black River Basin. The Black River flows westward across Training Area 6 near the southern boundary of Fort Drum, south of WSAAF. No perennial streams drain into the Black River from Fort Drum. The greatest amount of surface runoff typically occurs in April, when the spring snowmelt occurs. Solid Waste. Fort Drum's solid waste is consolidated for transport at the installations transfer station just north of Iraqi Freedom Drive to the DANC municipal solid waste landfill. Recyclable materials are separated from solid waste before being transported off the installation by the Directorate of Public Works Environmental Divisions Solid Waste and Recycle Program, and private vendors collect and transport the separated materials. In 2010 Fort Drums Recycle Program generated 2,589 tons of recyclable materials transported off-post by vendors, and disposed of 8,500 tons of solid waste and construction debris to the DANC Rodman Regional landfill. Fort Drum requires construction and demolition (C&D) contractors to dispose of solid waste generated during C&D activities undertaken on-post. The contractors are responsible for coordinating with local or regional landfills to secure agreements for appropriate disposal of solid waste (US Army 2010c). Electricity. The Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation supplies power to Fort Drum at a number of connection points. Two main substations supply power to the Cantonment Areas, both with capacities of 15 megawatts. These substations are configured to receive hardware for additional capacity, if necessary. The average monthly demand in FY 02 was approximately 16.1 megawatts, and the average monthly use on-post was 770 megawatt-hours. The existing electrical infrastructure could easily support a 50 percent increase in demand (US Army 2011f). Natural Gas. Fort Drum purchases natural gas, with transport delivery through the Niagara Mohawk distribution system. Two active pipelines connect to the Niagara Mohawk system: a 6inch pipeline at Main Street, and a 12-inch pipeline at North Memorial. Most of the gas passes through the 12-inch connection and is reduced from a distribution pressure of 45 pounds per
3-27
square inch (psi) to 15 psi for on-post use. A third system is under construction to service the airfield and connect into the existing installations distribution as a full-capacity backup to the existing 12-inch service. In addition, on-post distribution pressure could be raised from 15 psi to 30 psi to increase capacity. The existing natural gas distribution system could easily support a 50 percent increase in demand (US Army 2011f). Other Heating Fuels (Oil, Propane). Localized propane and fuel oil systems are used for heating in some remote locations of the installation. These fuels are contained in buildingspecific tanks. No significant on-post infrastructure is associated with these energy sources, and their use would be expected to decrease if further conversion to natural gas occurred. 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences 3.11.2.1 Preferred Alternative
Short and long-term minor adverse effects on utilities would be expected. These effects would be limited to solid waste because of added debris from construction of the new lodging facilities and renovation of existing building to the landfill. The existing infrastructure for all other utilities would be adequate for projected demands from the proposed lodging facilities. Implementing the Preferred Alternative would generate approximately 895 tons of C&D debris (Table 3-11). Approximately half of the debris would be recycled, which would result in 447 tons of nonhazardous C&D debris for disposal in the Rodman Regional Landfill. A slight increase on utility systems usage would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative as responsibility of utilities would be transferred to Rest Easy and IHG. Utility lines exist at the adjacent residential and commercial properties with full utility service, alleviating the need for new service connections. The quantities of potable water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste that the occupants in the proposed lodging would produce might cause a slight increase in utility usage. Note that the overall utility needs per lodging unit would be lower than existing, because newer construction would conform to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards. As a result of the Preferred Alternative, Rest Easy and IHG would need to establish separate metered utility service for potable water, electricity, natural gas, and communications. Table 3-11. Summary of construction and renovation debris
Debris generation rate (lb/sq ft) 4.4 20.0 24.4 Debris Quantity recycled generated (50%) (tons) (tons) 284.4 610.5 894.9 142.2 305.3 447.4 Total quantity disposed of in the landfill (tons) 142.2 305.3 447.4
Action Type Construction Nonresidential 129,250 sq ft Renovation Nonresidential 57,320 sq ft Total

Source: USEPA 1998
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-28
3.11.2.2
No Action Alternative
No effects on utility systems would be expected from implementing the No Action Alternative, under which the environmental baseline would not change. Utility conditions would remain as described in Section 3.11.1.
3.12
HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
3.12.1 Affected Environment According to GIS data and an environmental questionnaire that installation personnel completed for the PAL effort, no installation restoration program sites or known ordnance sites are on or abutting the proposed PAL sites that would have an effect on the environmental condition of the selected properties. However, according to installation GIS data, a former landfill was located to the northeast of Parcel C near what is now the intersection of Mt. Belvedere Boulevard and Enduring Freedom Drive. The former landfill, referred to as FTD-010, consisted of construction debris that was held in an area off Pearl Street from 1978 to 1980. Pearl Street no longer exists; however, segments of the former street are now part of a trail system that bisects Parcel C. The construction debris was removed in 1986 as part of road construction (Mt. Belvedere Boulevard and Enduring Freedom Drive) in the new cantonment area. No further action is necessary. Parcel E is within an industrial section of the Cantonment Area, and restoration sites are nearby; however, only Building S-79 in Parcel E is being proposed for transfer, not the land area. There are no aboveground storage tanks within or adjacent to the subject properties; however, buildings in Parcel D and E were once served by fuel oil underground storage tanks that ranged from 500 to 1,000 gallons. The underground storage tanks were installed in 1969 and 1974, and all were removed in the late 1990s. No spills were associated with the tanks (US Army 2012e). In addition, no indications exist that special hazards such as polychlorinated biphenyls or radon are present. Other special hazards that are likely present on the proposed PAL sites are the following: Pesticides. Pesticides are listed commercial products that become a hazardous waste when discarded in a manner not consistent with their intended use. In addition, 40 CFR 261.2 (c)(1)(B)(ii) states that the commercial chemical products listed in 40 CFR 261.33 are not solid wastes (and therefore are not hazardous wastes) if they are applied to the land and that is their ordinary manner of use. Therefore, if pesticides are identified in soils around the buildings and they were used for their intended purposes, their presence in the soil would not constitute a release. Therefore, they would not affect the environmental condition of property. Only trained personnel may apply pesticides, and pesticides may be applied only in a manner consistent with the directions for the specific type of pesticide, Federal law, and the Fort Drum Integrated Pest Management Plan. Lead-Based Paint. Because the buildings in Parcels D and E were constructed before 1978, it is likely that Lead-based Paint (LBP) is present. LBP has been encapsulated at the lodging by repainting and wall-covering work. Army policy calls for controlling LBP by using in-place management (as opposed to mandated removal procedures). In-place management is used to prevent deterioration over time for those surfaces likely to contain LBP, followed by replacement as necessary. Major renovations and unit demolition would require that LBP be removed in accordance with state and Federal guidelines.
3-29
The visual site inspection performed for the PAL program identified peeling paint at some of the buildings; however, no paint chips were observed on the ground surface. Asbestos-Containing Material. An Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) inspection conducted at Fort Drum in 1990 included lodging buildings in Parcels A and D. The building in Parcel E was sampled in 1997. Much of the ACM in the Parcel D lodging has been abated during renovation efforts. Remaining ACM in Parcel D buildings is in floor tile and transite panels. In the Parcel E building, ACM was identified in roof tar and mastic. The survey did not identify any ACM in the Fort Drum Inn. As long as ACM remains non-friable, it does not pose a significant health risk. Mold. Fungi are present almost everywhere in indoor and outdoor environments. Molds or fungi typically grow on common building components (e.g., walls, ventilation systems, support beams) that are chronically moist or water-damaged. Elevated fungal exposure in humans can result in flu-like symptoms, including runny nose, eye irritation, cough, congestion, and aggravation of asthma. Inhalation of fungal spores, fragments, or metabolites (e.g., mycotoxins, Volatile Organic Compounds) from a variety of fungi can lead to or exacerbate allergic reactions or cause toxic effects, or cause infections. During the visual site inspection, mold was observed in some mechanical rooms; according to lodging personnel, mold is sometimes an issue in the summer months around air conditioning units. When mold is found, maintenance personnel remove it and try to correct what is causing the mold. 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences 3.12.2.1 Preferred Alternative
No adverse effects would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. All hazardous materials and waste associated with renovation, construction, and lodging management would be handled and disposed of in accordance with local, state, and Federal regulations and established installation procedures. Additional potentially hazardous materials that could be found on-site during PAL project-related activities include paints, solvents, and petroleum products. The construction contractors would be responsible for preventing spills by implementing proper storage and handling procedures. 3.12.2.2 No Action Alternative
No adverse effects regarding hazardous and toxic substances would be expected under the No Action Alternative. Current environmental management procedures would continue to be implemented in accordance with applicable laws.
3.13
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY

The PAL parcel that has been selected as the new build site, Parcel C, has been subject to previous environmental review as part of the RCI program at Fort Drum. Parcel C was selected for potential development as part of the RCI program because of its central location in the Cantonment Area and suitability for development (i.e. lack of environmental constraints). Future development in the North Post area, adjacent to Parcel C, includes infill of underutilized parcels and improvements to the roadway and signage system. Expansion of the existing utilities in the
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-30
North Post area could also be conducted to support more dense development in the North Post area (US Army 2011a). The Armys long-term plans for the North Post area immediately surrounding Parcel C include enhancement of the community areas to create walkable community hubs, and development of the open area surrounding the Garrison Headquarters and landscaping improvements to the Parade Field. Improvements identified for the North Post Community Center include consolidation of the current community support facilities to form a centrally located community center, using a design that encourages pedestrian usage and reduces the number of vehicledependent trips. North Post Parade Field improvements include establishment of the parade field as a prominent civic space in the central core of North Post, by organizing site elements to ensure physical and visual connection with existing landmark buildings. Improvements in the Central Community Area of Fort Drum include consolidation and simplification of parking and traffic circulation in the area, and enhancement of existing community assets through expansion and provision of additional complementary uses. Other Fort Drum projects planned for the North Post area include RCI actions, establishment of a multi-purpose trail along Po Valley Road, and installation of a landscaping buffer between the Fort Drum Industrial Area and South Post (US Army 2011c). Cumulatively these projects and improvements would result in minor adverse effects on natural resources. The removal of habitat for wildlife living within areas to be developed would force wildlife to relocate to other areas of suitable habitat, and result in the loss of some individuals, and the overall reduction in habitat would be expected to cause some reduction in the local populations of some species, though not to a degree that any species population would be critically reduced. Other construction or development projects in the Fort Drum region could produce air emissions, noise, economic benefits, water pollution, or other effects typically associated with such activities. However, the magnitude of effects that would result from implementing the Preferred Alternative would not be sufficient to substantially contribute to the cumulative effects. The Preferred Alternative would not result in significant impacts on any of the environmental resources analyzed in this EA. The analysis identified minor adverse effects related to aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, noise, geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, transportation, and utilities. Beneficial effects were identified for aesthetics and visual resources, and socioeconomics. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would have a very minor contribution to cumulative effects in the ROI. Cumulative, long-term benefits to visual/aesthetics, and socioeconomics would be expected; along with reduced energy consumption associated the new and renovated facilities. In addition to the PAL action, a number of other economic development projects planned in and around Fort Drum would likely have short- and long-term beneficial effects on the local economy by increasing employment, income, and business sales volume. Other commercial, residential, and infrastructure development or improvements would also continue to occur off-post within the ROI. The additional cumulative benefits of the current and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions would help to offset the overall adverse cumulative effect.
3.14
MITIGATION SUMMARY
Mitigation actions are used to reduce, avoid, or compensate for significant adverse effects. Mitigation of adverse effects associated with implementing the PAL Program at Fort Drum includes compensatory wetland mitigation, as determined through correspondence with the USACE New York District regarding wetland impacts, and tree-cutting restrictions for protection of bat species, including the federally endangered Indiana bat.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-31
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
3-32
SECTION 4.0 CONCLUSIONS

This EA has been prepared to evaluate the potential effects on the natural and human environment associated with implementing the PAL program at Fort Drum. The EA examines the proposed action (Preferred Alternative) and a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is prescribed by CEQ regulations to serve as the baseline against which the proposed action and alternatives are analyzed. This EA evaluates potential long- and short-term effects on land use, aesthetic and visual resources, air quality, noise, geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, socioeconomics (including environmental justice and protection of children), transportation, utilities, and hazardous and toxic substances. Implementing the Preferred Alternative would be expected to result in a combination of shortand long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects. Short-term minor adverse effects on aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, noise, geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, transportation, and utilities would be expected, associated with construction and renovation activities. Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected on air quality from stationary, area, and mobile emissions; on water resources from wetland effects and grounddisturbance activities; on vegetation, including wildlife habitat, from the permanent vegetation removal associated with development of the new lodging facility; on transportation from traffic impacts during construction and implementing the PAL program; and on utilities from the increase in solid waste (C&D debris). Short-term minor beneficial effects on the local economy would be expected from expenditures and employment associated with lodging renovation and construction. Long-term minor beneficial effects on aesthetic and visual resources and socioeconomics (quality of life) would be expected from the overall improved quality of the lodging facilities. Mitigation of adverse effects associated with implementing the PAL Program at Fort Drum include compensatory wetland mitigation, as determined through correspondence with the USACE New York District regarding wetland impacts, and tree-cutting restrictions for protection of bat species, including the federally endangered Indiana bat. For each resource, the predicted effects from both the proposed action, identified as the Armys Preferred Alternative, and the No Action Alternative are summarized in Table 4-1. Implementing the Preferred Alternative would not be expected to result in significant effects on the natural or human environment. Issuance of a FNSI would be appropriate, and an environmental impact statement need not be prepared before implementing the proposed action.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
4-1
Table 4-1. Summary of potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences

Resource Land use Aesthetic and visual resources Air quality Noise Geology and soils Water resources Biological resources Cultural resources Socioeconomics Transportation Utilities Hazardous and toxic substances Environmental and socioeconomic effects Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative No effect Short-term minor adverse Long-term minor beneficial Short-term minor adverse Long-term minor adverse Short-term minor adverse Short-term minor adverse Short-term minor adverse Long-term minor adverse Short-term minor adverse Long-term minor adverse No effect Short-term minor beneficial Long-term minor beneficial Short-term minor adverse Long-term minor adverse Short-term minor adverse Long-term minor adverse No effect No effect Long-term minor adverse No effect No effect No effect No effect
No effect No effect Long-term minor adverse No effect No effect No effect
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
4-2
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 1986. Programmatic Agreement among the United States Department of Defense, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. <http://www.achp.gov/pa6.pdf>. Accessed April 16, 2012. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 1991. Amendment to the Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement among the United States Department of Defense, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record regarding Demolition of World War II Temporary Buildings. <http://www.achp.gov/pa7.pdf>. Accessed April 16, 2012. ANSI (American National Standards Institute). 2003. American National Standard Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound. Part 3: Shortterm measurements with an observer present. 2003. ANSI S12.9-1993 (R2003)/Part 3. American National Standards Institute. BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2011. Total Employment by Industry. <http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/default.cfm?selTable=CA25>. Accessed March 2012. BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2012. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. <http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment>. Accessed March 2012. CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2010. Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies on Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC. <http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/Consideration_of_Effects_of_GHG_Draft_NEPA_Guidanc e_FINAL_02182010.pdf>. April 24, 2012 DANC (Development Authority of the North Country). 2010. Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for 2010 to Fort Drum Waterline. <http://www.danc.org/files/public/20110629082350459.pdf>. Accessed March 2012. DoD (Department of Defense). 2010. Installations Practice Energy Conservation. <http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13276>. Accessed March 2012. Fort Drum GIS. 2012. GIS files for Fort Drum, New York. Garner, John S. 1993. A Brief History of the Architecture and Planning of Cantonments and Training Stations in the United States. Technical Report CRC-93 01. U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories, Champaign, IL. Harris, C.M. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurement and Noise Control. Acoustical Society of America, Sewickley, PA.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
5-1
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2003. Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. 7th ed. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC. NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2012a. Air Quality Standards. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8542.html>. Accessed March 2012. NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2012b. Title V Permit Review Report. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/dardata/boss/afs/permits/699060000600076.pdf>. Accessed March 2012. NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2012c. Chapter X Division of Water. Subchapter B: Classes and Standards of Quality and Purity Assignments to Fresh Surface and Tidal Salt Waters. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/2485.html>. Accessed March 21, 2012. NYSDOT (New York State Department of Transportation). 2008. New York DOT Average Daily Traffic Counts GIS on Google Earth Map of Fort Drum. Accessed March 2012. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA. The Weather Channel. 2012. Monthly Averages for Fort Drum, NY. <http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USNY0513>. Accessed March 20, 2012. US Army. 2010a. Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) 2011-2015. Fort Drum, Cultural Resources Section, Environmental Division, Directorate of Public Works, Fort Drum, NY. US Army. 2010b. Fort Drum Plans, Analysis, and Integration Office. Fort Drum Economic Impact Statement Fiscal Year 2010, October 1, 2009 September 30, 2010. <http://www.drum.army.mil/SiteCollectionDocuments/FY10EIB.pdf>. Accessed March 2012. US Army. 2010c. Fort Drum Economic Impact Statement. Fort Drum, New York. <http://www.drum.army.mil/SiteCollectionDocuments/FY10EIB.pdf>. Accessed March 2012. US Army. 2011a. Long Range Component, Fort Drum, New York. Final April 2011. US Army. 2011b. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. Natural Resources Branch, Environmental Division, Directorate of Public Works and Integrated Training Area Program, Range Branch, Training Division, Directorate of Planning, Training, Mobilization & Security, Fort Drum, NY. US Army. 2011c. Installation Design Guide. Fort Drum, NY. April 2011.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
5-2
US Army. 2011d. 2011 Air Emissions Inventory for Fort Drum. Fort Drum, NY. US Army. 2011e. Fort Drum Gate Information Map. Fort Drum, NY. US Army. 2011f. Environmental Assessment for Stationing Actions to Support the Grow the Army Initiative. Fort Drum, NY. US Army. 2012a. Personal communication between G. Bingham, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Drum, and L. Rivard of Tetra Tech, Inc., Portland, ME. US Army. 2012b. Personal communication received from C. Dobony, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Drum, as part of the review comments submitted to Tetra Tech, Inc. on 18 May 2012 for the Fort Drum PAL Draft EA. US Army. 2012c. Personal communication received from D. Quates, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Drum, as part of the review comments submitted to Tetra Tech, Inc. on 18 May 2012 for the Fort Drum PAL Draft EA. US Army. 2012d. Personal communication between L. Rush, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Drum, and B. Locking of Tetra Tech, Inc., Buffalo, NY. US Army. 2012e. Personal communication between A. Rambone, POL/Storage Tank Program Manager, Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Division, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Drum, New York and G. Hippert of Tetra Tech, Inc., Salisbury, NC. April and May 2012. US Department of the Interior. 2007. Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 130 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Monday, July 9, 2007. US Geological Survey. n.d. 9000 Area, Cantonment (2001.020), Jefferson County, Town of LeRay, Black River Quadrangle; RCI Survey, Cantonment (2003.024) Jefferson County, Town of LeRay, Black River Quadrangle; FDP 1215, 5m Shovel Test Grid, Cantonment (2004.014), Jefferson County, Town of LeRay, Black River Quadrangle; FDP 1215, Phase II, Cantonment (2004.005,) Town of LeRay, Jefferson County, Black River Quadrangle. Fort Drum, Cultural Resources Program, Fort Drum, NY. USACE Mobile District (U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District). 2004. Final Environmental Assessment for the Residential Communities Initiative at Fort Drum, New York. Prepared for Commander, Fort Drum, NY, by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, with Technical Assistance from Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA. USCB (US Census Bureau). 2011a. 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?fpt=table>. Accessed January 2012. USCB (US Census Bureau). 2011b. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics 2010. <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?fpt=table>. Accessed March 2012.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
5-3
USCB (US Census Bureau). 2012. State and County QuickFacts. <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html>. Accessed March 2012. USDA NRCS (US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2012. Web Soil Survey, Custom Soil Report for selected areas of Fort Drum Parcels A, C-E. <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx>. Accessed March 2012.USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. NTID300.1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Characterization of Building Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States. EPA530-R-98-010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division Office of Solid Waste. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2012a. Nonattainment Status for Jefferson County, New York. <http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html#NEW YORK>. Accessed March 2012. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2012b. Climate Change - Health and Environmental Effects. <http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html>. Accessed March 2012. USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Biological Opinion on the Effect of Proposed Activities on the Fort Drum Military Installation (20122014) in the towns of Antwerp, Champion, LeRay, Philadelphia, and Wilna, Jefferson County; and the Town of Diana, Lewis County, New York on the Federally-endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). February 2, 2012.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
5-4
SECTION 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Michael D. Bart, P.G. B.S., Environmental Science, Stephen F. Austin State University Years of Experience: 15 Michelle Cannella Graduate Studies, Mineral Economics, Penn State University B.S., Mineral Economics, Penn State University Years of Experience: 14 Sarah Haugh B.A., Geography-Anthropology, University of Southern Maine Years of Experience: 11 Greg Hippert B.S. Environmental Science, University of North CarolinaCharlotte Years of Experience: 18 Jennifer Jarvis B.S., Environmental Resource Management, Virginia Tech Years of Experience: 13 Tim Lavallee, LPES, Inc. M.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Northeastern University Years of Experience: 20 Bonnie Locking M.A., Anthropology, State University of New York, Buffalo Years of Experience: 15 Samuel Pett M.S., Environmental Science and Policy, University of Massachusetts/Boston B.S., Wildlife Biology and Zoology, Michigan State University Years of Experience: 22 Linda Rivard B.S., Marine and Freshwater Biology, University of New Hampshire Years of Experience: 13 Kristin Shields B.A., Environmental Science, Sweet Briar College Years of Experience: 20 Jeff Strong M.S., Technical and Scientific Communication, James Madison University B.A., Computer Information Systems, Eastern Mennonite University Years of Experience: 23
6-1
Linda Tafazoli, LPES, Inc. B.S., Information Systems, Strayer University Years of Experience: 7 Sarah C. Watts M.E.M., Wetland Resource Ecology, Duke University Years of Experience: 14
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
6-2
SECTION 7.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST

Mr. Robert C. McEwen Library (Fort Drum) Attn: Mr. Allen Goudie P-4300 Conway Rd. Fort Drum, NY 13602 Gouverneur Public Library Attn: Ms. Charlotte Garofolo 60 Church St. Gouverneur, NY 13642 Flower Memorial Library Attn: Ms. Barbara Wheeler 229 Washington St. Watertown, NY 13601 Lowville Free Library Attn: Ms. Sally Brown 5387 Dayan St. Lowville, NY 13367 Field Supervisor US Fish and Wildlife Service New York Field Office 3817 Luker Rd. Cortland, NY 13045
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
7-1
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
7-2
Appendix A Record of Non-Applicability and Emission Calculations
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
A-1
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
A-2
A-3
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
A-4
Emissions Calculations
Table A-1. Construction equipment use
Number of Operating Equipment Type Units Days on Site Hours per Day Hours Excavators Composite 3 115 4 1,380 Rollers Composite 3 173 8 4,152 Rubber Tired Dozers Composite 3 115 8 2,760 Plate Compactors Composite 6 115 4 2,760 Trenchers Composite 6 58 8 2,784 Air Compressors 6 115 4 2,760 Cement & Mortar Mixers 6 115 6 4,140 Cranes 3 115 7 2,415 Generator Sets 6 115 4 2,760 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 6 230 7 9,660 Pavers Composite 1 58 8 464 Paving Equipment 2 58 8 928 Note: Emission calculations prepared by LPES, Inc. Smithfield, Virginia. Equipment estimations are based on experience with similar projects, and techniques outlined in the USAF Air Quality Analysis/Air Conformity Applicability Model (ACAM) guidance documents and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) URBEMIS urban emission model user's manual.
Table A-2. Construction equipment emission factors (lbs/hour)

Equipment Excavators Composite Rollers Composite Rubber Tired Dozers Composite Plate Compactors Composite Trenchers Composite Air Compressors Cement and Mortar Mixers Cranes Generator Sets Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Pavers Composite Paving Equipment Source CARB 2011 CO 0.5828 0.4341 1.5961 0.0263 0.5080 0.3782 0.0447 0.6011 0.3461 0.4063 0.5874 0.0532 NOx 1.3249 0.8607 3.2672 0.0328 0.8237 0.7980 0.0658 1.6100 0.6980 0.7746 1.0796 0.1061 VOC 0.1695 0.1328 0.3644 0.0052 0.1851 0.1232 0.0113 0.1778 0.1075 0.1204 0.1963 0.0166 SOx 0.0013 0.0008 0.0025 0.0001 0.0007 0.0007 0.0001 0.0014 0.0007 0.0008 0.0009 0.0002 PM 10 0.0727 0.0601 0.1409 0.0021 0.0688 0.0563 0.0044 0.0715 0.0430 0.0599 0.0769 0.0063 PM 2.5 0.0727 0.0601 0.1409 0.0021 0.0688 0.0563 0.0044 0.0715 0.0430 0.0599 0.0769 0.0063 CO2 119.6 67.1 239.1 4.3 58.7 63.6 7.2 128.7 61.0 66.8 77.9 12.6
Table A-3. Construction equipment emissions (tons per year [tpy])

Equipment Excavators Composite Rollers Composite Rubber Tired Dozers Composite Plate Compactors Composite Trenchers Composite Air Compressors Cement and Mortar Mixers Cranes Generator Sets Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Pavers Composite Paving Equipment Total CO 0.4022 0.9012 2.2026 0.0303 0.5893 0.4349 0.0772 0.7258 0.3980 1.6355 0.1363 0.0247 7.56 NOx 0.9142 1.7868 4.5087 0.0378 0.9555 0.9177 0.1134 1.9441 0.8027 3.1176 0.2505 0.0492 15.40 VOC 0.1170 0.2757 0.5029 0.0059 0.2147 0.1417 0.0194 0.2147 0.1236 0.4846 0.0455 0.0077 2.15 SOx 0.0009 0.0016 0.0034 0.0001 0.0008 0.0008 0.0002 0.0017 0.0008 0.0031 0.0002 0.0001 0.0136 PM 10 0.0502 0.1248 0.1944 0.0024 0.0799 0.0648 0.0077 0.0864 0.0494 0.2410 0.0178 0.0029 0.92 PM 2.5 0.0502 0.1248 0.1944 0.0024 0.0799 0.0648 0.0077 0.0864 0.0494 0.2410 0.0178 0.0029 0.92 CO2 82.5110 139.2018 329.9658 4.9609 68.1167 73.1484 12.5031 155.3655 70.1416 268.8956 18.0811 5.8593 1228.75
Table A-4. Painting

VOC Content Coverage Emission Factor Building/Facility All Buildings Combined Total Source: SCAQMD 1993 0.84 400 0.0021 Wall Surface 129,250 129,250 lbs/gallon sqft/gallon lbs/sqft VOC [lbs] 258,500 258,500
VOC [tpy] 542.9 542.9
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
A-5
Table A-5. Delivery of equipment and supplies

Number of Deliveries Number of Trips Miles Per Trip Days of Construction Total Miles Pollutant Emission Factor (lbs/mile) Total Emissions (lbs) Total Emissions (tpy) Source: CARB 2011 2 2 30 230 27,600 CO 0.0219 605.8 0.30
NOx 0.0237 654.5 0.33
VOC 0.0030 82.6 0.04
SOx 0.0000 0.7 0.0004
PM10 0.0009 23.6 0.01
PM2.5 0.0007 20.4 0.01
CO2 2.7 75,056.4 37.53
Table A-6. Surface disturbance

TSP Emissions PM 10/TSP PM 2.5/PM 10 Period of Disturbance Capture Fraction Building/Facility All Facilities Total 37.4 0.45 0.15 30 0.5 Area [acres] 5.4 5.4 lb/acre
days
TSP[lbs] 6,014 6,014
PM10[lbs] 2,706 2,706
PM10[tons] 1.35 1.35
PM2.5[lbs] 203 203
PM2.5[tons] 0.10 0.10
Sources: USEPA 1995 and USEPA 2005
Table A-7. Worker commutes

Number of Workers Number of Trips Miles Per Trip Days of Construction Total Miles Pollutant Emission Factor (lbs/mile) Total Emissions (lbs) Total Emissions (tpy) Source: CARB 2011 30 2 30 58 104,400.00 CO 0.0105 1,101.3 0.55
NOx 0.0011 115.1 0.06
VOC 0.0011 112.7 0.06
SOx 0.0000 1.1 0.0006
PM10 0.0001 8.9 0.00
PM2.5 0.0001 5.5 0.00
CO2 1.1 114,791.2 57.40
Table A-8. Total construction emissions (tons per year)

Activity/Source Construction Equipment Painting Delivery of Equipment and Supplies Surface Disturbance Worker Commutes Total Construction Emissions CO 7.56 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.55 8.41 NOx 15.40 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.06 15.78 VOC 2.15 0.27 0.04 0.00 0.06 2.52 SOx 0.0136 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.0006 0.01 PM 10 0.92 0.00 0.01 1.35 0.00 2.29 PM 2.5 0.92 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.00 1.04 CO2 1228.75 0.00 37.53 0.00 57.40 1323.67
Table A-9. Boiler emissions

Gross Area Heating Requirements Total Annual Heat Required sf btu/sf MMBTU MMBTU/1000 Heating Value 150 Gallons Total #2 Oil Used 30.9 103 Gallons Pollutant CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 Emission Factor (lb/1000 gal) 5 24 2.493 0.1 2 2 Total Emissions (tons) 0.08 0.37 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 1. Emission factors for all pollutants were obtained from USEPA's AP-42, Section 1.3. Conservatively assume that PM10 = PM. 2. Assumed sulfur concentration 1 percent 3. Heating requirements obtained from Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, DoE 2003 46,750 99,000 4628
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
A-6
References
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2011. EMFAC Emission Rates Database. <http://www.arb.ca.gov/jpub/webapp//EMFAC2011WebApp/rateSelectionPage_1.jsp>. Accessed October 2011. DOE (US Department of Energy). 2003. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity by Census Region for Sum of Major Fuels, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, 5th edition, Vol. I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Characterization of Building Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States. EPA530-R-98-010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, Office of Solid Waste. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Methodology to Estimate the Transportable Fraction (TF) of Fugitive Dust Emissions for Regional and Urban Scale Air Quality Analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
A-7
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
A-8
Appendix B Agency Coordination
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
B-1
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
B-2
Enclosure1
Enclosure1
Enclosure1
Enclosure1
Appendix C Economic Impact Forecast System Model
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
C-1
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
C-2
Economic Impact Forecast System (EIFS) Model

Socioeconomic Impact Assessment
Socioeconomic impacts are linked through cause-and-effect relationships. Military payrolls and local procurement contribute to the economic base for the Region of Influence (ROI). In this regard, construction and renovation of lodging on Fort Drum would have a multiplier effect on the local and regional economy. With the proposed action, direct jobs would be created (e.g., construction jobs), generating new income and increasing personal spending. This spending generally creates secondary jobs, increases business volume, and increases revenues for schools and other social services.
The Economic Impact Forecast System

The United States Army (Army), with the assistance of many academic and professional economists and regional scientists, developed Economic Impact Forecast System (EIFS) to address the economic impacts of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-required actions and to measure their significance. As a result of its designed applicability, and in the interest of uniformity, EIFS should be used in NEPA assessments. The entire system is designed for the scrutiny of a populace affected by the actions being studied. The algorithms in EIFS are simple and easy to understand, but still have firm, defensible bases in regional economic theory. EIFS was developed under a joint project of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the US Army Environmental Policy Institute, and the Computer and Information Science Department of Clark Atlanta University. EIFS is implemented as an online system supported by the USACE, Mobile District. The system is available to anyone with an approved user ID and password. USACE staff is available to assist with the use of EIFS. The databases in EIFS are national in scope and cover the approximately 3,700 counties, parishes, and independent cities that are recognized as reporting units by Federal agencies. EIFS allows the user to define an economic ROI by identifying the counties, parishes, or cities to be analyzed. Once the ROI is defined, the system aggregates the data, calculates multipliers and other variables used in the various models in EIFS, and prompts the user for forecast input data.
The EIFS Model

The basis of the EIFS analytical capabilities is the calculated multipliers that are used to estimate the impacts resulting from Army-related changes in local expenditures or employment. In calculating the multipliers, EIFS uses the economic base model approach, which relies on the ratio of total economic activity to basic economic activity. Basic, in this context, is defined as the production or employment engaged to supply goods and services outside the ROI or by Federal activities (such as military installations and their employees). According to economic base theory, the ratio of total income to basic income is measurable (as the multiplier) and sufficiently stable so that future changes in economic activity can be forecast. This technique is especially appropriate for estimating aggregate impacts and makes the economic base model ideal for the EA and environmental impact statement process. The multiplier is interpreted as the total impact on the economy of the region resulting from a unit change in its base sector; for example, a dollar increase in local expenditures because of an expansion of its military installation. EIFS estimates its multipliers using a location quotient
C-3
approach based on the concentration of industries within the region relative to the industrial concentrations for the nation. The user inputs into the model the data elements which describe the Army action: the change in expenditures, or dollar volume of the construction project(s); change in civilian or military employment; average annual income of affected civilian or military employees; the percent of civilians expected to relocate because of the Armys action; and the percent of military living on-post. Once these are entered into the EIFS model, a projection of changes in the local economy is provided. These are projected changes in sales volume, income, employment, and population. These four indicator variables are used to measure and evaluate socioeconomic impacts. Sales volume is the direct and indirect change in local business activity and sales (total retail and wholesale trade sales, total selected service receipts, and value-added by manufacturing). Employment is the total change in local employment because of the proposed action, including the direct and secondary changes in local employment and the personnel who are initially affected by the military action. Income is the total change in local wages and salaries because of the proposed action, which includes the sum of the direct and indirect wages and salaries, plus the income of the civilian and military personnel affected by the proposed action. Population is the increase or decrease in the local population as a result of the proposed action. The PAL program at Fort Drum would require construction of new lodging and renovation of existing lodging. The working estimate for the cost of renovation and construction of these facilities (about $35,000,000) was divided over the projected 7-year initial development period and entered as the change in expenditures (about $5,000,000 per year).
The Significance of Socioeconomic Impacts

Once model projections are obtained, the Rational Threshold Value (RTV) profile allows the user to evaluate the significance of the impacts. This analytical tool reviews the historical trends for the defined region and develops measures of local historical fluctuations in sales volume, income, employment, and population. These evaluations identify the positive and negative changes within which a project can affect the local economy without creating a significant impact. The greatest historical changes define the boundaries that provide a basis for comparing an actions impact on the historical fluctuation in a particular area. Specifically, EIFS sets the boundaries by multiplying the maximum historical deviation of the following variables:
Percent increase Sales Volume Income Employment Population X X X X 100% 100% 100% 100% Percent decrease 75% 67% 67% 50%
These boundaries determine the amount of change that will affect an area. The percentage allowances are arbitrary, but sensible. The maximum positive historical fluctuation is allowed with expansion because economic growth is beneficial. While cases of damaging economic growth have been cited, and although the zero-growth concept is being accepted by many local planning groups, military base reductions and closures generally are more injurious to local economics than are expansions.
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
C-4
The major strengths of the RTV are its specificity to the region under analysis and its basis on actual historical data for the region. The EIFS impact model, in combination with the RTV, has proven successful in addressing perceived socioeconomic impacts. The EIFS model and the RTV technique for measuring the intensity of impacts have been reviewed by economic experts and have been deemed theoretically sound. The following are the EIFS input and output data for the proposed action and the RTV values for the ROI.
EIFS REPORT
PROJECT NAME Fort Drum PAL EA STUDY AREA 36045 Jefferson County, NY
Table C-1. Forecast Input

Change In Local Expenditures Change In Civilian Employment Average Income of Affected Civilian Percent Expected to Relocate Change In Military Employment Average Income of Affected Military Percent of Military Living On-Post $5,000,000 0 $0 0 0 $0 0
Table C-2. Forecast Output

Employment Multiplier Income Multiplier Sales Volume Direct Sales Volume Induced Sales Volume Total Income Direct Income Induced Income Total (place of work) Employment Direct Employment Induced Employment Total Local Population Local Off-Post Population 2.11 2.11 $5,000,000 $5,549,999 $10,550,000 $886,989 $984,558 $1,871,547 26 29 55 0 0
0.44%
0.08%
0.09% 0.00%
Table C-3. RTV Summary

Positive RTV Negative RTV Sales Volume 23.83% -5.26% Income 18.27% -3.40% Employment 11.12% -2.73% Population 6.44% -1.02%
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
C-5
RTV DETAILED
Table C-4. Sales Volume
Year 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Value 209630 223393 234865 244948 263520 283663 299641 321941 344676 387306 432097 472137 501631 528526 567324 640342 707153 803864 1015487 1220043 1349451 1378157 1432999 1492415 1470657 1515112 1550448 1605008 1657020 1728222 1776901 1853969 Adj_Value 916083 922613 930065 938151 951307 921905 892930 907874 909945 952773 954934 915946 882871 877353 913392 986127 1053658 1173641 1574005 1659258 1740792 1695133 1690939 1701353 1632429 1636321 1627970 1637108 1657020 1693658 1705825 1724191 Change 0 6530 7452 8085 13156 -29402 -28975 14943 2071 42828 2162 -38989 -33075 -5517 36039 72735 67531 119983 400363 85254 81533 -45659 -4194 10414 -68924 3892 -8351 9138 19912 36638 12167 18366 Deviation 0 -18723 -17801 -17168 -12097 -54655 -54228 -10310 -23182 17575 -23091 -64242 -58328 -30770 10786 47482 42278 94730 375110 60001 56280 -70912 -29447 -14839 -94177 -21361 -33604 -16115 -5341 11385 -13086 -6887 % Deviation 0 -2.03 -1.91 -1.83 -1.27 -5.93 -6.07 -1.14 -2.55 1.84 -2.42 -7.01 -6.61 -3.51 1.18 4.82 4.01 8.07 23.83 3.62 3.23 -4.18 -1.74 -0.87 -5.77 -1.31 -2.06 -0.98 -0.32 0.67 -0.77 -0.4
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
C-6
Table C-5. INCOME

Year 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Value 288296 308530 329469 344854 371262 403187 436398 470460 498215 552272 610177 677674 734558 803280 854524 949880 1030380 1137575 1336992 1528145 1705910 1754752 1859974 1962640 1957368 2011411 2080259 2159989 2216468 2322757 2375759 2487505 Adj_Value 1259853 1274229 1304697 1320791 1340256 1310358 1300466 1326697 1315288 1358589 1348491 1314688 1292822 1333445 1375784 1462815 1535266 1660860 2072338 2078277 2200624 2158345 2194769 2237410 2172679 2172324 2184272 2203189 2216468 2276302 2280729 2313380 Change 0 14375 30468 16094 19465 -29898 -9892 26231 -11410 43301 -10098 -33804 -21866 40623 42339 87032 72451 125593 411478 5940 122347 -42279 36424 42640 -64731 -355 11948 18917 13279 59834 4427 32651 Deviation 0 -18548 -2455 -16829 -13458 -62821 -42815 -6692 -44333 10378 -43021 -66727 -54789 7700 9416 54109 39528 92670 378555 -26983 89424 -75202 3501 9717 -97654 -33278 -20975 -14006 -19644 26911 -28496 -272 % Deviation 0 -1.46 -0.19 -1.27 -1 -4.79 -3.29 -0.5 -3.37 0.76 -3.19 -5.08 -4.24 0.58 0.68 3.7 2.57 5.58 18.27 -1.3 4.06 -3.48 0.16 0.43 -4.49 -1.53 -0.96 -0.64 -0.89 1.18 -1.25 -0.01
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
C-7
Table C-6. Employment

Year 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Value 36865 36387 36058 36058 37049 36947 36273 35746 36189 37490 38346 37566 37034 36732 37440 38746 40590 43896 50235 56623 60664 60169 59210 58833 57890 59199 59001 59137 59514 59738 60689 60941 Change 0 -478 -329 0 991 -102 -674 -527 443 1301 856 -780 -532 -302 708 1306 1844 3306 6339 6388 4041 -495 -959 -377 -943 1309 -198 136 377 224 951 252 Deviation 0 -1230 -1081 -752 239 -854 -1426 -1279 -309 549 104 -1532 -1284 -1054 -44 554 1092 2554 5587 5636 3289 -1247 -1711 -1129 -1695 557 -950 -616 -375 -528 199 -500 % Deviation 0 -3.38 -3 -2.09 0.65 -2.31 -3.93 -3.58 -0.85 1.46 0.27 -4.08 -3.47 -2.87 -0.12 1.43 2.69 5.82 11.12 9.95 5.42 -2.07 -2.89 -1.92 -2.93 0.94 -1.61 -1.04 -0.63 -0.88 0.33 -0.82
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
C-8
Table C-7. Population

Year 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Value 88565 88789 89719 90773 90310 89485 90235 90488 90089 89651 89161 88071 87585 87302 87465 88094 88954 91032 96360 103758 109534 111549 112911 114463 114874 116932 115361 114585 113055 112546 112081 111469 Change 0 224 930 1054 -463 -825 750 253 -399 -438 -490 -1090 -486 -283 163 629 860 2078 5328 7398 5776 2015 1362 1552 411 2058 -1571 -776 -1530 -509 -465 -612 Deviation 0 -492 214 338 -1179 -1541 34 -463 -1115 -1154 -1206 -1806 -1202 -999 -553 -87 144 1362 4612 6682 5060 1299 646 836 -305 1342 -2287 -1492 -2246 -1225 -1181 -1328 % Deviation 0 -0.55 0.24 0.37 -1.31 -1.72 0.04 -0.51 -1.24 -1.29 -1.35 -2.05 -1.37 -1.14 -0.63 -0.1 0.16 1.5 4.79 6.44 4.62 1.16 0.57 0.73 -0.27 1.15 -1.98 -1.3 -1.99 -1.09 -1.05 -1.19
****** End of Report ******
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
C-9
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
C-10
Appendix D Solid Waste Calculations
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
D-1
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
D-2
Table D-1. Solid waste calculations

Activity Construction Demolition Renovation Building square footage 129,250 0 61,050 Construction debris lb/sq ft 4.40 115.00 20 Pounds Tons Recycled quantity: Pounds Tons Total: Recycled tons: Disposed tons: Total construction debris 568,700.00 0.00 1,221,000 1,789,700.00 894.85 894,850.00 447.43 447.43 447.43
Source: USEPA 1998
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
D-3
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012
D-4
Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACM ANSI AQCR AQCR 158 Army BEA BLS BMP C&D CEQ CFR CO CO2 CRP DANC dB dBA de minimis DNL DoD EA EIFS EO EPA FNSI FY GHG GIS HQDA I ICRMP IDP IE&E IHG INRMP LBP lb IH&P LDMP Leq LTH MBTA mgd MHPI N/A NAAQS NEPA NHPA
Fort Drum, New York
Asbestos-Containing Material American National Standards Institute Air Quality Control Region Central New York Intrastate Air Quality Control Region US Army Bureau of Economic Analysis Bureau of Labor Statistics best management practice construction and demolition Council on Environmental Quality Code of Federal Regulations carbon monoxide carbon dioxide Cultural Resources Program Development Authority of the North Country decibel A-weighted decibel of minimal importance day-night sound level Department of Defense environmental assessment Economic Impact Forecast System Executive Order US Environmental Protection Agency Finding of No Significant Impact fiscal year greenhouse gas geographic information system Headquarters, Department of the Army Interstate Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan initial development period Installations, Energy, and Environment InterContinental Hotels Group Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Lead-Based Paint pound Installation Housing and Privatization Lodging Development Management Plan equivalent sound level long-term hold Migratory Bird Treaty Act million gallons per day Military Housing Privatization Initiative not applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act
August 2012
NOx NRHP NYS NYSDEC NYSDOT NYSHPO OASA O3 PAL PCPI PM10 PM2.5 psi RCI Rest Easy ROI RTV SO2 SCAQMD SOx SOP SWPPP TDY tpy TSP USACE U.S.C. USCB USFWS VOC WSAAF WWII
nitrogen oxides National Register of Historic Places New York State New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York State Department of Transportation New York State Historic Preservation Office Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army ozone Privatization of Army Lodging per capita personal income particulate matter (less than 10 microns in diameter) fine particulate matter (less than 2.5 microns in diameter) pounds per square inch Residential Communities Initiative Rest Easy, LLC region of influence rational threshold value sulfur dioxide South Coast Air Quality Management District sulfur oxides standard operating procedure Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan temporary duty tons per year total suspended particulates US Army Corps of Engineers United States Code US Census Bureau US Fish and Wildlife Service Volatile Organic Compound Wheeler-Sack Army Airfield World War II
Fort Drum, New York
August 2012

Fort Drum PAL Final EA - August 2012

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Fort Drum PAL Final EA - August 2012

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Final Environmental Assessment for the Implementation of the Privatization of Army Lodging Program at Fort Drum, New York

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ORGANIZATION

Prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District

STEVEN J. ROEMHILDT Colonel, Corps of Engineers Commanding

Approved by Fort Drum

GARY A. ROSENBERG COL, SF Garrison Commander

This page intentionally left blank.

This page intentionally left blank.

Final Environmental Assessment

ES.2 PROPOSED ACTION

ES.3 PURPOSE AND NEED

Final Environmental Assessment

ES.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Fort Drum, New York

Final Environmental Assessment

Table ES-1. Summary of potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences

No effect No effect Long-term minor adverse No effect No effect No effect

Fort Drum, New York

Final Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.

Fort Drum, New York

Final Environmental Assessment

Final Environmental Assessment

Fort Drum, New York

Final Environmental Assessment

Acronyms and Abbreviations (at the end of the document)

Fort Drum, New York

Final Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.

Fort Drum, New York

Final Environmental Assessment

SECTION 1.0 PURPOSE, NEED, AND SCOPE

Final Environmental Assessment

PURPOSE AND NEED

Final Environmental Assessment

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Fort Drum, New York

Final Environmental Assessment

Final Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.

Fort Drum, New York

Final Environmental Assessment

SECTION 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Fort Drum, New York

Final Environmental Assessment

Fort Drum, New York

Final Environmental Assessment

Officers Loop Warehouses N/A

N/A 1941 1941 N/A N/A 261

Total lodging rooms

Fort Drum, New York

Final Environmental Assessment

Parcel A. Fort Drum Inn (Building P-4205)

Parcel D. WWII lodges at Officers Loop (Building T-2205 shown)

Figure 2-7 Representative Photos of Existing Lodging Structures

Fort Drum, New York

Final Environmental Assessment

Table 2-2. Fort Drum PAL Preferred Alternative

Parcel A (Fort Drum Inn) LTH 9.97 P-4205 111 111

Parcel C (New Build Site) LTH 20.46 New Build

Notes: LTH = long-term hold; N/A = not applicable

Final Environmental Assessment

2.4 LODGING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY