This page intentionally left blank....Effective 11/19/2015 7 in the unsuitable temporary buildings...

Effective 11/19/2015 1

This page intentionally left blank.


INSTRUCTIONS

THIS FORM IS FOR LIMITED USE ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF PROJECTS. AIRPORT SPONSORS MUST CONTACT YOUR LOCAL AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE (ADO) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SPECIALIST (EPS) BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM. This form was prepared by FAA Eastern Region Airports Division and can only be used for proposed projects in this region. Introduction: This Short Environmental Assessment (EA), is based upon the guidance in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Orders 1050.1F – Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, and the Environmental Desk Reference for Airport Actions and 5050.4B – NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. These orders incorporate the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as US Department of Transportation environmental regulations, and other applicable federal statutes and regulations designed to protect the Nation's natural, historic, cultural, and archeological resources. The information provided by sponsors, with potential assistance from consultants, through the use of this form enables the FAA ADO offices to evaluate compliance with NEPA and the applicable special purpose laws. Use: For situations in which this form may be considered, refer to the APPLICABILITY Section below. The local ADO has the final determination in the applicability of this form to a proposed Federal Action. Proper completion of the Form will allow the FAA to determine whether the proposed airport development project can be processed with a short EA, or whether a more detailed EA or EIS must be prepared. If you have any questions on whether use of this form is appropriate for your project, or what information to provide, we recommend that you contact the environmental specialist in your local ADO. This Form is to be used in conjunction with applicable Orders, laws, and guidance documents, and in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies. Sponsors and their consultants should review the requirements of special purpose laws (See 5050.4B, Table 1-1 for a summary of applicable laws). Sufficient documentation is necessary to enable the FAA to assure compliance with all applicable environmental requirements. Accordingly, any required consultations, findings or determinations by federal and state agencies, or tribal governments, are to be coordinated, and completed if necessary, prior to submitting this form to FAA for review. Coordination with Tribal governments must be conducted through the FAA. We encourage sponsors to begin coordination with these entities as early as possible to provide for sufficient review time. Complete information will help FAA expedite its review. This Form meets the intent of a short EA while satisfying the regulatory requirements of NEPA for an EA. Use of this form acknowledges that all procedural requirements of NEPA or relevant special purpose laws still apply and that this form does not provide a means for circumvention of these requirements. Submittal: When using this form for an airport project requesting discretionary funding, the documentation must be submitted to the local ADO by April 30th of the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which funding will be requested. When using this form for an airport


project requesting entitlement funding, the documentation must be submitted to the local ADO by November 30th of the fiscal year in which the funding will be requested. Availability: An electronic version of this Short Form EA is available on-line at http://www.faa.gov/airports/eastern/environmental/media/C10.DOC. Other sources of environmental information including guidance and regulatory documents are available on-line at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/environmental.

APPLICABILITY Local ADO EPSs make the final determinations for the applicability of this form. If you have questions as to whether the use of this form is appropriate for your project, contact your local EPS BEFORE using this form. Airport sponsors can consider the use of this form if the proposed project meets either Criteria 1 or Criteria 2, 3, and 4 collectively as follows:

1) It is normally categorically excluded (see paragraphs 5-6.1 through 5-6.6 in FAA Order 1050.1F) but, in this instance, involves at least one, but no more than two, extraordinary circumstance(s) that may significantly impact the human environment (see paragraph 5-2 in 1050.1F and the applicable resource chapter in the 1050.1F Desk reference). 2) The action is one that is not specifically listed as categorically excluded or normally requires an EA at a minimum (see paragraph 506 in FAA Order 5050.4B).

3) The proposed project and all connected actions must be comprised of Federal Airports Program actions, including:

(a) Approval of a project on an Airport Layout Plan (ALP), (b) Approval of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding for airport development,

(c) Requests for conveyance of government land, (d) Approval of release of airport land, or (e) Approval of the use of Passenger Facility Charges (PFC).

4) The proposed project is not expected to have impacts to more than two of the resource categories defined in the 1050.1F Desk Reference.

This form cannot be used when any of the following circumstances apply:

1) The proposed action, including all connected actions, requires coordination with or approval by an FAA Line of Business of Staff Office other than the Airports Division. Examples include, but are not limited to, changes to runway thresholds, changes to flight procedures, changes to NAVAIDs, review by Regional Counsel, etc.

2) The proposed action, including all connected actions, requires coordination with another Federal Agency outside of the FAA.


3) The proposed action will likely result in the need to issue a Record of Decision.

4) The proposed action requires a construction period exceeding 3 years.

5) The proposed action involves substantial public controversy on environmental grounds.

6) The proposed project would have impacts to, or require mitigation to offset the impacts to more than two resources1 as defined in the 1050.1F Desk Reference.

7) The proposed project would involve any of the following analyses or documentation: a. The development of a Section 4(f) Report for coordination with the Department of

the Interior, b. The use of any Native American lands or areas of religious or cultural significance, c. The project emissions exceed any applicable de minimis thresholds for criteria

pollutants under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or d. The project would require noise modeling with AEDT 2b (or current version).

If a project is initiated using this form and any of the preceding circumstances are found to apply, the development of this form must be terminated and a standard Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement (if applicable) must be prepared.

**********

1 A resource is any one of the following: Air Quality; Biological Resources (including Threatened and Endangered Species); Climate; Coastal Resources; Section 4(f); Farmlands; Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention; Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources; Land Use; Natural Resources and Energy Supply; Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use; Socioeconomics; Environmental Justice; Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks; Visual Effects; Wetlands; Floodplains; Surface Waters; Groundwater; Wild and Scenic Rivers; and Cumulative Impacts.


Complete the following information: Project Location Airport Name: Dulles International Airport Identifier: IAD Airport Address: 14390 Air & Space Museum Parkway City: Chantilly County: Fairfax State: VA Zip: 20151 Airport Sponsor Information Point of Contact: Mr. Gregg Wollard, P.E., A.A.E. Address: 45045 Aviation Drive City: Dulles State: VA Zip: 20166 Telephone: 703-572-0266 Fax: 703-572-0299 Email: [email protected] Evaluation Form Preparer Information Point of Contact: Joan Glynn, Principal Company (if not the sponsor): Stantec Consulting Services, LLC Address: 6110 Frost Place City: Laurel State: MD Zip: 20707 Telephone: 301-982-2800 Fax: 301-220-2595 Email: [email protected] 1. Introduction/Background: The Smithsonian Institution (SI) has prepared a Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan for the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) that includes an assessment of the long-term use of the Dulles Collections Center (DCC) at Dulles International Airport. Among the goals of the Master Plan are the replacement of inadequate storage spaces with new, modern facilities, and the relocation of collections to proper, long-term storage. The Master Plan calls for planning and design for new collections storage facilities at DCC, and recommends conducting a feasibility study to finalize the program and design parameters for two collections storage modules and hangar or free span module adjacent to the NASM Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center (UHC) at the DCC. The Smithsonian has also prepared a Collections Space Framework Plan (December 2014) which provides measures to safeguard its remarkable collections for current and future generations. The Smithsonian currently houses 138 million objects and specimens, 2 million library volumes, and more than 153,000 cubic feet of archival material within its 19 museums and galleries, the National Zoological Park, and nine research facilities. The Collections Space Framework Plan identified storage needs for large object collections including large objects within the NASM collection (e.g. airplanes, airplane parts). The Smithsonian operates the DCC under a long-term lease with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA). The UHC features high-quality, public open display and storage; processing; archives; and NASM’s new preservation and restoration facility. Part of the facility is used to store artifacts recently relocated from the Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration, and Storage Facility (Garber) in Suitland, Maryland, but a large part of NASM’s collection still remains


in the unsuitable temporary buildings in Suitland. The 1994 Master Plan for the Suitland Collections Center, currently being updated, calls for demolition of the Garber buildings and redevelopment of Suitland as a pan-Institutional collections and research center. Based on the Collections Space Framework Plan and the NASM Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan, the DCC has been identified as an appropriate location for large object collections storage due to the availability of existing resources at the UHC and available land at DCC. The location of the proposed collections facilities was included in the original Environmental Assessment for the UHC, which was approved via a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on February 24, 1998. A map of the project location is included as Attachment 1. In addition, the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum National Mall Building, opened to the public in 1976, is in need of renovation. The façade is failing, with marble panels in danger of cracking and falling. Building systems, which are original to the building, have reached the end of their service life and need replacement. The project is scheduled to be constructed beginning in early 2018 and take six years. To protect the collection, many objects currently on exhibit will need to be relocated during construction and the DCC has been proposed to supply the “swing” space needed for the collection. 2. Project Description (List and clearly describe ALL components of project proposal including all connected actions). Attach a map or drawing of the area with the location(s) of the proposed action(s) identified: The proposed project consists of construction of new collections storage space at the DCC. The three proposed buildings immediately adjacent to the UHC would provide storage space to relocate NASM collections from Garber and house them in appropriate storage facilities. New modules of the large object storage would also accommodate collections growth, objects from other collecting units, and swing space during renovations and relocations. The current project is part of a NASM Master Plan and a pan-Smithsonian Collections Space Framework Plan that recommends future construction of additional collections space. A site plan showing the project area is included as Attachment 2. 3. Project Purpose and Need: The purpose of the proposed action is to provide adequate storage space for medium and large object collections maintained by the Smithsonian Institution’s NASM. NASM maintains the largest collection of historic air and spacecraft in the world; and is a vital center for research, science, and technology in aviation and space flight. NASM collections are currently housed at Garber in prefabricated metal buildings, mostly from the 1950s and 60s, which were intended to be temporary. They are long past their intended lifespan and are costly to maintain with temporary measures. It is difficult to maintain adequate environmental controls for the protection of the diverse collection of historically significant air and space artifacts. Overcrowding limits access and puts the artifacts at risk. Archival collections, restoration and collections processing functions have been relocated from Garber to the newly completed UHC.


The Smithsonian’s Collection Space Framework Plan identified existing storage spaces that need to be augmented and/or replaced due to overcrowding and poor conditions. Eighty percent of the space needing replacement is high-bay collections storage located at Garber where many NASM objects are stored. NASM will run out of space for medium-sized objects at UHC in 2017. NASM is also in need of swing space for temporary storage of medium and large objects during the upcoming renovation of the National Mall Museum. Therefore, the Smithsonian is proposing new collections storage at the DCC to adequately store medium and large objects in the NASM collection. 4. Describe the affected environment (existing conditions) and land use in the vicinity of project: The proposed project occurs on land adjacent to the existing building footprint of the UHC. The area of the proposed construction was previously disturbed during the construction of the UHC and currently consists of maintained grassy lawn. The existing land use in the immediate surrounding area is classified as developed land ranging from low intensity to high intensity. MWAA’s Airport Layout Plan (ALP) designates the project site for “future NASM expansion,” and its land use plan designates the site as “National Air and Space Museum” (see Attachment 3). Photographs and a key map of photograph locations are included in Attachment 4. 5. Alternatives to the Project: Describe any other reasonable actions that may feasibly substitute for the proposed project, and include a description of the “No Action” alternative. If there are no feasible or reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, explain why (attach alternatives drawings as applicable): Alternatives for the proposed storage facilities at the Dulles Collections Center are described below. Alternative 3 (Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar - Large Footprint) is the Preferred Alternative for the proposed action. Alternatives Considered and Dismissed Renovating/Upgrading at Garber: An alternative consisting of building new facilities for NASM at Garber to replace the unacceptable existing buildings was considered and dismissed. This alternative would require multiple moves of collections, placing them at further risk, as the buildings are demolished and replaced. This alternative would preclude future development of Suitland as a pan-Institutional campus, as recommended in the Collections Space Framework Plan and the Suitland Master Plan. New facilities at Garber would also not be available to house collections from the National Mall Building during renovation. Alternatives Considered in Detail Alternative 1: Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar (Small Footprint) Alternative 1 consists of two three-story collections storage modules plus a hangar building, with a total of 237,350 gross square feet (gsf). The three-story modules would be approximately 60 feet tall, and the hangar facility would be approximately 45 feet tall. The proposed length of each module is 235 feet, which matches the length of the existing UHC storage wing. The modules and


hangar would provide a total of 186,850 net square feet (nsf) of collections storage space. Alternative 1 does not provide enough collections storage space to accommodate NASM’s collections storage need or enough swing space for the National Mall Museum renovation. See Attachment 5 for a graphic schematic of Alternative 1. Alternative 2: Two-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar Alternative 2 consists of two two-story collections storage modules plus a single-story free span module. Full build-out would provide 164,060 nsf of collections storage space within 200,940 gsf of construction. The two-story modules would be 40 feet tall to match the adjacent UHC building, and the single-story module would be 45 feet tall. The proposed length of the modules is 269 feet, slightly longer than the adjacent UHC building, in order to maximize the storage capacity for large objects. The two-story modules would each provide 68,910 nsf of collections storage and the single-story free span module would provide 26,240 nsf of storage for large air and space craft. While Alternative 2 would provide greater ground floor storage capacity for large objects, the overall collections storage area does not meet NASM’s collection storage needs or provide enough swing space for the National Mall Museum renovation. See Attachment 6 for a graphic schematic of Alternative 2. Alternative 3: Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar (Large Footprint) (Preferred Alternative) Alternative 3 consists of two three-story collections storage modules plus a single-story free span module. Full build-out provides 241,880 nsf of collections storage space within 283,795 gsf of construction. The three-story modules would be 60 feet tall, and the single-story module would be 45 feet tall. The proposed length of the modules is 269 feet, slightly longer than the adjacent UHC building, in order to maximize the storage capacity for large objects. The three-story modules would each provide 107,820 nsf of collections storage and the single-story free span module would provide 26,240 net square feet of storage for large air and space craft. Alternative 3 is the Preferred Alternative because it is the only option that provides enough collections storage space to accommodate NASM’s collection and provide the swing space needed for the National Mall Museum renovation. See Attachment 7 for a graphic schematic of Alternative 3. Alternative 4: No Action Alternative Alternative 4 consists of the No-Action Alternative. The NASM would continue with existing operations, and utilize the existing space for museum collections storage. No new collection storage areas are proposed under the No Action Alternative. This alternative forces the NASM collection to remain in over-crowded spaces within facilities that are in extremely poor condition. 6. Environmental Consequences – Special Impact Categories (refer to the Instructions page and corresponding sections in 1050.1F, the 1050.1F Desk Reference, and the Desk Reference for Airports Actions for more information and direction. Note that when the 1050.1F Desk Reference and Desk Reference for Airports Actions provide conflicting guidance, the 1050.1F Desk Reference takes precedence. The analysis under each section must comply with the requirements and significance thresholds as described in the Desk Reference). (A) AIR QUALITY (1) Will the proposed project(s) cause or create a reasonably foreseeable emission increase? Prepare an air quality assessment and disclose the results. Discuss the applicable regulatory criterion and/or

Effective 11/19/2015 10

thresholds that will be applied to the results, the specific methodologies, data sources and assumptions used; including the supporting documentation and consultation with federal, state, tribal, or local air quality agencies. Air quality impacts associated with the project would originate from temporary construction activities and permanent stationary sources at the facility. The proposed project would not result in a long-term increase in aircraft activities and operations or vehicular traffic, as the only additional traffic would be from occasional deliveries of collections to the Center. The proposed project would result in minor short-term impacts to air quality from fugitive dust resulting from grading activities and from construction vehicle exhaust emissions. These impacts will be temporary, lasting only for the duration of construction activities. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) State Implementation Plan accounts for emissions generated by construction equipment in Northern Virginia. During construction, fugitive dust will be kept to a minimum by using applicable control methods outlined in 9 Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 5-50-60 et seq. of the Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution. NASM currently holds a Synthetic Minor Source State Operating Permit (SOP) and has submitted an application for a New Source Review for a project at an existing source that is exempt from Article 6, which regulates permit procedures for new and modified stationary sources of air emissions. Stationary sources that would generate air emissions at the collections facilities include heating equipment and emergency generators. The NASM Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan estimates that the heating load for the proposed collections facilities and hangar would be 1,200 MBH (352 KW) and that the anticipated heating plant equipment would consist of three 600 MBH (175 KW) condensing boilers, four 200-pound per hour (91 kg/hr) and two 50-pound per hour (23 kg/hr) gas-fired packaged steam generators. The Master Plan anticipates that emergency generators would consist of two 1000-KW diesel fueled generators and one 50-KVA diesel fueled generator. Actual equipment types and capacities would be verified during the design phase of the project. Emergency generators would only be used during emergency situations (i.e., when electric power from the local utility is interrupted), and for a very short time to perform maintenance checks and operator training. The emissions associated with stationary sources for the proposed project were determined to be below the de minimis levels for which a conformity determination must be performed, as shown in Table 1 below:

Effective 11/19/2015 11

Table 1. Predicted Air Emissions for Proposed Collections Facilities

de

minimis threshold

High Fire Low Fire

Gas input 750 Cfh

150 cfh Yearly Run

Hours 4000

Pollutants: ppm,

corrected 3%O2

lbs/hr lbs/MM (input)

ton/year ppm,

corrected 3%O2

lbs/hr lbs/MM (input)

ton/year

NOx 100

ton/yr 18 0.0159 0.0212 0.0319 18 0.0032 0.0042 0.0064

Volatile Organic

Compounds 50 ton/yr X 0.0041 0.0055 0.0082 X 0.0008 0.0011 0.0017

Total Particulates

X 0.0057 0.0076 0.0115 X 0.0011 0.0015 0.0023

(2) Are there any project components containing unusual circumstances, such as emissions sources in close proximity to areas where the public has access or other considerations that may warrant further analysis? If no, proceed to (c); if yes, an analysis of ambient pollutant concentrations may be necessary. Contact your local ADO regarding how to proceed with the analysis. No. The project is located away from designated visitor parking areas and entrances, and is not accessible to the public. (3) Is the proposed project(s) located in a nonattainment or maintenance area for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established under the Clean Air Act? Yes. Northern Virginia, including Fairfax County, is a non-attainment area for ozone and an attainment/maintenance area for PM2.5 (EPA Greenbook, 2015; VDEQ Air Quality Planning Areas, 2015). 4) Are all components of the proposed project, including all connected actions, listed as exempt or presumed to conform (See FRN, vol.72 no. 145, pg. 41565)? If yes, cite exemption and go to (B) Biological Resources. If no, go to (e). No, the proposed project is not an “exempted action” under the General Conformity Rule. (5) Would the net emissions from the project result in exceedances of the applicable de minimis threshold (reference 1050.1F Desk Reference and the Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook for guidance) of the criteria pollutant for which the county is in non-attainment or maintenance? If no, go to (B) Biological Resources. If yes, stop development of this form and prepare a standard Environmental Assessment. No. As shown in Table 1 above, net emissions from the project would not exceed the applicable de minimis threshold for NOX.

Effective 11/19/2015 12

(B) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Describe the potential of the proposed project to directly or indirectly impact fish, wildlife, and plant communities and/or the displacement of wildlife. Be sure to identify any state or federal species of concern (Candidate, Threatened or Endangered). 1) Are there any candidate, threatened, or endangered species listed in or near the project area? The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VaFWIS) and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) Division of Natural Heritage were consulted to determine confirmed occurrences of threatened and endangered species within 2 miles of the project area. Two listed species were identified as confirmed within the search radius: the state-listed threatened wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) and the state-listed threatened upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda). Cub Run, located over 1 mile from the project site, is listed as a Stream Conservation Unit (SCU) and predicted habitat for the wood turtle. Cain Branch, located approximately 650 feet southwest, is a tributary to Cub Run. Wood turtle habitat includes forested floodplains, fields, wet meadows, and farmland, in close proximity to a creek or stream. The wood turtle does occupy upland areas that are characterized by successional fields, meadows and agricultural areas. Upland sandpiper habitat includes extensive open pastures and grassy fields, with grasses being at least 1 to 3 feet high. Since the project area consists entirely of maintained lawn with no natural vegetation or water resources, no suitable habitat for these species exists within the project area. There is currently no documentation of the wood turtle being located in Cain Branch. If future development is planned in the forested areas surrounding Cain Branch, wood turtle surveys would likely be required. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and strictly followed during construction to prevent sedimentation of Cain Branch and subsequently Cub Run. Therefore, no effects to state-listed threatened and endangered species are anticipated. A copy of the VaFWIS Report and Map and the DCR response are included in Attachment 8. VDGIF provided concurrence via email on September 8, 2016, that no impacts to the wood turtle are anticipated (Attachment 17). The USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) service was consulted to identify federally listed species that occur within the project area. One threatened species, the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) was listed. Because no trees will be removed as a result of this project, no impacts to this species are anticipated. The Official Species List acquired from the IPaC system is included as Attachment 9. (2) Will the action have any long-term or permanent loss of unlisted plants or wildlife species? The project area consists entirely of maintained lawn with no natural vegetation, water resources, or habitats, so no unlisted plants or wildlife habitat would be affected. (3) Will the action adversely impact any species of concern or their habitat? The VDGIF VaFWIS was consulted to determine confirmed occurrences of federal species of concern within 2 miles of the project area. One species of concern, the yellow lance mussel (Elliptio lanceolata), was identified as confirmed within the search radius. This species lives only in lakes, streams, and canals. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and strictly followed

Effective 11/19/2015 13

during construction to prevent sedimentation of surface waters. No impacts to surface waters are anticipated; therefore, no adverse effects to this species will occur. (4) Will the action result in substantial loss, reduction, degradation, disturbance, or fragmentation of native species habitats or populations? The project area consists entirely of maintained lawn with no natural vegetation or habitat. No impacts to native species habitats would occur. (5) Will the action have adverse impacts on a species’ reproduction rates or mortality rate or ability to sustain population levels? No (See response to B(2)). (6) Are there any habitats, classified as critical by the federal or state agency with jurisdiction, impacted by the proposed project? The USFWS Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species Online Mapper was consulted to determine the presence of critical habitats within two miles of the project area. No critical habitat was identified. (7) Would the proposed project affect species protected under the Migratory Bird Act? (If Yes, contact the local ADO). This project does not involve communications towers or wind energy. Forested areas surrounding the project site would not be affected by the proposed construction. The proposed collections storage buildings would be constructed adjacent to the existing building footprint, on previously cleared land that does not provide habitat for migratory birds. No intentional or unintentional take of migratory birds or their nests is anticipated by the proposed action. If the answer to any of the above is “Yes”, consult with the USWFS and appropriate state agencies and provide all correspondence and documentation. (C) CLIMATE (1) Would the proposed project or alternative(s) result in the increase or decrease of emissions of Greenhouse gases (GHG)? If neither, this should be briefly explained and no further analysis is required and proceed to (D) Coastal Resources. The proposed project would not result in an increase or decrease of GHG emissions. This project will not result in a long-term increase in vehicle traffic or aircraft operations. As described in Air Quality above, operation of the proposed collections storage space would result in minimal emissions. Construction activities would result in minor short-term emissions from construction vehicle exhaust. (2) Will the proposed project or alternative(s) result in a net decrease in GHG emissions (as indicated by quantitative data or proxy measures such as reduction in fuel burn, delay, or flight operations)? A brief statement describing the factual basis for this conclusion is sufficient.

Effective 11/19/2015 14

N/A (3) Will the proposed project or alternative(s) result in an increase in GHG emissions? Emissions should be assessed either qualitatively or quantitatively as described in 1050.1F Desk Reference or Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook. N/A (D) COASTAL RESOURCES (1) Would the proposed project occur in a coastal zone, or affect the use of a coastal resource, as defined by your state's Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP)? Explain. Yes. The project site is within the designated boundary of Virginia’s Coastal Zone (Attachment 10). (2) If Yes, is the project consistent with the State's CZMP? (If applicable, attach the sponsor's consistency certification and the state's concurrence of that certification). Yes, MWAA certifies that the proposed activity complies with Virginia’s Coastal Resources Management Program (VCP) and will be conducted in a manner consistent with the enforceable policies listed below. In a letter dated August 25, 2016, VDEQ concurred that the proposed action was consistent with the Commonwealth’s coastal zone program. The Commonwealth previously concurred with the Federal Consistency Determination for the initial construction of UHC, which was evaluated under the 1998 Environmental Assessment. A detailed Federal Consistency Determination is included as Attachment 11. The concurrence letter received from VDEQ is included in Attachment 17: Public Involvement.

1. Fisheries Management: No wetlands or water resources are present onsite. The closest water

body to the project area is Cain Branch, located approximately 650 feet southwest. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and strictly followed during construction to prevent sedimentation of Cain Branch. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact finfish or shellfish resources.

2. Subaqueous Lands Management: No state-owned bottomlands are present within the project

area. Therefore, this enforceable policy is not applicable to this project.

3. Wetlands Management: No jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional wetlands are present within or adjacent to the project area. No Section 404, Section 10, or Virginia Water Protection permits are anticipated to be required. Therefore, this enforceable policy is not applicable to this project.

4. Dunes Management: The project is not located along a shoreline. Therefore, this enforceable

policy is not applicable to this project.

Effective 11/19/2015 15

5. Non-point Source Pollution Control: The proposed project will result in approximately 2.75 acres of land disturbance. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared in accordance with Virginia and Fairfax County criteria and strictly adhered to in order to avoid and minimize sediment transport outside the project area.

6. Point Source Pollution Control: Prior to construction, a Virginia Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (VPDES) permit and/or a Virginia Stormwater Management Program permit for discharges of stormwater from land-disturbing activities greater than 1 acre will be obtained.

7. Shoreline Sanitation: The project would not generate any additional waste water. No septic

tanks are proposed. The project is not located in a shoreline area. Therefore, this enforceable policy is not applicable to this project.

8. Air Pollution Control: The project is located in Fairfax County, which is within an ozone

non-attainment area (EPA Green Book, 2015). Air quality impacts associated with the project would originate from temporary construction activities and permanent stationary sources at the facility. The project would not result in a long-term increase in vehicular traffic, as the only additional traffic would be from occasional deliveries of collections to the center (see Section (A) Air Quality). Therefore, FAA and MWAA find the project to be consistent with this enforceable policy.

9. Coastal Lands Management: The project area is within a Resource Management Area

(RMA) as designated by the Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance. No Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) or 100-year floodplains were identified within the project area. Cain Branch, which is within a RPA, is located approximately 650 feet southwest of the project area. The project will be designed in accordance with the Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance, the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, and the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations (9 VAC 25-870-10 et seq.). An erosion and sediment control plan and a SWPPP will be prepared and strictly adhered to during construction to avoid and minimize sedimentation of Cain Branch and its associated RPA. Therefore, FAA and MWAA find that the proposed project is consistent with this enforceable policy.

(3) Is the location of the proposed project within the Coastal Barrier Resources System? (If Yes, and the project would receive federal funding, coordinate with the FWS and attach record of consultation). The project area is not within the Coastal Barrier Resources System. (E) SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES (1) Does the proposed project have an impact on any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or an historic site of national, state, or local significance? Specify if the use will be physical (an actual taking of

Effective 11/19/2015 16

the property) or constructive (i.e. activities, features, or attributes of the Section 4 (f) property are substantially impaired.) If the answer is “No,” proceed to (F) Farmlands. The Virginia Outdoors Plan Mapper was consulted to identify public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife or waterfowl refuges within or adjacent to the project area. None of these resources were identified. Therefore, the proposed action will not result in a physical or constructive use of these resources. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) was consulted to determine the presence of historic sites of national, state, or local significance. Two eligible historic sites were identified within 1 mile of the project area. The project is adjacent to, but outside the boundary of, the southern end of the Dulles Airport Historic District (053-0008) and approximately 2900 feet from Sully Plantation (029-0037). The proposed action will not result in a physical or constructive use of either of these sites. VDHR, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the Commonwealth of Virginia, indicated their concurrence that no historic properties will be affected by the proposed project in a letter dated June 7, 2016, included in Attachment 13. (2) Is a De Minimis impact determination recommended? If “yes”, please provide; supporting documentation that this impact will not substantially impair or adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of the Section 4 (f) property; a Section 106 finding of “no adverse effect” if historic properties are involved; any mitigation measures; a letter from the official with jurisdiction concurring with the recommended de minimis finding; and proof of public involvement. (See Section 5.3.3 of 1050.1F Desk Reference). If “No,” stop development of this form and prepare a standard Environmental Assessment. The project will have no effect on Section 4(f) resources. VDHR, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the Commonwealth of Virginia, indicated their concurrence that no historic properties will be affected by the proposed project in a letter dated June 7, 2016, included in Attachment 13. (F) FARMLANDS Does the project involve acquisition of farmland, or use of farmland, that would be converted to non-agricultural use and is protected by the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)? (If Yes, attach record of coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), including form AD-1006.) According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey, no soils classified as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance are located within the project area (Attachment 12). (G) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, SOLID WASTE, AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (1) Would the proposed project involve the use of land that may contain hazardous materials or cause potential contamination from hazardous materials? (If Yes, attach record of consultation with appropriate agencies). Explain. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) VEGIS mapping application was used to identify hazardous waste and petroleum facilities and releases near the project area. The UHC is listed as a registered petroleum facility with two Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) onsite. The

Effective 11/19/2015 17

Fairfax County Police Training Track Facility, located approximately 3,000 feet west of the project area, is also a registered petroleum facility with one UST. Two Small-Quantity Generators (SQGs) are located in the office park west of the project area. No releases from any of these facilities have been reported. Three petroleum releases were identified; however, these releases are all over a half-mile from the project area and have all been closed. No Superfund sites, Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) sites, or sites requiring corrective action were identified. Therefore, the presence of contamination within the project area is highly unlikely. The proposed collections storage would be constructed on previously cleared land adjacent to the existing building footprint. The existing UHC was constructed with new building materials. General waste is regulated under Virginia Administrative Code Agency 20, Chapter 81. The construction contractor would be responsible for removing construction waste from the site and disposing of it in accordance with these regulations. In addition, solid waste generated during operation of the facility would be removed by a private waste removal company and disposed of in accordance with State regulations. During operation of the facility, any onsite storage of solvents or chemicals for artifact preservation would be handled and stored according to the Material Safety Data Sheets. (2) Would the operation and/or construction of the project generate significant amounts of solid waste? If Yes, are local disposal facilities capable of handling the additional volumes of waste resulting from the project? Explain. The proposed collections storage would contribute a minimal volume of solid waste to the already existing volumes generated by the NASM UHC. No demolition of existing structures is proposed. (3) Will the project produce an appreciable different quantity or type of hazardous waste? Will there be any potential impacts that could adversely affect human health or the environment? Any onsite storage of solvents or chemicals for artifact preservation would be handled and stored according to the Material Safety Data Sheets. (H) HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES (1) Describe any impact the proposed project might have on any properties listed in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. (Include a record of your consultation and response with the State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (S/THPO)). Consultation with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), the SHPO for the Commonwealth of Virginia, was initiated on May 5, 2016. The submission to VDHR is included as Attachment 13 and incorporated herein by reference. The Area of Potential Effect (APE), also referred to as the Visual APE in the letter to VDHR, for architectural resources includes the 2.75 acres of total ground disturbance, as well as the area of additional visual effects that will extend beyond the structural footprint. The table below lists the closest recorded architectural resources, their NRHP eligibility status, and their separation from the closest point of the Visual APE.

Effective 11/19/2015 18

Table 2. Architectural Resources within APE

Resource NRHP Status Distance from APE14600 Lee Jackson Highway (029-0304) Not Eligible 936 feet

Manassas Gap Rail Bed (029-5274) Not Eligible 1,734 feet 14600 Lee Jackson Highway (029-0307) Not Eligible 2,816 feet

Sully Plantation (029-0037) Listed 2,882 feet Dulles Airport Historic District (053-0008) Eligible 3,990 feet

The Dulles Airport Historic District was determined eligible for the NRHP by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) in 1978. The historic district is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A as the first airport in the United States to be designated specifically for commercial jet aircraft and under Criterion C as an outstanding work of Finnish-born master architect Eero Saarinen. Contributing resources within the Dulles Airport Historic District include the Main Terminal and Airport Traffic Control Tower, the Cargo Building (Cargo Building No. 1), the Air Mail Facility, the Vehicle Maintenance Building, the Fire-Crash Station, the Heating and Air Conditioning Plant, the Telephone Exchange, the former Gladieux Corporation In-Flite Kitchen (LSG/Sky Chefs), the former Hot Shoppes In-Flite Food Building (LSG/Sky Chefs), and the former Allied Fueling Building, as well as the mobile lounges, the runways, the terminal area landscape, and the Dulles Airport Access Highway. Sully Plantation (029-0037) was determined eligible for the NRHP in 1970. The plantation was built in 1794 by Richard Bland Lee, uncle of General Robert E. Lee. The plantation passed through various private owners until 1957 when it was acquired by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), as it was then known, as part of the land for Dulles International Airport. The plantation consists of four contributing structures and serves as an important example of a late-18th-century farm complex, enhanced by its connection to the Lee family. Both the properties along Lee Jackson Highway (029-0304 and 029-0307) have been previously determined Not Eligible for the NRHP. The portion of the Manassas Gap Railroad Bed (029-5274) that is located on airport property also was determined Not Eligible, with VDHR indicating concurrence with this determination on March 12, 2014 (VDHR Project 2014-0198). A visual analysis of the Udvar Hazy Center completed for the 1998 Environmental Assessment found that the Udvar Hazy Center is not visible from various viewpoints, including the Sully Plantation (029-0037) and the main Dulles terminal. Given the location and scale of the proposed expansions (maximum three stories), the new facility will not be higher than the existing Udvar Hazy Center and will not be visible from either Sully Plantation or the Dulles Airport Historic District (053-0008). As a result, it has been determined that the proposed project would not affect any properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. MWAA received concurrence of this determination of No Historic Properties Affected from VDHR on June 7, 2016 (Attachment 13).

Effective 11/19/2015 19

(2) Describe any impacts to archeological resources as a result of the proposed project. (Include a record of consultation with persons or organizations with relevant expertise, including the S/THPO, if applicable). As described in the submittal to VDHR dated May 5, 2016, the Archaeological APE for the proposed project consists of the 2.75 acres of proposed ground disturbance. The proposed project falls within the area of the airport that was the subject of prior archeological investigation as part of the 1998 Environmental Assessment for the NASM. The technical report for this project, Smithsonian Institution Proposed National Air and Space Museum (NASM) Dulles Center, Phase I Archeological Identification and Phase II Archeological Evaluation (Dames & Moore 1997), was reviewed and received concurrence from VDHR staff (VDHR Project 97-1868). Although this survey did identify a number of archeological sites in the area, none of these fall within the Archeological APE for the current project. Therefore, no adverse effects to archaeological resources are anticipated. MWAA received concurrence of this determination of No Historic Properties Affected from VDHR on June 7, 2016. (I) LAND USE (1) Would the proposed project result in other (besides noise) impacts that have land use ramifications, such as disruption of communities, relocation of residences or businesses, or impact natural resource areas? Explain. The proposed project is located within a previously cleared portion of existing UHC property, adjacent to the existing UHC building footprint. The project area consists entirely of maintained grassy lawn. While the site is designated as Residential (R-1) by Fairfax County, Virginia, it is located within the property boundary of Dulles International Airport. The proposed action is compatible with the existing UHC, and no communities, residences, businesses, or natural resource areas would be affected. (2) Would the proposed project be located near or create a wildlife hazard as defined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33, "Wildlife Hazards On and Near Airports"? Explain. The proposed project would not create a new wildlife hazard. The proposed collections storage would be located on previously cleared land and near existing stormwater management ponds. Due to the proximity to Dulles International Airport, these stormwater management ponds are not permitted to have standing pools of water which could attract wildlife. (3) Include documentation to support sponsor’s assurance under 49 U.S.C. § 47107 (a) (10), of the 1982 Airport Act, that appropriate actions will be taken, to the extent reasonable, to restrict land use to purposes compatible with normal airport operations. The proposed action will not result in any changes to land use, and will thereby not introduce any non-compatible land uses that would conflict with airport operations. (J) NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY SUPPLY What effect would the project have on natural resource and energy consumption? (Attach record of consultations with local public utilities or suppliers if appropriate)

Effective 11/19/2015 20

The existing NASM UHC was constructed between 2000 and 2010 using Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system energy goals. The UHC currently has high rated insulation and R-values, reflected heat surfaces and high efficiency lamps and light fixtures. The proposed project would be similarly constructed using sustainable design practices, including energy-efficient building practices and environmentally sensitive design, with a goal of LEED Silver certification. The Smithsonian Institution manages its buildings and operations consistent with the requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, to the extent practical. Local public utilities at UHC are provided by Fairfax Water, Dominion Virginia Power, and Washington Gas. The increased energy consumption of the proposed collections storage would be minimal and is not expected to exceed the capacities of these providers. (K) NOISE AND NOISE-COMPATIBLE LAND USE Will the project increase noise by DNL 1.5 dB or more for a noise sensitive area that is exposed to noise at or above the DNL 65 dB noise exposure level, or that will be exposed at or above the DNL 65 dB level due to a DNL 1.5 dB or greater increase, when compared to the no action alternative for the same timeframe? (Use AEM as a screening tool and AEDT 2b as appropriate. See FAA Order 1050.1F Desk Reference, Chapter 11, or FAA Order 1050.1F, Appendix B, for further guidance). Please provide all information used to reach your conclusion. If yes, contact your local ADO. The proposed project would not result in any permanent increases in ambient noise. The proposed action occurs in an area that is away from public access and visitor parking areas. One school, the Auburn School, is located approximately 1,000 feet west of the project area in the adjacent office park. No other noise sensitive receptors are located within 1 mile of the project area. Due to the distance of the project area from the school, no noise impacts are anticipated. The increase in noise levels would be short term and minor in duration and associated primarily with the construction activities, and not exceed applicable standards. (L) SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS (1) Would the project cause an alteration in surface traffic patterns, or cause a noticeable increase in surface traffic congestion or decrease in Level of Service? No, the project would not substantially increase traffic or alter existing traffic patterns during construction or operation of the collections storage. The project is located away from designated visitor parking areas and entrances, and is not accessible to the public. Traffic generated by the proposed project would be limited to construction traffic and occasional deliveries of museum collections after the collection center opens. Construction is anticipated to take 18 months during which time construction vehicles may enter and exit the site several times a day. As collections are transferred to and from NASM and the DCC, it is anticipated that there would be two deliveries per day with peak movement of collections forecasted for 2021. After the NASM National Mall Building renovation is complete, deliveries would be made to the DCC approximately three times a week. Currently, the DCC receives an average of two deliveries per week.

Effective 11/19/2015 21

Construction and delivery traffic would enter and exit the site by way of the existing employee entrance off of Route 50. Therefore, the flow of exiting traffic volumes and the Level of Service on the local roadway network would not be affected. (2) Would the project cause induced, or secondary, socioeconomic impacts to surrounding communities, such as changes to business and economic activity in a community; impact public service demands; induce shifts in population movement and growth, etc.? Construction activities would result in temporary positive impacts to the regional economy through the employment of construction workers, spending on materials, and spending in the local economy by construction workers. The proposed project would not change the availability of permanent housing, permanent employment, or retail opportunities. There would be no permanent shifts in the patterns of population movement and growth, public service demands or changes in business or economic activity. (3) Would the project have a disproportionate impact on minority and/or low-income communities? Consider human health, social, economic, and environmental issues in your evaluation. Refer to DOT Order 5610.2(a) which provides the definition for the types of adverse impacts that should be considered when assessing impacts to environmental justice populations. The most recent American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates were used to identify census tracts adjacent to the project area that contain minority, Hispanic/Latino, or low-income populations. Two census tracts are adjacent to the project area (Census Tracts 9802 and 4901.03, shown in Figure 1 below). The population percentages of race, Hispanic/Latino origin, and poverty status for each census tract and Fairfax County are included in Table 3. Tract 9802 is unpopulated. Overall, Tract 4901.03 has a lower percentage of nonwhite residents (27.3%) than Fairfax County as a whole (36.8%). However, Tract 4901.03 has a higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents (23%) than Fairfax County (16%). Less than 3% of residents in Tract 4901.03 are below the poverty level, which is lower than the percentage for Fairfax County (6%) (American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2014).

Effective 11/19/2015 22

Figure 1. Census Tracts Adjacent to Project Area

Table 3. Population Characteristics

Fairfax County

Census Tract

4901.03

Census Tract 9802

Race

White 63.2% 72.7% -

Black or African American 9.3% 3.9% -

Asian 18.1% 10.7% -

Some other race 5.0% 10.2% -

Two or more races 4.4% 2.6% -

Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 16.0% 23.0% -

Percent Below Poverty Level 6.0% 2.4% - Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

While there are minority populations in the vicinity of the project, they would not be disproportionately affected by construction or operation of the DCC. As documented in this assessment, the project would not result in impacts that would affect the health and safety of populations in the vicinity of the project area. Construction related impacts such as fugitive dust would not affect local populations as the project site is isolated from residential areas. Construction traffic would enter and exit the DCC directly from Route 50 and would not travel through residential neighborhoods. (4) Would the project have the potential to lead to a disproportionate health or safety risk to children? One school, the Auburn School, is located approximately 1,000 feet west of the project area in the adjacent office park. No other schools, day care providers, or children’s health clinics are located

Effective 11/19/2015 23

within 1 mile of the project area. Due to the distance from the project area, no impacts to the school or its students are anticipated. The project would not result in other impacts that would affect the health and safety of any populations near the project area. During construction, fugitive dust will be kept to a minimum by using applicable control methods outlined in 9 Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 5-50-60 et seq. of the Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution. Construction traffic would enter and exit the DCC directly from Route 50 and would not travel through residential neighborhoods or near schools. If the answer is “YES” to any of the above, please explain the nature and degree of the impact. Also provide a description of mitigation measures which would be considered to reduce any adverse impacts.

Effective 11/19/2015 24

(M) VISUAL EFFECTS INCLUDING LIGHT EMISSIONS (1)Would the project have the potential to create annoyance or interfere with normal activities from light emissions for nearby residents? No residential areas are within the viewshed of the project site. The adjacent office park is blocked from view of the project site by a forested area. The planning of the lighting for the collections storage would be consistent with the existing UHC and will include minimal light fixtures at egress and personnel doors. (2) Would the project have the potential to affect the visual character of nearby areas due to light emissions? The lighting for the collections storage would be consistent with the existing UHC. There will be minimal light fixtures at egress and personnel doors. No additional site lighting is planned for the DCC. (3) Would the project have the potential to block or obstruct views of visual resources? No visual resources are within the viewshed of the project area. If the answer is “YES” to any of the above, please explain the nature and degree of the impact using graphic materials. Also provide a description of mitigation measures which would be considered to reduce any adverse impacts. (N) WATER RESOURCES (INCLUDING WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, SURFACE WATERS, GROUNDWATER, AND WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS) (1) WETLANDS (a) Does the proposed project involve federal or state regulated wetlands or non-jurisdictional wetlands? (Contact USFWS or appropriate state natural resource agencies if protected resources are affected) (Wetlands must be delineated using methods in the US Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Delineations must be performed by a person certified in wetlands delineation Document coordination with the resource agencies). The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was consulted to determine the presence of wetlands onsite. No wetlands were identified. The site is previously disturbed and consists entirely of maintained lawn. Therefore, no impacts to wetlands are anticipated. The NWI wetlands map is included as Attachment 14. (b) If yes, does the project qualify for an Army Corps of Engineers General permit? (Document coordination with the Corps). No Section 404, Section 10, or Virginia Water Protection permits are anticipated to be required. (c) If there are wetlands impacts, are there feasible mitigation alternatives? Explain. N/A

Effective 11/19/2015 25

(d) If there are wetlands impacts, describe the measures to be taken to comply with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. N/A (2) FLOODPLAINS (a) Would the proposed project be located in, or would it encroach upon, any 100-year floodplains, as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)? The project area is shown on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map number 51059C0115E (Attachment 15). The project area is not within the 100-year floodplain. (b) If Yes, would the project cause notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values as defined in Paragraph 4.k of DOT Order 5620.2, Floodplain Management and Protection? N/A (c) If Yes, attach the corresponding FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and describe the measures to be taken to comply with Executive Order 11988, including the public notice requirements. N/A (3) SURFACE WATERS (a) Would the project impact surface waters such that water quality standards set by Federal, state, local, or tribal regulatory agencies would be exceeded or would the project have the potential to contaminate a public drinking water supply such that public health may be adversely affected? The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was consulted to determine the presence of surface waters onsite. No surface waters were identified onsite. The site is previously disturbed and consists entirely of maintained lawn. The closest water body to the project area is Cain Branch, located approximately 650 feet southwest. (b) Would the water quality impacts associated with the project cause concerns for applicable permitting agencies or require mitigation in order to obtain a permit? No impacts to surface waters are anticipated. For construction activities disturbing one acre or more, a NPDES/Virginia Stormwater Management Program permit for stormwater discharges and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) is EPA’s authorized state agency to which to apply under the federal water permitting program. A SWPPP would be developed that documents standard operation procedures and best management practices to be implemented to prevent the contact of stormwater with construction debris and sediment. During construction, all best management practices would be utilized to prevent sedimentation into nearby waterways and stormwater, including Cain Branch (located approximately 650 feet southwest of the project area). The use of silt fences, temporary stabilization, dust suppression, and proper construction phasing would reduce impacts to de minimis levels. The increase in impervious area created by the new facilities would

Effective 11/19/2015 26

be mitigated for by the use of best stormwater practices in accordance with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and Virginia and Fairfax County regulations. Level 1 bioretention facilities are proposed to capture and treat stormwater from the DCC (see Attachment 16). If the answer to any of the above questions is “Yes”, consult with the USEPA or other appropriate Federal and/or state regulatory and permitting agencies and provide all agency correspondence. (4) GROUNDWATER (a) Would the project impact groundwater such that water quality standards set by Federal, state, local, or tribal regulatory agencies would be exceeded or would the project have the potential to contaminate an aquifer used for public water supply such that public health may be adversely affected? The proposed project would not require a new well or groundwater withdrawal during construction or operation. The project would result in an increase in impervious surface area and a total of 2.75 acres of land disturbance during construction. The increase in impervious area created by the new facilities would be mitigated for by the use of best stormwater practices in accordance with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and Virginia and Fairfax County regulations. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and SWPPP will be prepared in accordance with Virginia and Fairfax County criteria and strictly adhered to in order to avoid and minimize sediment and contaminant transport outside the project area. (b) Would the groundwater impacts associated with the project cause concerns for applicable permitting agencies or require mitigation in order to obtain a permit? As discussed in Section 3(b), a NPDES/Virginia Stormwater Management Program permit for stormwater discharges would be obtained from VDEQ. A SWPPP would be developed that documents standard operation procedures and best management practices to be implemented to prevent the contact of stormwater with construction debris and sediment. During construction, all best management practices would be utilized to prevent sedimentation or contamination into nearby waterways and stormwater. The use of silt fences, temporary stabilization, dust suppression, and proper construction phasing would reduce impacts to de minimis levels. (c) Is the project to be located over an EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer? There are no sole source aquifers in the vicinity of the proposed action (EPA Office of Water, 2015). If the answer to any of the above questions is “Yes”, consult with the USEPA or other appropriate Federal and/or state regulatory and permitting agencies and provide all agency correspondence as an attachment to this form.

Effective 11/19/2015 27

(5) WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Would the proposed project affect a river segment that is listed in the Wild and Scenic River System or Nationwide River Inventory (NRI)? (If Yes, coordinate with the jurisdictional agency and attach record of consultation). No. According to the National Wild and Scenic River System, the State of Virginia does not have any designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. No rivers or streams are located in or adjacent to the project area. (O) CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Discuss impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects both on and off the airport. Would the proposed project produce a cumulative effect on any of the environmental impact categories above? Consider projects that are connected and may have common timing and/or location. For purposes of this Form, generally use 3 years for past projects and 5 years for future foreseeable projects. The proposed project is adjacent to the UHC, which was constructed between 2000 and 2010. Impacts from construction of the UHC consist of approximately 7 acres of wetland impacts and approximately 80 acres of impacts to forested and non-forested vegetative cover. These impacts were mitigated through the restoration of more than 100 acres of re-contoured battlefields, and the permanent creation of 8.68 acres of wetlands, in addition to the demarcation of an additional 18 acres of riparian wetland buffer zones within Manassas National Battlefield Park. No cultural resource sites were impacted as a result of the construction of the UHC. Other recently completed or ongoing projects within the past three years in the project vicinity include:

• Dulles Metro Rail Project, Phase 2: An 11-mile extension of the existing Silver Line, Phase I of which was completed in 2014. It will be operated by WMATA and run from Wiehle Avenue to IAD and into Loudoun County. This project includes six new Metro Rail stations and a new rail yard on Dulles Airport property. A “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project” for both phases of the project was published in 2004, and the “Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project – Phase 2 Preliminary Engineering Design Refinements Environmental Assessment” was published in April 2012. Construction on Phase 2 started in 2014, and the project is expected to be completed in 2020. The Rail Project has the potential to affect wetlands, traffic patterns, noise and vibration, land use, and historic resources, but a Record of Decision with mitigation measures (Federal Transit Administration, 2006) has been issued for the entirety of the project. Although air quality impacts were mentioned in the Rail EIS, it was determined that the total operation emissions for Dulles Airport are below minimum levels and conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

• Taxiway Z and Taxilane C Reconstruction: Reconstruction of Taxiway Z, Section 2, located between Taxiway E and Taxiway Y9, for a length of approximately 1,300 feet (97,500 square feet), and reconstruction of Taxilane C, Section 1, starting immediately east of Taxiway Z, extending approximately 1,050 feet (105,000 square feet). Construction began in late 2014, and was expected to be completed in July 2015. A Categorical Exclusion was

Effective 11/19/2015 28

approved for this project in 2014, and it will not result in any meaningful environmental impacts.

• Route 28 Bridge over the Dulles Airport Access Road Bridge Widening: VDOT under a

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

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

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

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

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

• Snow Equipment Storage Facility: Construction of a snow equipment storage facility

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

• Historic Air Traffic Control Tower Exterior Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation of the historic Air

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

• Police Range and Training Facility: Construction of a police range and training facility in

the southern portion of the airport, south of the Automated People Mover Vehicle Maintenance Facility. The proposed facility will include one 300-yard range, two 50-yard ranges, one 98-foot by 60-foot modular training building, and ammunition storage building, gravel access roads, a gravel parking lot, and utility connections. Construction was started in

Effective 11/19/2015 29

the summer of 2015. A Short Environmental Assessment Form was completed, and a Finding of No Significant Impact was issued on July 9, 2015.

Reasonably foreseeable future projects in the project vicinity include:

• Taxilane C and Taxiway Z Reconstruction: Reconstruction of the middle section of Taxilane C and the south section of Taxiway Z at Washington Dulles International Airport. The Taxilane C area is approximately 100 feet wide and 1,940 feet long. The Taxiway Z area is approximately 75 feet wide and 340 feet long and also includes isolated panel replacement at Taxiway Y11. The full depth reconstruction includes the replacement with full strength PCC pavement with new joint spacing and underdrain system. The construction contract for this project has not yet been awarded.

• Exterior Renovation of Cargo Buildings 1-4: Rehabilitation of the landside exterior of cargo buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4 to include demolition of existing portions of canopy roofing, flashings, edge metal and fascia, cleaning/repair of structural steel framing and installation of a new roofing system, roof drains, and lightning protection. The project was awarded in February 2016, but construction is currently unscheduled at this time. The project will not result in any environmental impacts other than temporary impacts associated with construction.

• Route 606 Loudoun County Boulevard/Old Ox Road Reconstruction: VDOT has proposed a

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

• Route 28 Corridor Project: VDOT under a Public Private Partnership intends to widen Route

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

• Taxilane B Reconstruction and Widening (East Section): Reconstruction and widening of

Taxilane B, which is original Dulles pavement. The reconstructed pavement limits are approximately 75 feet wide by 4,400 feet long, and include the entire length of Taxilane B.

Effective 11/19/2015 30

The pavement will be widened approximately 35 feet to the north to accommodate ADG VI aircraft on a new centerline positioned 30 feet north. Construction on the East section, between Taxiway J to Gate A19 (for approximately 1,000 feet) was initiated in June 2015 and is expected to last one year. The remaining sections are not currently scheduled for construction. A Categorical Exclusion was approved for this project in January 2015, and it will not result in any meaningful environmental impacts.

• Fuel and Convenience Concession Site: MWAA is constructing a new, larger fuel and convenience facility to replace the current concession. The proposed facility will be located near the intersection of Rudder Road and Ariane Way, directly across Ariane Way from the existing fuel and convenience concession facility, which will be decommissioned. This site is a previously disturbed 3-acre area that provides adequate space to build all new fuel and convenience facilities, and is located in a convenient and easily accessible location to both incoming and outgoing airport traffic. The proposed fuel and convenience concession site will provide critical services and products to air passengers, employees, patrons of other airport services, and other service providers. MWAA prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and determined that no significant environmental effects will result from the proposed action. The FAA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in 2016.

Future projects within the land set aside for the Dulles Collections Center could impact undeveloped and/or forested areas, which would require review and permitting for Section 106 of the NHPA, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Any future development would require compliance with NEPA, and all federal, state, and local permitting regulations for development. Because this proposed project occurs in a previously cleared area that is adjacent to the existing UHC building footprint, would have negligible impacts to natural resources, traffic, utilities, or air quality, it would contribute negligible cumulative impacts to the past and future projects in the area. 7. PERMITS List all required permits for the proposed project. Has coordination with the appropriate agency commenced? What feedback has the appropriate agency offered in reference to the proposed project? What is the expected time frame for permit review and decision?

• Construction Permits – MWAA • Erosion and Sediment Control Plan – DEQ • NPDES/VPDES Permit – DEQ • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) – DEQ • New Stationary Source Air Permit – DEQ • Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration pursuant to Title 14 CFR Part 77 - FAA

Permit applications have not been submitted to these agencies.

Effective 11/19/2015 31

8. MITIGATION Describe those mitigation measures to be taken to avoid creation of significant impacts to a particular resource as a result of the proposed project, and include a discussion of any impacts that cannot be mitigated. For all construction activities, the construction contractor would ensure that all applicable state and local regulations are followed. All appropriate sediment and erosion control best practices would be implemented in order to minimize fugitive dust generation from grading activities. Measures such as silt fencing, temporary watering and seeding and other methods would be used. Some emissions in the form of fugitive dust would be generated during construction, but these impacts are short-term. For construction activities disturbing one acre or more, a NPDES/Virginia Stormwater Management Program permit for stormwater discharges and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) is EPA’s authorized state agency to which to apply under the federal water permitting program. A SWPPP would be developed that documents standard operation procedures and best management practices to be implemented to prevent the contact of stormwater with construction debris and sediment. 9. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Describe the public review process and any comments received. Include copies of Public Notices and proof of publication. A public notice was published in local newspapers and copies of the Short Environmental Assessment Form were made available for the public to review at the Chantilly Regional Library, 4000 Stringfellow Road, Chantilly, VA; the Centreville Regional Library, 14200 St. Germain Drive, Centreville, VA; and the Sterling Library, 120 Enterprise Street, Sterling, VA 20164. The 30-day review period began on July 13, 2016 and ended on August 11, 2016. The only comments received during the 30-day review period were from the National Capital Planning Commission and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Office of Environmental Impact Review (OEIR). The OEIR stated that the Proposed Action is consistent with all enforceable policies of the CZM program and is expected to have no impact or less than significant impacts to wetlands and water quality, stormwater management and erosion and sediment control, ambient air quality, solid wastes and hazardous materials, natural heritage resources and listed species, public water supply, and historic resources, provided that all applicable permits and approvals are obtained and all listed requirements are followed. The public notice, along with copies of the comments and responses to substantive comments, are included in Attachment 17.

Effective 11/19/2015 32

10. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

1. Project Location Map

2. Site Plan

3. Airport Layout Plan and Land Use Plan

4. Existing Conditions – Key Map and Photos

5. Alternative 1

6. Alternative 2

7. Alternative 3

8. DGIF and DCR Consultation

9. USFWS IPaC Trust Resources Report

10. Virginia Coastal Zone Boundary Map

11. Coastal Zone Federal Consistency Determination

12. Web Soil Survey Farmland Classifications

13. Section 106 Correspondence with VDHR

14. National Wetlands Inventory Map

15. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)

16. Stormwater Management Plan

17. Public Involvement

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 Project Location

Dulles Collections Center

Attachments: Page 1


Attachments: Page 2

Attachment 2 Dulles Collections Center Site Plan

Attachments: Page 3


Attachments: Page 4

Attachment 3 Airport Layout Plan and Land Use Plan

Attachments: Page 5


Attachments: Page 6

Dulles International Airport - Airport Layout Plan

Attachments: Page 7

Dulles International Airport - Land Use Plan

Attachments: Page 8

Attachment 4 Existing Site Conditions

Photo Key Map

Photo 2

Photo 1

Attachments: Page 9

Photo 1. View into project area of the proposed collections facility, facing northwest.

Photo 2. View into project area of proposed collections facility, facing north.

Attachments: Page 10

Attachment 5 Alternative 1 – Dulles Collections Center

Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar (Small Footprint) View from the Northwest



Two-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar View from the Northwest



Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar (Large Footprint) (Preferred Alternative) View from the Northwest


Attachment 8 Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and Department of Conservation and Recreation

Consultations


10/8/2015 VAFWIS Seach Report

https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPages/VaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.asp?pf=1&Title=VaFWIS+GeographicSelect+Options&pf=0&placeName=… 1/4

Help

Known or likely to occur within a 2 mile radius around point 38.9090556 -77.4443611 in 059 Fair fax County, 107 Loudoun County, VA

View Map ofSite Location

VaFWIS Initial Project Assessment Repor t Compiled on10/8/2015, 4:15:29 PM

733 Known or Likely Species ordered by Status Concern for Conservation (displaying first 37) (37 species with Status* or Tier I** or Tier II** )BOVACode Status* Tier** Common Name Scientific Name Confirmed Database(s)

010032 FESE II Sturgeon,Atlantic

Acipenseroxyrinchus BOVA

060003 FESE II Wedgemussel,dwarf

Alasmidontaheterodon BOVA

050022 FT Bat, northernlong-eared

Myotisseptentrionalis BOVA

060006 SE II Floater, brook Alasmidontavaricosa BOVA

030062 ST I Turtle, wood Glyptemysinsculpta Yes BOVA,TEWaters,Habitat

040096 ST I Falcon,peregrine Falco peregrinus BOVA

040129 ST I Sandpiper,upland

Bartramialongicauda Yes BOVA,SppObs

040293 ST I Shrike,loggerhead

Laniusludovicianus BOVA

040379 ST I Sparrow,Henslow's

Ammodramushenslowii BOVA

100155 FSST I Skipper,Appalachiangrizzled

Pyrgus wyandot BOVA

060081 ST II Floater, green Lasmigonasubviridis BOVA

040292 ST Shrike, migrantloggerhead

Laniusludovicianusmigrans

BOVA

100248 FS I Fritillary, regal Speyeria idaliaidalia BOVA

040093 FS II Eagle, bald Haliaeetusleucocephalus BOVA

Butterfly, Persius Erynnis persius Attachments: Page 17

https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/?Title=VaFWIS+Report+Search&lastMenu=Home.__By+Map&placeName=&tn=.0&searchType=R&species=1&orderBY=BOVA

https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/?Title=VaFWIS+Report+Search&lastMenu=Home.__By+Map&placeName=&tn=.0&searchType=R&species=1&orderBY=

https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/?Title=VaFWIS+Report+Search&lastMenu=Home.__By+Map&placeName=&tn=.0&searchType=R&species=1&orderBY=tier

https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/?Title=VaFWIS+Report+Search&lastMenu=Home.__By+Map&placeName=&tn=.0&searchType=R&species=1&orderBY=Common_Name

https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/?Title=VaFWIS+Report+Search&lastMenu=Home.__By+Map&placeName=&tn=.0&searchType=R&species=1&orderBY=Scientific_Name



100154 FS II duskywing persius BOVA

100166 FS II Skipper, Dotted Hesperia attalusslossonae BOVA

060029 FS III Lance, yellow Elliptiolanceolata Yes BOVA,SppObs

010038 FS IV Alewife Alosapseudoharengus BOVA

010045 FS Herring,blueback Alosa aestivalis BOVA

080340 FS Caddisfly,Buffalo Springs

Ceratopsycheetnieri BOVA

030063 CC III Turtle, spotted Clemmys guttata BOVA

030012 CC IV Rattlesnake,timber Crotalus horridus BOVA

010077 I Shiner, bridle Notropisbifrenatus BOVA

040372 I Crossbill, red Loxia curvirostra BOVA

040225 I Sapsucker,yellow-bellied

Sphyrapicusvarius BOVA

040319 I Warbler, black-throated green Dendroica virens BOVA

040306 I Warbler, golden-winged

Vermivorachrysoptera BOVA

040038 II Bittern,American

Botauruslentiginosus BOVA

040052 II Duck, Americanblack Anas rubripes BOVA

040029 II Heron, littleblue

Egretta caeruleacaerulea BOVA

040036 II Night-heron,yellow-crowned

Nyctanassaviolacea violacea BOVA

040213 II Owl, northernsaw-whet

Aegoliusacadicus BOVA

040105 II Rail, king Rallus elegans BOVA

040186 II Tern, least Sterna antillarum BOVA

040320 II Warbler,cerulean

Dendroicacerulea BOVA

040304 II Warbler,Swainson's

Limnothlypisswainsonii BOVA

040266 II Wren, winter Troglodytestroglodytes BOVA

To view All 733 species View 733Attachments: Page 18

https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/?Title=VaFWIS+Report+Search&lastMenu=Home.__By+Map&placeName=&tn=.0&searchType=R&species=all&report=1&orderBY=



Anadromous Fish Use Streams

Colonial Water Bird Survey

Threatened and Endangered Waters ( 1 Reach )

View Map of AllThr eatened and Endanger ed Water s

Managed Trout Streams

Bald Eagle Nests

Habitat Predicted for Aquatic WAP Tier I & II Species ( 5 Reaches )

To view All 733 species View 733

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

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

Bat Colonies or Hibernacula: Not Known

N/A

N/A

Stream NameT&E Waters Species

ViewMap

HighestTE*

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

Cub Run(02070010) ST 030062 ST I Turtle,

wood Glyptemysinsculpta Yes

N/A

Bald Eagle Concentration Areas and Roosts

N/A

N/A


https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/?Title=VaFWIS+Report+Search&lastMenu=Home.__By+Map&placeName=&tn=.0&searchType=R&species=all&report=1&orderBY=



View Map Combined Reaches fr om Below of Habitat Pr edicted for WAP Tier I & IIAquatic Species

Habitat Predicted for Terrestr ial WAP Tier I & II Species

Public Holdings:

Stream NameTier Species

ViewMap

HighestTE*

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

(20700101) ST 030062 ST I Turtle,wood

Glyptemysinsculpta Yes

Cub Run (20700101) ST 030062 ST I Turtle,wood


Cub Run (20700102) ST 030062 ST I Turtle,wood


Dead Run (20700101) ST 030062 ST I Turtle,wood


Sand Branch(20700101) ST 030062 ST I Turtle,

wood Glyptemysinsculpta Yes

N/A

N/A

Compiled on 10/8/2015, 4:15:35 PM I685994.0 report=IPA searchType= R dist= 3218.688 poi= 38.9090556 -77.4443611

PixelSize=64; Anadromous=0.155844; BECAR=0.141455; Bats=0.149338; Buffer=0.100178; County=1.363888; Impediments=0.150626; Init=0.742994; PublicLands=0.847527;SppObs=1.412668; TEWaters=0.639915; TierReaches=0.861923; TierTerrestrial=0.164143; Total=26.314788; Tracking_BOVA=19.444196; Trout=0.173329


10/8/2015 VaFWIS Map

Site Location

38,54,32.6 -77,26,39.7is the Search Point

Show Position Rings Yes No

1 mile and 1/4 mile at theSearch Point

Show Search Area Yes No

2 Search distance milesradius

Search Point is atmap center

Base Map ChoicesBW Aerial Photography

Map Over lay ChoicesCurrent List: Position, Search,BECAR, BAEANests,TEWaters, TierII, Habitat,Trout, Anadromous

Map Over lay Legend

back Refr esh Browser Page Map Click

MapScale

ScreenSize

Help

Point of Search 38,54,32.6 -77,26,39.7Map Location 38,54,32.6 -77,26,39.7

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

Decimal Degrees Latitude - Longitude

Meters UTM NAD83 East North Zone

Meters UTM NAD27 East North Zone

Base Map source: Black & White USGS Aerial Photography (see Microsoft terraserver-usa.com fordetails)

Map projection is UTM Zone 18 NAD 1983 with left 283256 and top 4314325. Pixel size is 16meters . Coordinates displayed are Degrees, Minutes, Seconds North and West. Map is currentlydisplayed as 600 columns by 600 rows for a total of 360000 pixles. The map display represents

38,56,20.5 -77,27,53.1


10/8/2015 VaFWIS Map

https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/maps/zMapFormJava.asp?autoscale=14&coord=LL&display_only=1&dist=3218.688&dp=&gap=&ln=kimley&opoi=&overlay_list… 2/2

9600 meters east to west by 9600 meters north to south for a total of 92.1 square kilometers. Themap display represents 31501 feet east to west by 31501 feet north to south for a total of 35.5square miles.

Topographic maps and Black and white aerial photography for year 1990+- are from the United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey. Color aerial photography aquired 2002 is from Virginia Base Mapping Program, VirginiaGeographic Information Network. Shaded topographic maps are from TOPO! ©2006 National Geographichttp://www.national.geographic.com/topo All other map products are from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Game and InlandFisheries.

map assembled 2015-10-08 15:04:53 (qa/qc December 5, 2012 8:04 - tn=685994.0 dist=3218.688 I )$poi=38.9090556 -77.4443611

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


http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dgif.state.va.us/docs/privacy.html

Attachment 9 US Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC)

Official Species List


United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEVirginia Ecological Services Field Office

6669 SHORT LANEGLOUCESTER, VA 23061

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

Consultation Code: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1491 February 17, 2016Event Code: 05E2VA00-2016-E-01822Project Name: NASM Udvar-Hazy Collections Facility

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

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, aswell as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary ofyour proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfillsthe requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of theEndangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 ). Any activityet seq.proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination'conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions orconcerns.

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

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


endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangeredspecies and/or designated critical habitat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attachment

2Attachments: Page 28

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 02/17/2016 12:52 PM 1

Official Species List

Provided by: Virginia Ecological Services Field Office

6669 SHORT LANE

GLOUCESTER, VA 23061

(804) 693-6694

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/

Consultation Code: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1491Event Code: 05E2VA00-2016-E-01822

Project Type: Federal Grant / Loan Related

Project Name: NASM Udvar-Hazy Collections FacilityProject Description: Construction of new collections facility adjacent to the south wall of Udvar-Hazy Center. Project area consists of previously disturbed grassy lawn. 2.75 acres of landdisturbance is proposed. No trees or natural vegetation will be removed or disturbed.

Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so itmay be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Codematches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by'section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.

United States Department of InteriorFish and Wildlife Service

Project name: NASM Udvar-Hazy Collections Facility



Project Location Map:

Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-77.44566321372986 38.91033701504591, -77.44619965553284 38.910311969758965, -77.4462640285492 38.90819978542943, -77.44607090950012 38.90807455513591, -77.44456887245178 38.90809125252114, -77.44437575340271 38.90827492349951, -77.44436502456664 38.909368590848885, -77.4457061290741 38.90944372768176, -77.44566321372986 38.91033701504591)))

Project Counties: Fairfax, VA





Endangered Species Act Species List

There are a total of 1 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in

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

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

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

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

office if you have questions.

Mammals Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)

Northern long-eared Bat (Myotis

septentrionalis)

Threatened





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




http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 02/17/2016 12:52 PM - Appendix A 1

Appendix A: FWS National Wildlife Refuges

There are no refuges within your project area.




Attachment 10 Virginia Coastal Zone Management Area

Dulles Collections Center


Attachment 11 Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency Determination

Proposed Collections Facilities at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center

This document provides the Commonwealth of Virginia with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA)’s Consistency Determination under CZMA section 307(c)(2) and 15 CFR Part 930, subpart C, for the Smithsonian Institution’s (SI) proposed Collections Storage Facility at the National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center (DCC) adjacent to the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center located in Chantilly, Virginia. A Vicinity Map is included as Attachment 1 of the Form C package. The information in this Consistency Determination is provided pursuant to 15 CFR §930.39.

Certification:

The Authority certifies that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable programs of Virginia’s Coastal Resources Management Program (VCP) and will be conducted in a manner consistent with the VCP.

Necessary Data and Information:

The proposed project includes the construction of new collections space in the form of storage modules immediately adjacent to the Udvar-Hazy Center.

These new collections modules would provide space to relocate NASM collections from the Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration, and Storage Facility (Garber). The modules would also accommodate NASM’s collections from the Ramsey building at Dulles, collections growth, objects from other collecting units, and swing space during renovations and relocations. The proximity to the Udvar-Hazy Center would allow the new storage modules to take advantage of the collections processing, security, and staff resources already located in the Udvar-Hazy Center building. The proposed project is part of a NASM Master Plan and a pan-Smithsonian Collections Space Framework Plan that recommends additional collections space.

Three alternatives, as described below, along with the No Action Alternative, are under consideration for the Collections Center. The alternatives are shown in Attachments 4-6 of Form C.

Alternative 1: Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar (Small Footprint)

Alternative 1 consists of two three-story collections storage modules plus a hangar building, with a total of 237,350 gross square feet (gsf). The three-story modules would be approximately 60 feet tall, and the hangar facility would be approximately 45 feet tall. The proposed length of each module is 235 feet, which matches the length of the existing Udvar-Hazy Center storage wing. The modules and hangar would provide 186,850 net square feet (nsf) of collections storage space. Alternate 1 does not provide enough collections storage space to accommodate NASM’s collections storage need or enough swing space for the National Mall Museum renovation.


Alternative 2: Two-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar

Alternative 2 consists of two two-story collections storage modules plus a single-story free span module. Full build-out would provide 164,060 nsf of collections storage space within 200,940 gsf of construction. The two-story modules would be 40 feet tall to match the adjacent Udvar-Hazy Center building, and the single-story module would be 45 feet tall. The proposed length of the modules is 269 feet, slightly longer than the adjacent Udvar-Hazy building, in order to maximize the storage capacity for large objects. The two-story modules would each provide 68,910nsf of collections storage and the single-story free span module would provide 26,240 nsf of storage for large air and space craft. While Alternative 2 would provide greater ground floor storage capacity for large objects, the overall collections storage area does not meet NASM’s collection storage needs or provide enough swing space for the National Mall Museum renovation.

Alternative 3: Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar (Large Footprint) (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 3 consists of two three-story collections storage modules plus a single-story free span module. Full build-out provides 241,880 nsf of collections storage space within 283,795 gsf of construction. The three-story modules would be 60 feet tall, and the single-story module would be 45 feet tall. The proposed length of the modules is 269 feet, slightly longer than the adjacent Udvar-Hazy building, in order to maximize the storage capacity for large objects. The three-story modules would each provide 107,820 nsf of collections storage and the single-story free span module would provide 26,240 net square feet of storage for large air and space craft. Alternative 3 is the Preferred Alternative because it is the only option that provides enough collections storage space to accommodate NASM’s collection and provide the swing space needed for the National Mall Museum renovation.

The construction of any of these alternatives would result in approximately 2.75 acres of land disturbance. The area of the proposed construction was previously disturbed during the construction of the Udvar-Hazy Center and currently consists of maintained grassy lawn.

FAA and MWAA have determined that none of the alternatives for the proposed project will affect the land or water uses or natural resources of Virginia, as described below:

• The VDGIF VaFWIS and the VDCR Division of Natural Heritage were consulted to determineconfirmed occurrences of threatened and endangered species within 2 miles of the project area. Twolisted species were identified as confirmed within the search radius: the state-listed threatened woodturtle (Glyptemys insculpta) and the state-listed threatened upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda).Cub Run, located over one mile from the project site, is listed as a Stream Conservation Unit (SCU)and predicted habitat for the wood turtle. Cain Branch, located approximately 650 feet southwest, isa tributary to Cub Run. Since the project area consists entirely of maintained lawn with no naturalvegetation or water resources, no suitable habitat for these species exists within the project area. AnErosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and strictly followed during construction toprevent sedimentation of Cain Branch and subsequently Cub Run. Therefore, no impacts to state-listed threatened and endangered species are anticipated. A copy of the VaFWIS Report and Mapand the DCR response are included in Attachment 7 of Form C.

• The USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) service was consulted to identifyfederally listed species that occur within the project area. One threatened species, the northern long-


eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) was listed. Because no trees will be removed as a result of this project, no impacts to this species are anticipated. The Official Species List acquired from the IPaC system is included as Attachment 8 of Form C.

• The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was consulted to determine the presence of wetlands and surface waters onsite. No wetlands were identified. The site is previously disturbed and consists entirely of maintained lawn. Therefore, no impacts to wetlands or water resources are anticipated. The NWI wetlands map is included as Attachment 14 of Form C.

• The project area is shown on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map number 51059C0115E (Attachment 15 of Form C). The project area is not within the 100-year floodplain.

• There are no historic structures within the viewshed of the project area. The site was previously disturbed and, therefore, will not affect archaeological resources.

The Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program requires consistency with the enforceable policies listed below. The following is an analysis of the project’s consistency with each policy, if applicable:

1. Fisheries Management: The project area was previously disturbed during the construction of the Udvar-Hazy Center, and currently consists of maintained lawn. No wetlands or water resources are present onsite. The closest water body to the project area is Cain Branch, located approximately 650 feet southwest. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and strictly followed during construction to prevent sedimentation of Cain Branch. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact finfish or shellfish resources.

2. Subaqueous Lands Management: No state-owned bottomlands are present within the project area. Therefore, this enforceable policy is not applicable to this project.

3. Wetlands Management: The project area was previously disturbed during the construction of the Udvar-Hazy Center, and currently consists of maintained lawn. No jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional wetlands are present within or adjacent to the project area. No Section 404, Section 10, or Virginia Water Protection permits are anticipated to be required. Therefore, this enforceable policy is not applicable to this project.

4. Dunes Management: The project is not located along a shoreline. Therefore, this enforceable policy is not applicable to this project.

5. Non-point Source Pollution Control: The proposed project will result in approximately 2.75 acres of land disturbance. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared in accordance with Virginia and Fairfax County criteria and strictly adhered to in order to avoid and minimize sediment transport outside the project area.

6. Point Source Pollution Control: The proposed project will result in approximately 2.75 acres of land disturbance. Prior to construction, a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit and/or a Virginia Stormwater Management Program permit for discharges of stormwater from land-disturbing activities greater than one acre will be obtained.

7. Shoreline Sanitation: The project would not generate any additional waste water. No septic tanks are proposed. The project is not located in a shoreline area. Therefore, this enforceable policy is not applicable to this project.


8. Air Pollution Control: The project is located in Fairfax County, which is within an ozone non-attainment area (EPA Green Book, 2015). Air quality impacts associated with the project wouldoriginate from temporary construction activities and permanent stationary sources at the facility. Theproject would not result in a long-term increase in vehicular traffic, as the only additional trafficwould be from occasional deliveries of collections to the center.

The proposed project would result in minor short-term impacts to air quality from fugitive dust fromgrading activities and construction vehicle emissions. These impacts would be temporary, lastingonly for the duration of construction. During construction, fugitive dust will be minimized by usingapplicable control methods outlined in 9 VAC 5-50-60 et seq. of the Regulations for the Control andAbatement of Air Pollution.

Stationary sources that would generate air emissions at the collections facilities include heatingequipment and emergency generators. Equipment types and capacities will be determined andverified during the design phase of the project. Emergency generators would only be used duringemergency situations and for very short time periods during maintenance checks and operatortraining. The emissions associated with these stationary sources for the proposed project weredetermined to be below de minimis thresholds. Even though airport activity levels exceed de minimisthresholds, a NAAQS assessment is not necessary for this project because the project’s directemissions are below de minimis thresholds and the project will not result in an increase in aircraftactivities and operations. Therefore, FAA and MWAA find the project to be consistent with thisenforceable policy.

9. Coastal Lands Management: The project area is located in Fairfax County, which is considered aTidewater Locality by the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act. The project area is within a ResourceManagement Area as designated by the Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance.

No Resource Protection Areas or 100-year floodplains were identified within the project area. CainBranch, which is within a RPA, is located approximately 650 feet southwest of the project area.

The project will be designed in accordance with the Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay PreservationOrdinance, the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, and the Virginia StormwaterManagement Regulations (9 VAC 25-870-10 et seq.). An erosion and sediment control plan and aSWPPP will be prepared and strictly adhered to during construction to avoid and minimizesedimentation of Cain Branch and its associated RPA. Therefore, FAA and MWAA find that theproposed project is consistent with this enforceable policy.

The Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program recommends consistency with the advisory policies listed below. The following is an analysis of the project’s consistency with each policy, if applicable:

1. Coastal Natural Resource Areas: No wetlands, spawning grounds, dunes, barrier islands, wildlifehabitat, public recreation areas, sand and gravel resources, or historic sites will be affected by theproject.

2. Coastal Natural Hazard Areas: The project area is not within a highly erodible area or a floodplain.

3. Waterfront Development Areas: Not applicable.


4. Shorefront Access Planning and Protection:

a. Virginia Public Beaches: Not Applicable

b. Virginia Outdoors Plan: According to the VOP Online Mapper, no lands managed under theVOP were identified within or adjacent to the project area.

c. Parks, Natural Areas, and Wildlife Management Areas: The project area consists ofmaintained lawn adjacent to the existing Udvar Hazy Center. No parks, natural areas, orwildlife habitats would be affected by the project.

d. Waterfront Recreational Land Acquisition: Not Applicable

e. Waterfront Recreational Facilities: Not Applicable

f. Waterfront Historic Properties: Not Applicable

Based upon the above information, data, and analysis, the FAA and MWAA find that the proposed project is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program.

Pursuant to 15 CFR Section 930.41, the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program has 60 days from the receipt of this letter in which to concur with or object to this Consistency Determination, or to request an extension under 15 CFR section 930.41(b). Virginia’s concurrence will be presumed if its response is not received by MWAA on the 60th day from receipt of this determination.


The State’s concurrence, objection, or notification of review status shall be sent to:

Susan Stafford FAA Environmental Specialist Federal Aviation Administration FAA Beckley ADO 176 Airport Circle Beaver, WV 25813

Erik Schwenke Planning Department Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority 45045 Aviation Drive, Dulles, Virginia, 20166

Jane Passman Senior Facilities Master Planner Smithsonian Institution PO BOX 37012 MRC 511 Washington DC 20013-7012


Attachment 12 NRCS Web Soil Survey Farmland Classification


Farmland Classification—Fairfax County, Virginia(Udvar-Hazy DCC Farmland Map)

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey

4309

250

4309

330

4309

410

4309

490

4309

570

4309

650

4309

730

4309

810

4309

250

4309

330

4309

410

4309

490

4309

570

4309

650

4309

730

4309

810

287790 287870 287950 288030 288110 288190

287790 287870 287950 288030 288110 288190

38° 54' 43'' N77

° 2

6' 5

2'' W

38° 54' 43'' N

77° 2

6' 3

2'' W

38° 54' 22'' N

77° 2

6' 5

2'' W

38° 54' 22'' N

77° 2

6' 3

2'' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS840 150 300 600 900

Feet0 45 90 180 270

MetersMap Scale: 1:3,110 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.


MA

P LE

GEN

DA

rea

of In

tere

st (A

OI)

Are

a of

Inte

rest

(AO

I)

Soils So

il R

atin

g Po

lygo

nsN

ot p

rime

farm

land

All

area

s ar

e pr

ime

farm

land

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

dra

ined

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

prot

ecte

d fro

m fl

oodi

ng o

rno

t fre

quen

tly fl

oode

ddu

ring

the

grow

ing

seas

onP

rime

farm

land

if ir

rigat

ed

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

dra

ined

and

eith

er p

rote

cted

from

flood

ing

or n

ot fr

eque

ntly

flood

ed d

urin

g th

e gr

owin

gse

ason

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

irrig

ated

and

drai

ned

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

irrig

ated

and

eith

er p

rote

cted

from

flood

ing

or n

ot fr

eque

ntly

flood

ed d

urin

g th

e gr

owin

gse

ason

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

subs

oile

d, c

ompl

etel

yre

mov

ing

the

root

inhi

bitin

g so

il la

yer

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

irrig

ated

and

the

prod

uct o

f I (s

oil

erod

ibili

ty) x

C (c

limat

efa

ctor

) doe

s no

t exc

eed

60P

rime

farm

land

if ir

rigat

edan

d re

clai

med

of e

xces

ssa

lts a

nd s

odiu

mFa

rmla

nd o

f sta

tew

ide

impo

rtanc

eFa

rmla

nd o

f loc

alim

porta

nce

Farm

land

of u

niqu

eim

porta

nce

Not

rate

d or

not

ava

ilabl

e

Soil

Rat

ing

Line

sN

ot p

rime

farm

land

All

area

s ar

e pr

ime

farm

land

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

dra

ined

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

prot

ecte

d fro

m fl

oodi

ng o

rno

t fre

quen

tly fl

oode

ddu

ring

the

grow

ing

seas

onP

rime

farm

land

if ir

rigat

ed

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

dra

ined

and

eith

er p

rote

cted

from

flood

ing

or n

ot fr

eque

ntly

flood

ed d

urin

g th

e gr

owin

gse

ason

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

irrig

ated

and

drai

ned

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

irrig

ated

and

eith

er p

rote

cted

from

flood

ing

or n

ot fr

eque

ntly

flood

ed d

urin

g th

e gr

owin

gse

ason

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

subs

oile

d, c

ompl

etel

yre

mov

ing

the

root

inhi

bitin

g so

il la

yer

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

irrig

ated

and

the

prod

uct o

f I (s

oil

erod

ibili

ty) x

C (c

limat

efa

ctor

) doe

s no

t exc

eed

60

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

irrig

ated

and

recl

aim

ed o

f exc

ess

salts

and

sod

ium

Farm

land

of s

tate

wid

eim

porta

nce

Farm

land

of l

ocal

impo

rtanc

eFa

rmla

nd o

f uni

que

impo

rtanc

eN

ot ra

ted

or n

ot a

vaila

ble

Soil

Rat

ing

Poin

tsN

ot p

rime

farm

land

All

area

s ar

e pr

ime

farm

land

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

dra

ined

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

prot

ecte

d fro

m fl

oodi

ng o

rno

t fre

quen

tly fl

oode

ddu

ring

the

grow

ing

seas

onP

rime

farm

land

if ir

rigat

ed

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

dra

ined

and

eith

er p

rote

cted

from

flood

ing

or n

ot fr

eque

ntly

flood

ed d

urin

g th

e gr

owin

gse

ason

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

irrig

ated

and

dra

ined

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

irrig

ated

and

eith

erpr

otec

ted

from

floo

ding

or n

ot fr

eque

ntly

floo

ded

durin

g th

e gr

owin

gse

ason

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

subs

oile

d, c

ompl

etel

yre

mov

ing

the

root

inhi

bitin

g so

il la

yer

Prim

e fa

rmla

nd if

irrig

ated

and

the

prod

uct

of I

(soi

l ero

dibi

lity)

x C

(clim

ate

fact

or) d

oes

not

exce

ed 6

0P

rime

farm

land

ifirr

igat

ed a

nd re

clai

med

of

exce

ss s

alts

and

sod

ium

Farm

land

of s

tate

wid

eim

porta

nce

Farm

land

of l

ocal

impo

rtanc

eFa

rmla

nd o

f uni

que

impo

rtanc

eN

ot ra

ted

or n

ot a

vaila

ble

Wat

er F

eatu

res

Farm

land

Cla

ssifi

catio

n—Fa

irfax

Cou

nty,

Virg

inia

(Udv

ar-H

azy

DC

C F

arm

land

Map

)

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

esC

onse

rvat

ion

Serv

ice

Web

Soi

l Sur

vey

Nat

iona

l Coo

pera

tive

Soi

l Sur

vey


MA

P IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N

Stre

ams

and

Can

als

Tran

spor

tatio

nR

ails

Inte

rsta

te H

ighw

ays

US

Rou

tes

Maj

or R

oads

Loca

l Roa

ds

Bac

kgro

und A

eria

l Pho

togr

aphy

The

soil

surv

eys

that

com

pris

e yo

ur A

OI w

ere

map

ped

at 1

:12,

000.

War

ning

: Soi

l Map

may

not

be

valid

at t

his

scal

e.

Enl

arge

men

t of m

aps

beyo

nd th

e sc

ale

of m

appi

ng c

an c

ause

mis

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

the

deta

il of

map

ping

and

acc

urac

y of

soi

l lin

epl

acem

ent.

The

map

s do

not

sho

w th

e sm

all a

reas

of c

ontra

stin

gso

ils th

at c

ould

hav

e be

en s

how

n at

a m

ore

deta

iled

scal

e.

Ple

ase

rely

on

the

bar s

cale

on

each

map

she

et fo

r map

mea

sure

men

ts.

Sou

rce

of M

ap:

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es C

onse

rvat

ion

Ser

vice

Web

Soi

l Sur

vey

UR

L:

http

://w

ebso

ilsur

vey.

nrcs

.usd

a.go

vC

oord

inat

e S

yste

m:

Web

Mer

cato

r (E

PS

G:3

857)

Map

s fro

m th

e W

eb S

oil S

urve

y ar

e ba

sed

on th

e W

eb M

erca

tor

proj

ectio

n, w

hich

pre

serv

es d

irect

ion

and

shap

e bu

t dis

torts

dist

ance

and

are

a. A

pro

ject

ion

that

pre

serv

es a

rea,

suc

h as

the

Alb

ers

equa

l-are

a co

nic

proj

ectio

n, s

houl

d be

use

d if

mor

e ac

cura

teca

lcul

atio

ns o

f dis

tanc

e or

are

a ar

e re

quire

d.

This

pro

duct

is g

ener

ated

from

the

US

DA

-NR

CS

cer

tifie

d da

ta a

s of

the

vers

ion

date

(s) l

iste

d be

low

.

Soi

l Sur

vey

Are

a:

Fai

rfax

Cou

nty,

Virg

inia

Sur

vey

Are

a D

ata:

V

ersi

on 1

2, S

ep 2

3, 2

014

Soi

l map

uni

ts a

re la

bele

d (a

s sp

ace

allo

ws)

for m

ap s

cale

s 1:

50,0

00or

larg

er.

Dat

e(s)

aer

ial i

mag

es w

ere

phot

ogra

phed

: D

ata

not a

vaila

ble.

The

orth

opho

to o

r oth

er b

ase

map

on

whi

ch th

e so

il lin

es w

ere

com

pile

d an

d di

gitiz

ed p

roba

bly

diffe

rs fr

om th

e ba

ckgr

ound

imag

ery

disp

laye

d on

thes

e m

aps.

As

a re

sult,

som

e m

inor

shi

fting

of m

ap u

nit b

ound

arie

s m

ay b

e ev

iden

t.

Farm

land

Cla

ssifi

catio

n—Fa

irfax

Cou

nty,

Virg

inia

(Udv

ar-H

azy

DC

C F

arm

land

Map

)

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

esC

onse

rvat

ion

Serv

ice

Web

Soi

l Sur

vey

Nat

iona

l Coo

pera

tive

Soi

l Sur

vey


Farmland Classification

Farmland Classification— Summary by Map Unit — Fairfax County, Virginia (VA059)

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

1A Albano silt loam, 0 to 2percent slopes

Not prime farmland 0.8 1.5%

2B Ashburn silt loam, 0 to 7percent slopes


12 Chantilly loam, 0 to 45percent slopes


14B Chantilly-Ashburncomplex, 2 to 7percent slopes


34A Dulles silt loam, 0 to 2percent slopes

All areas are primefarmland

3.6 7.0%

85B Penn silt loam, 2 to 7percent slopes

All areas are primefarmland

1.0 2.0%

85C Penn silt loam, 7 to 15percent slopes

Farmland of statewideimportance

0.0 0.0%

89A Rowland silt loam, 0 to 2percent slopes,frequently flooded


95 Urban land Not prime farmland 29.3 56.8%

Totals for Area of Interest 51.6 100.0%

Description

Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland ofstatewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifiesthe location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage,and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlandsare published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978.

Rating Options

Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary

Farmland Classification—Fairfax County, Virginia Udvar-Hazy DCC Farmland Map



1/21/2016


Aggregation is the process by which a set of component attribute values is reducedto a single value that represents the map unit as a whole.

A map unit is typically composed of one or more "components". A component iseither some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, e.g., rock outcrop. For the attributebeing aggregated, the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attributevalue for each of a map unit's components. From this set of component attributes,the next step of the aggregation process derives a single value that represents themap unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematicmap for soil map units can be rendered. Aggregation must be done because, onany soil map, map units are delineated but components are not.

For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding percent composition isrecorded. A percent composition of 60 indicates that the corresponding componenttypically makes up approximately 60% of the map unit. Percent composition is acritical factor in some, but not all, aggregation methods.

The majority of soil attributes are associated with a component of a map unit, andsuch an attribute has to be aggregated to the map unit level before a thematic mapcan be rendered. Map units, however, also have their own attributes. An attributeof a map unit does not have to be aggregated in order to render a correspondingthematic map. Therefore, the "aggregation method" for any attribute of a map unitis referred to as "No Aggregation Necessary".

Tie-break Rule: Lower

The tie-break rule indicates which value should be selected from a set of multiplecandidate values, or which value should be selected in the event of a percentcomposition tie.

Farmland Classification—Fairfax County, Virginia Udvar-Hazy DCC Farmland Map



1/21/2016


Attachment 13 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Department of Historic Resources (State Historic Preservation Office) Correspondence


M. Holma, V ASHPO/DHR SHPO-DHR Page 7

Properties Affected as regards archeological resources.

10. All of the proposed expansion alternatives would occur on the south side of the existing facility, in a location that will have limited visibility from any on-airport or off-airport historic properties or historically sensitive viewsheds.

11. Given the location and scale of the proposed expansions (maximum three stories), the new facility will not be visible from either Sully Plantation (029-0037) or the Dulles Airport Historic District (053-0008).

12. As a result, it has been determined that the proposed Preferred Alternative for the NASM -DCC Expansion will result in No Historic Properties Affected as regards architectural resources.

?-~;~ Date

VASHPO I DR Project No.


Figu

re 1

: Pro

pose

d N

atio

nal A

ir an

d S

pace

Mus

eum

– D

ulle

s C

olle

ctio

ns C

ente

r Exp

ansi

on

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct L

ocat

ion

Was

hing

ton

Dul

les

Inte

rnat

iona

l Airp

ort,

Fairf

ax a

nd L

oudo

un C

ount

ies


Figu

re 2

: Pro

pose

d N

atio

nal A

ir an

d S

pace

Mus

eum

– D

ulle

s C

olle

ctio

n C

ente

r Exp

ansi

on

His

toric

Dis

trict

Bou

ndar

y an

d P

ropo

sed

Pro

ject

Loc

atio

n W

ashi

ngto

n D

ulle

s In

tern

atio

nal A

irpor

t, Fa

irfax

and

Lou

doun

Cou

ntie

s

Pro

ject

Lo

ca

tio

n


Figure 3: Proposed National Air and Space Museum – Dulles Collection Center Expansion Existing Facilities and Proposed Expansion Washington Dulles International Airport, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties

Proposed Expansion


Figure 4: Proposed National Air and Space Museum – Dulles Collection Center Expansion Existing Facilities and Proposed Expansion (view from South) Washington Dulles International Airport, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties

N


Figu

re 5

: Pro

pose

d N

atio

nal A

ir an

d S

pace

Mus

eum

– D

ulle

s C

olle

ctio

n C

ente

r Exp

ansi

on

Are

a of

Pot

entia

l Effe

cts

(Vis

ual a

nd A

rche

olog

ical

) W

ashi

ngto

n D

ulle

s In

tern

atio

nal A

irpor

t, Fa

irfax

and

Lou

doun

Cou

ntie

s


Figure 8: Proposed National Air and Space Museum – Dulles Collection Center Expansion Axonometric Rendering of Proposed Expansion (Preferred Alternative) – View from Northwest Washington Dulles International Airport, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties


Figure 9: Proposed National Air and Space Museum – Dulles Collection Center Expansion Axonometric Rendering of Proposed Expansion (Preferred Alternative) – View from East Washington Dulles International Airport, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties


Figu

re 1

0: P

ropo

sed

Nat

iona

l Air

and

Spa

ce M

useu

m –

Dul

les

Col

lect

ion

Cen

ter E

xpan

sion

V

isua

l AP

E a

nd A

rchi

tect

ural

Res

ourc

es (V

CR

IS D

ata

– 26

Apr

il 20

16)

Was

hing

ton

Dul

les

Inte

rnat

iona

l Airp

ort,

Fairf

ax a

nd L

oudo

un C

ount

ies


Attachment 14 National Wetlands Inventory Map


Attachment 15 Flood Insurance Rate Map


Attachment 16 Proposed Stormwater Management


Dulles Collections Center – Proposed Stormwater Management


Summary of Stormwater Functions Provided by Bioretention Basins

Stormwater Function Level 1 Design

Annual Runoff Volume Reduction (RR) 40%

Total Phosphorus (TP) EMC Reduction1 by BMP Treatment Process

25%

Total Phosphorus (TP) Mass Load Removal 55%

Total Nitrogen (TN) EMC Reduction1 by BMP Treatment Process

40%

Total Nitrogen (TN) Mass Load Removal 64%

Channel and Flood Protection Use the Runoff Reduction Method (RRM) Spreadsheet to calculate the Cover Number (CN) Adjustment

OR Design extra storage (optional; as needed) on the surface, in the engineered soil matrix, and in the stone/underdrain layer to accommodate a larger storm, and use NRCS TR-55 Runoff Equations2 to compute the CN Adjustment.

1 Change in event mean concentration (EMC) through the practice. Actual nutrient mass load removed is the product of the removal rate and the runoff reduction rate(see Table 1 in the Introduction to the New Virginia Stormwater Design Specifications). 2 NRCS TR-55 Runoff Equations 2-1 thru 2-5 and Figure 2-1 can be used to compute a curve number adjustment for larger storm events based on the retention storage provided by the practice(s).

Source: http://www.vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/NonPBMPSpecsMarch11/VASWMBMPSpec9BIORETENTION.html[9/1/2016 2:45:53 PM]


Attachment 17 Public Involvement


A public notice was published in local newspapers and copies of the Short Environmental Assessment Form were made available for the public to review at the Chantilly Regional Library, 4000 Stringfellow Road, Chantilly, VA; the Centreville Regional Library, 14200 St. Germain Drive, Centreville, VA; and the Sterling Library, 120 Enterprise Street, Sterling, VA 20164. The 30-day review period began on July 13, 2016 and ended on August 11, 2016. The only comments received during the 30-day review period were from the National Capital Planning Commission and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Office of Environmental Impact Review (OEIR). The OEIR stated that the Proposed Action is consistent with all enforceable policies of the CZM program and is expected to have no impact or less than significant impacts to wetlands and water quality, stormwater management and erosion and sediment control, ambient air quality, solid wastes and hazardous materials, natural heritage resources and listed species, public water supply, and historic resources, provided that all applicable permits and approvals are obtained and all listed requirements are followed. Following are responses to substantive comments received on the Draft EA:

Pg. 4 – What is the expected period of construction, and will this be impacted by the phasing?

Response: The anticipated construction period is from March 2017 through September 2018. The Dulles Collections Center (DCC) Storage Module 1 interim use will be as swing space for artifacts that need to be moved out of the NMB to allow for renovation work. Any slippage in the DCC Storage Module 1 construction period would delay the start of any meaningful renovation work.

Pg. 18 – This indicates the proposed expansions would not be visible from the Dulles Airport Historic District. Was this confirmed through a visual analysis? Noting the existing height of the existing museum building would be helpful for context.

Response: A visual analysis of the Udvar Hazy Center completed for the 1998 Environmental Assessment, found that the Udvar Hazy Center is not visible from various viewpoints including the Sully Plantation (029-0037) and the main Dulles terminal. Given the location and scale of the proposed expansions (maximum three stories), the new facility will not be higher than the existing Udvar Hazy Center and will not be visible from either Sully Plantation or the Dulles Airport Historic District (053-0008).

Pg. 19 – Where are the existing stormwater management ponds? A keyed plan (similar to Attachment 3) would be helpful. Would these ponds be altered in any way?

Response: The existing stormwater management ponds designs are based on regulations and calculations that are no longer in effect. They will remain unaltered by this project. To comply with the stormwater regulations for the DCC project, two Level 1 bioretention facilities will be constructed. The stormwater management plan has been attached to the Form C (Attachment 16)


Pg. 19 - An excerpt from the Dulles Airport Master Plan/ Land Use Plan would be helpful in determining whether the proposed action is consistent with those broader plans.

Response: MWAA’s Airport Layout Plan (ALP) designates the project site for “future NASM expansion,” and its land use plan designates the site as “National Air and Space Museum” The Dulles Airport Layout Plan and Land Use Plan have been added (Attachment 3).

Pg. 24 – Please note that E.O. 11988 has been amended by EO 13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input. Among other things, this requires agencies to consider the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain for critical actions.

Response: The project site is located outside of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (500-year) floodplain (see Attachment 15).

Pg. 24-25 – As noted stormwater should comply with EISA, state and local standards. It is unclear whether the increase in impervious cover will require substantial stormwater measures that may alter the surrounding landscape or result in other impacts.

Response: Response: The existing stormwater management ponds designs are based on regulations and calculations that are no longer in effect. They will remain unaltered by this project. To comply with the stormwater regulations for the DCC project, two Level 1 bioretention facilities will be constructed. The stormwater management plan has been attached to the Form C (Attachment 16)

Pg. 30 – Please confirm if stormwater permits or other permits are required from Fairfax County.

Response: MWAA has jurisdiction over stormwater management on the site and is the permitting agency for the project. As such they are reviewing the project for Virginia Department of Environmental Quality for compliance with stormwater management regulations.

Attachment 2 – What is the dashed line located west of the proposed expansion area? Also, we recommend north arrows on the plans and diagrams where possible to assist the reader.

Response: The Site Plan has been revised for clarity and north arrows added.

Attachment 3 [Attachment 4 in the Final Environmental Assessment] – We understand this is a key map for the photos, but there is a lot of additional information here indicated by the varying colors/hatches. Can they also be noted in a key?

Response: Attachment 4 (Photo Key Map) has been replaced with an aerial photograph of the site.


Attachment 4-6 – It may be helpful to distinguish the proposed expansion by a different color. A statement “View from Northwest” or north arrows would assist in orienting the reader.

Response: The plans for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 have been revised for clarity.

Other – Please confirm whether there will be any change in the number of employees at the facility due to the expansion.

Response: There will be a short term increase of staff to support the temporary storage of artifacts associated Revitalization of the National Mall Building from 2018 to 2024; however, as these are artifact storage spaces, the long term increase due to the new facility is expected to be the 2 to 4 staff previously indicated.

Other – Please confirm that Smithsonian Institution will coordinate on-road transportation of large objects with the appropriate agencies, including Fairfax County DOT and Virginia DOT, when appropriate.

Response: Yes, the Smithsonian Institution will coordinate all on-road transportation with the appropriate agencies, to include VDOT, MDOT, Virginia and Maryland State Police, DC Police, Capitol Police, National Park Service, etc. Note: There will definitely be large deliveries, both associated with revitalization of the NASM National Mall Building and as a regular course of NASM operations.


Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (NEPA) (42 US.C. 4321, et seq.) and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Smithsonian Institution, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority and the Federal Aviation Administration, has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center at Washington Dulles International Airport, in Fairfax County, Virginia. The Draft EA is being made available to the public and federal and local government agencies for review and comment. The record will be open for comment from July 13, 2016 until 5:00 p.m. August 11, 2016. Please send all written comments and inquiries to Ms. Jane Passman, Senior Facilities Master Planner, Smithsonian Institution, PO Box 37012, MRC 511, Washington, DC 20013-7012 or by email at [email protected]. A copy of the Draft EA is available for public review at the following locations: Chantilly Regional Library, 4000 Stringfellow Road, Chantilly, VA 20151; Centreville Regional Library, 14200 St. Germain Drive, Centreville, VA 20121; and Sterling Library, 120 Enterprise Street, Sterling, VA 20164. The Draft EA may also be accessed online at http://www.mwaa.com/about/public-notice-july-13-2016. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment – including your personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Notice of Availability Draft Environmental Assessment

Smithsonian Institution National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center


Molly Joseph WardSecretary of Natural Resources

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Street address: 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219Mailing address: P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, Virginia 23218

Fax: 804-698-4019-TDD (804) 698-4021www.deq.virginia.gov

August 25, 2016

David K. PaylorDirector

(804)698-40201-800-592-5482

Jane PassmanSenior Facilities Master PlannerSmithsonian InstitutionP.O. Box 37012 MRC 511Washington, DC 20013-7012

RE: Comments on the Short Environmental Assessment and Federal ConsistencyDetermination for the Collections Storage Facility at the National Air and SpaceMuseum Duties Collections Center at Washington Dulles International Airportproposed by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Smithsonian Institution,Fairfax and Loudoun Counties (DEQ 16-159F).

Dear Ms. Passman:

The Commonwealth of Virginia has completed its review of the above-referenceddocuments. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is responsible forcoordinating Virginia's review of federal environmental documents submitted under theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and responding to appropriate federalofficials on behalf of the Commonwealth. DEQ is also responsible for coordinatingVirginia's review of federal consistency documents submitted pursuant to the CoastalZone Management Act (CZMA) and providing the state's response. This is in responseto the Short Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Federal ConsistencyDetermination (FCD) included in Appendix 10 of the EA, received July 11,'2016, for theabove referenced project. The following agencies and locality participated in the reviewof this proposal:

Department of Environmental QualityDepartment of Conservation and Recreation (DCR)Department of Health (VDH)Department of Transportation (VDOT)Fairfax County


Collections Storage Facility - NASM Dulles Collections CenterEAandFCD, 16-159F

In addition, the Department of Historic Resources (DHR), Department of Game andInland Fisheries (DGIF), the Department of Aviation (DOAV), the Northern VirginiaRegional Commission, and Loudon County were invited to comment on the proposal.PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is working in conjunction with theSmithsonian Institution (Sl) on the proposed Collections Storage Facility at the NationalAir and Space Museum (NASM) Duties Collections Center adjacent to the Steven F.Udyar-Hazy Center (UHC) located in Chantilly, Fairfax County, VA. The Sl operates theDulles Collections Center under a long-term lease with the Metropolitan WashingtonAirports Authority (MWAA). The project involves the construction of new collectionsspace in the form of storage modules and would provide space to relocate NASMcollections from the Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration, and Storage Facility. Themodules would also accommodate NASM's collections from the Ramsey'building atDulles, collections growth, objects from other collecting units, and provide extra spaceduring renovations and relocations. The proposed project is part of the NASM MasterPlan and a pan-Smithsonian Collections Space Framework Plan that recommendsadditional collections space Three alternatives were considered with Alternative 3 beingthe preferred alternative. Alternative 3 consists of two three-story collections storagemodules (60 feet tail) plus a single-story (45 feet tall) free span module. This alternativewould provide 241, 880 net square feet of collections storage space and is the onlyalternative that provides enough space to store the NASM's collection and the swingspace needed for the National Mail Museum renovation. The construction of any of thealternatives would result in 2.75 acres of land disturbance on a vacant parcel of'landthat was previously disturbed during the construction of the UHC

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

1. Water Quality and Wetlands. The EA (page 14) states that no jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional wetlands are present on the project site. The National Wetlands Inventorywas consulted and no wetlands were identified. The site is previously disturbed andconsists of maintained lawn (EA, page 23).

1(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The State Water Control Board promulgates Virginia's waterregulations covering a variety of permits to include the Virginia Pollutant DischargeElimination System Permit (VPDES) regulating point source discharges to surfacewaters, Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit regulating sewage sludge, storage andland application of biosolids, industrial wastes (sludge'and wastewater), municipalwastewater, and animal wastes, the Surface and Groundwater Withdrawal Permit, andthe Virginia Water Protection fVWP) Permit regulating impacts to streams, wetlands,and other surface waters. The VWP permit is a state permit which governs wetlands,surface water, and surface water withdrawals and impoundments. "It also serves as§401 certification of the federal Clean Water Act §404 permits for dredge and fillactivities in waters of the U. S. The VWP Permit Program is under the Office of



Wetlands and Stream Protection, within the DEQ Division of Water Permitting. Inaddition to central office staff that review and issue VWP permits for transportation andwater withdrawal projects, the six DEQ regional offices perform permit applicationreviews and issue permits for the covered activities:

. Clean Water Act, §401 ;

. Section 404(b)(i) Guidelines Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement (2/90);

. State Water Control Law, Virginia Code section 62. 1 -44. 15:20 e? see?. ; and

. State Water Control Regulations, 9 VAC 25-210-10.

1(b) Agency Findings. The DEQ Northern Regional Office (NRO) did not indicate thatwetlands or surface waters would be impacted by the project.

Fairfax County commented that none of the alternatives would impact wetlands.

1(c) Recommendation. Impacts to wetlands and surface waters should be avoided andminimized to the maximum extent practicable.

1(d) Conclusion. As designed, the project is consistent with the wetlands managementenforceable policy of the Virginia Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program.

2. Non-Point Source Pollution Control. The EA (page 14) states that 2. 75 acres ofland disturbance will occur. An erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan andStormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared to minimize exposed soilseroding into nearby waterbodies.

2(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The DEQ Office of Stormwater Management administersthe following laws and regulations governing construction activities:

. Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control (ECS) Law (§ 62. 1-44. 15:51 et seq. ) andRegulations (9VAC25-840) (VESCL&R);

. Virginia Stormwater Management Act (§ 62. 1-44. 15:24 et seq. ) (VSWML);

. Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) regulation (9VAC25-((VSWMR; and

. 2014 General Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permitfor Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities (9VAC25-880).

In addition, DEQ is responsible for the Virginia Stormwater Management Program(VSMP) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities relatedto Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) and construction activities for thecontrol of stormwater discharges from MS4s and land disturbing activities under theVirginia Stormwater Management Program (9VAC25-890-40).

2(b) Requirements. The DEQ Office of Stormwater Management did not comment onthe proposed project. Regulatory guidance on stormwater management and erosionand sediment controls is provided below.

3



(i) Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management PlansThe Sl is responsible for submitting a project-specific erosion and sediment control(ESC) plan to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority (MWAA) for review andapproval. The MWAA and its authorized agents conducting regulated land-disturbingactivitieson Private and Public lands in the state must comply with the VESCL&R,VSWML&Rand other applicable federal nonpoint source pollution mandates (e. g. CleanWater Act-Section 313, federal consistency under the Coastal Zone Management Act).Clearing and grading activities, installation of staging areas, parking lots, roads,buildings, utilities, or other structures, soil/dredge spoil areas, or refated land conversionactivities that disturb greater than 2, 500 square feet would be regulated by theVESCL&R and VSWML&R. Accordingly, the 81 must prepare and implement erosionand sediment control (ESC) and stormwater management (SWM) plans to ensurecompliance with state law and regulations. The MWAA is ultimately responsible forachieving project compliance through oversight of on-site contractors, regular fieldinspection, prompt action against non-compliant sites, and/or other mechanismsconsistent with agency policy.

(ii) General VPDES Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from ConstructionActivities (VAR10)

The operator or owner of a construction activity involving land disturbance of equal to orgreater than 1 acre is required to register for coverage under the General VPDESPermit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities and develop a projectspecific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must be preparedprior to submission of the registration statement for coverage under the General Permitand the SWPPP must address water quality and quantity in accordance with the VirginiaStormwater Management Program Regulations. General information and registrationforms for the General Permit are available on DEQ's website atwww. dea. virQinia. aov/Proarams/Water/StormwaterManaaement/VSMPPermits/ConstructionGenera I Perm it. asDx.

2(c) Conclusion. Provided adherence to the above requirements, the project isconsistent with the non-point source pollution control enforceable policy of the CZMProgram.

3- Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas/ Coastal Lands Management. The EA (page15) states that the project is located within a Resource Management Area (RMA) asdesignated by the Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance. NoResource Protection Areas (RPAs) will be impacted. Cain Brach, which is within theRPA, is located approximately 650 feet southwest of the project area; an erosion andsediment control plan and stormwater pollution prevention plan will be implemented toavoid sedimentation of Cain Branch.

3(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The DEQ Office of Local Government Programsadministers the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Virginia Code §62.~1-44. 15:67 et


Collections Storage Facility - NASM Duties Collections CenterEAandFCD, 16-159F

seq.) and Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and ManagementRegulations (9_VAC 25-830-10 et seq.). Each Tidewater locality musfadopt a programbased_on the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and the Chesapeake Bay PreservationArea Designation and Management Regulations. The Act and regulations recognizelocal government responsibility for land use decisions and are designed to establish aframework for compliance without dictating precisely what local programs must look like.Local governments have flexibility to develop water quality preservation programs thatreflect unique local characteristics and embody other community goals. Such flexibilityalso facilitates innovative and creative approaches in achieving program objectives.The regulations address nonpoint source pollution by identifying and protecting certainlands called Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. The regulations use a resource-based approach that recognizes differences between various land forms and treatsthem differently.

3(b) Agency Comments. In Fairfax County, the areas protected by the ChesapeakeBay Preservation Act, as locally implemented, require conformance with performancecriteria. These areas include RPAs and RMAs as designated by the local government.RPAs include tidal wetlands, certain non-tidal wetlands and tidal shores, and a minimum100-foot vegetated buffer area located adjacent to and landward of these features andalong both sides of any water body with perennial flow. RMAs, which require lessstringent performance criteria, include all areas of the County outside of designatedRPAs.

Federal actions on federal lands located within Tidewater Virginia are required to beconsistent with the performance criteria of the Regulations on lands analogous to locallydesignated RPAs/RMAs. There are no wetlands or lands analogous to RPAs on theproject site.

3(c) Agency Requirement. Development on lands analogous to RMAs is subject togeneral performance criteria found in 9 VAC 25-830-130 of the Regulations, includingrequirements to:

. minimize land disturbance (including access and staging areas);

. retain indigenous vegetation; and

. minimize post-development impervious surfaces.

For land disturbance over 2, 500 square feet, the project must comply with:

. the requirements of the Virginia Erosion & Sediment Control Handbook, ThirdEdition, 1992; and

. stormwater management criteria consistent with water quality protectionprovisions of the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations (9 VAC 25-870-



3(d) Conclusion. Provided adherence with the above requirements as provided in§9VAC25-830-130 of the Regulations, the proposed activity would be consistent withthe Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and the Regulations.

4. Air Pollution Control. The EA (page 10) states that the construction activity wouldcreate temporary air emissions including fugitive dust and exhaust from constructionequipment. Long-term air quality impacts would be limited to the operation of heatingequipment and emergency generators. The project would not result in a long-termincrease in vehicular traffic.

4(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The DEQ Air Division, on behalf of the State Air Pollutioncontro1 B?al"dl is resPC)nsible for developing regulations that implement Virginia's AirPollution Control Law (Virginia Code §10. 1-1300 etseq. ). DEQ'is charged with carryingout mandates of the state law and related regulations as well as Virginia's federalobligations under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1 990. The objective is to protect andenhance public health and quality of life through control and mitigation of air pollution.The division ensures the safety and quality of air in Virginia by monitoring and analyzingair quality data, regulating sources of air pollution, and working with local, state andfederal agencies to plan and implement strategies to protect Virginia's air quality. Theappropriate DEQ regional office is directly responsible for the issuance of necessarypermits to construct and operate all stationary sources in the region as well asmonitoring emissions from these sources for compliance. In the case of certain projects,additional evaluation and demonstration must be made under the general conformityprovisions of state and federal law.

The Air Division regulates emissions of air pollutants from industries and facilities andimplements programs designed to ensure that Virginia meets national air qualitystandards. The most common regulations associated with major projects are:

. Open burning:

. Fugitive dust control:

. Permits for fuel-burning equipment:

9VAC5-130efseg.9 VAC 5-50-60 et seq.9 VAC 5-80-1100 etseq.

4(b) Agency Findings. The DEQ Air Division determined that the project area islocated in an ozone non-attainment and emission control area for oxides of nitrogen(NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) area. Precursors to ozone (Os) polluticinclude VOCs and NOx.

4(c)_Recommendation. Take all reasonable precautions to limit emissions of NOx andVOCs, principally by controlling or limiting the burning of fossil fuels.

4(d) Requirements.

(i) Fugitive DustDuring construction, fugitive dust must be kept to a minimum by using control methods


Collections Storage Facility - NASM Duties Collections CenterEA and FCD, 16-159F

outlined in 9 VAC 5-50-60 et seq. of the Regulations for the Control and Abatement ofAir Pollution. These precautions include, but are not limited to, the following:

. Use, where possible, of water or chemicals for dust control;

. Installation and use of hoods, fans, and fabric filters to enclose and vent thehandling of dusty materials;

. Covering of open equipment for conveying materials; and

. Prompt removal of spilled or tracked dirt or other materials from paved streetsand removal of dried sediments resulting from soil erosion.

(ii) Open BurningIf project activities include the open burning of construction material or the use ofspecial incineration devices, this activity must meet the requirements under 9 VAC 5-130 et seq. of the Regulations for open burning, and may require a permit. TheRegulations provide for, but do not require, the local adoption of a model ordinanceconcerning open burning. The applicant should contact local officials to determine whatlocal requirements, if any, exist.

(iii) Fuel-Burning EquipmentShould the proposed project require the installation of fuel-burning equipment (boilers,generatore etc), or other air pollution emitting equipment, the project may be subject to9 VAC 5-80, Article 6, Permits for New and Modified sources.

(iv) Asphalt PavingA Precaution, which typically applies to road construction and paving work (9 VAC 5-45-780 et seq.), places limitations on the use of "cut-back" (liquefied asphalt cement,blended with petroleum solvents), and may apply to the project. The asphalt must be"emulsified" (predominantly cement and water with a small amount of emulsifying agent)except when specified circumstances apply. Moreover, there are time-of-yearrestrictions on its use from April through October in VOC emission control areas.

4(e) Conclusion. Provided adherence to the above requirements, the project isconsistent with the air pollution control enforceable policy of the Virginia CZM Program.

5. Solid and Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials. The UHC, adjacent to theproject site, has two underground petroleum storage tanks on site (EA, page 16). Noreleases from the UHC have been reported. Three petroleum releases have occurred inthe vicinity, but are located over half a mile from the site. The EA concludes that thepresence of contamination within the project area is unlikely. Solid waste generatedduring the construction of the Collections Storage Facility will be removecTby a privatewaste removal company and disposed of in accordance with waste regulations (EA,page 17).

5(a)_Agency Jurisdiction. On behalf of the Virginia Waste Management Board, theDEQ Division of Land Protection and Revitalization is responsible for carrying out the

7



mandates of the Virginia Waste Management Act (Virginia Code §10. 1-1400 et seq. ), aswell as meeting Virginia's federal obligations under the Resource "Conservation andRecovery Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation LiabilityAct, commonly known as Superfund. The DEQ Division of Land Protection andRevitalization also administers those laws and regulations on behalf of the State WaterControl Board governing Petroleum Storage Tanks (Virginia Code §62. 1-44. 34:8 etse<7. ), including Aboveground Storage Tanks (9VAC25-91 etseq. ) and UndergroundStorage Tanks_(9VAC25-580 etseq. and 9VAC25-580-370 etseq.), also known as.Virginia Tank Regulations', and § 62. 1-44.34:14 et seq. which covers oil spills.

Virginia:

. Virginia Waste Management Act, Virginia Code §10. 1-1400 et seq.

. Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations, 9 VAC 20-81o (9 VAC 20-81 -620 applies to asbestos-containing materials)

. Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, 9 VAC 20-60o (9 VAC 20-60-261 applies to lead-based paints)

. Virginia Regulations for the Transportation of Hazardous Materials, 9 VAC 20-110.

Federal:

. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S. Code sections 6901etseq.

. U. S. Department of Transportation Rules for Transportation of HazardousMaterials, 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107

. Applicable rules contained in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.

5(b) Agency Findings DEQ's Division of Land Protection and Revitalization (DLPR)determined that both solid and hazardous waste issues and sites were addressed in thereport. DLPR staff conducted a cursory database search (500-foot radius) and did notidentify any waste sites in close proximity which might impact the project activity.Additionally, no waste sites of possible concern were found within the same zip code.

5(c) Recommendation. DEQ encourages all projects and facilities to implementpollution prevention principles, including:

o the reduction, reuse and recycling of all solid wastes generated; ando the minimization and proper handling of generated hazardous wastes.

5(d) Requirements.

(i) Contaminated WasteAny soil that is suspected of contamination or wastes that are generated must be testedand disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws andregulations.



(ii) Fuel Storage TanksThe removal, relocation or closure or installation/operation of any regulated petroleumstorage tanks, aboveground storage tank (AST) or underground storage tank (UST),must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Virginia TankRegulations 9 VAC 25-91-10 et seq. (AST) and / or 9 VAC 25-58CMO et seq. (UST).

(iii) Petroleum Release SitesIf evidence of a petroleum release is discovered during implementation of this project, itmust be reported to DEQ, as authorized by Virginia Code § 62. 1-44. 34. 8 through 9 and9 VAC 25-580-10 et seq.

6. Pesticides and Herbicides. DEQ recommends that the use of herbicides orpesticides for construction or landscape maintenance should be in accordance with theprinciples of integrated pest management. The least toxic pesticides that are effective incontrolling the target species should be used to the extent feasible. Contact theDepartment of Agriculture and Consumer Services at (804) 786-3501 for moreinformation.

7. Natural Heritage Resources. According to the EA (page 13), the project areaconsists of maintained lawn with no natural vegetation or habitat. Habitat'destruction willnot occur. Prior consultation with DCR has been completed.

7(a) Agency Jurisdiction.

(i) The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's (OCR) Division ofNatural Heritage fDNH). DNH's mission is conserving Virginia's biodiversitythrough inventory, protection and stewardship. The Virginia Natural AreaPreserves Act (Virginia Code §10. 1-209 through 217), authorized DCR tomaintain a statewide database for conservation planning and project review,protect land for the conservation of biodiversity, and the protect and ecologicallymanage the natural heritage resources of Virginia (the habitats of rare,threatened and endangered species, significant natural communities, geologicsites, and other natural features).

(ii) The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS): TheEndangered Plant and Insect Species Act of 1979 (Virginia Code Chapter 39§3. 1-1020 through 1030) authorizes VDACS to conserve, protect and manageendangered and threatened species of plants and insects. Under a MemorandumofAgreement established between VDACS and the DCR, DCR representsVDACS in comments regarding potential impacts on state-listed threatened andendangered plant and insect species.

7(b) Agency Findings. DCR DNH has searched its Biotics Data System foroccurrences of natural heritage resources from the area outlined on the submitted map


Collections Storage Facility - NASM Duties Collections CenterEAandFCD, 16-159F

The Cub Run Stream Conservation Unit (SCU) is located downstream from the projectsite and has been given biodiversity ranking of B5 which represents a site of generalbiodiversity significance. The natural heritage resource associated with this site is thewood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta, G3/S2/NL/LT).

Threats to the Wood turtle include habitat fragmentation, urbanization, and automobilemortality. The Wood turtle is currently classified as threatened by the DGIF. In addition,Cub Run has been designated by the DGIF as a "Threatened and Endangered SoeckWaters" for the Wood turtle.

(i) State-listed Plant and Insect SpeciesDCR DNH determined that the proposed activity will not affect any documented state-listed threatened or endangered plants or insects.

(ii) State Natural Area PreservesDCR's files do not indicate the presence of any State Natural Area Preserves under theagency's jurisdiction in the project vicinity.

7(c) Additional Information. The DGIF maintains a database of wildlife locations,including threatened and endangered species, trout streams, and anadromous fishwaters that may contain additional information. Their database may be accessed fromhttD://vafwis. ora/fwis/ or contact Ernie Aschenbach at 804-367-2733 orErnie. Aschenbach(5)dciif. Virginia. aov.

7(d) Recommendation. Implement and strictly adhere to applicable state and localerosion and sediment control/storm water management laws and regulations.Coordinate with DGIF directly regarding protection of the state-listecf threatened woodturtle.

Contact DCR-DNH to secure updated information on natural heritage resources if thescope of the project changes and/or six months has passed before'it is utilized. Newand updated information is continually added to the Biotics Data System.

8. Water Supply. According to the DEA (page 25), there are no sole source aquiferslocated in the vicinity of the project site. No impacts to surface waters are anticipated(page 24).

8(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) Office of DrinkingWater reviews projects for the potential to impact public drinking water sources(groundwater wells, springs and surface water intakes). VDH administers both federaland state laws governing waterworks operation.

8(b) Agency Findings. VDH-ODW found that there are no public groundwater wellswithin a 1-mile radius of the project site and no surface water intakes located within a 5-mile radius of the project site. The project is within the watershed of the Occoquan

10



Reservoir public surface water intake for the Fairfax County Water Authority.

8(c) Requirement. Potential impacts to public water distribution systems must beverified by the local utility.

9. Transportation Impacts. The EA does not address impacts to transportation.

9(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) providescomments pertaining to potential impacts to existing and future transportation systems.

9(b) Agency Findings. The VDOT Northern Virginia District staff commented that theproposed project will not impact existing or proposed VDOT infrastructure. Theproposed work is within airport property and is not anticipated to generate manyadditional trips.

9(c) Recommendation. If the scope of the work changes and work became necessaryin the VDOT operated and maintained right-of-way, compliance with applicable stateand federal environmental laws would be the responsibility of the project owner.

10. Historic and Archeological Resources. The EA (page 16) indicates that DHR hasbeen consulted on this project and determined that no historic properties will beaffected.

10(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The Department of Historic Resources (DHR) conductsreviews of projects to determine their effect on historic structures or cultural resourcesunder its jurisdiction. DHR, as the designated State's Historic Preservation Office,ensures that federal actions comply with Section 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act of 1962 (NHPA), as amended, and its implementing regulation at 36CFR Part 800. The NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of federalprojects on properties that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register ofHistoric Places. Section 106 also applies if there are any federal involvements, such aslicenses, permits, approvals or funding. DHR also provides comments to DEQ throughthe state environmental impact report review process.

10(b) Agency Findings. DHR did not comment on the proposal.

10(c) Recommendation. If necessary, continue to coordinate with DHR pursuant toSection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and itsimplementing regulation 36 CFR Part 800

11. Local Comments.

11(a) Agency Jurisdiction. In accordance with 15 CFR Part 930, Subpart A, §930. 6(b) of the Federal Consistency Regulations, DEQ, on behalf of the state, isresponsible for securing necessary review and comment from other state agencies, the

11



public, regional government agencies, and local government agencies, in determiningthe Commonwealth's concurrence or objection to a federal consistency certification.

11(b) Local Comments. Fairfax County reviewed the project and stated that none ofthe alternatives will have an impact on existing wetland, water or forest resources. Theproject site is currently vacant land that has been previously cleared and prepared forfuture development. Fairfax County does not anticipate negative environmental impactsto result from this project.

12. Pollution Prevention. DEQ advocates that principles of pollution prevention andsustainability be used in all construction projects as well as in facility operations.Effective siting, planning, and on-site Best Management Practices (BMPs) will help toensure that environmental impacts are minimized. However, pollution prevention andsustainability techniques also include decisions related to construction materials,design, and operational procedures that will facilitate the reduction of wastes at thesource.

12(a) Recommendations. We have several pollution prevention recommendations thatmay be helpful in constructing or operating this facility:

. cor1sicler development of an effective Environmental Management System(EMS). An effective EMS will ensure that the proposed facility is committed tocomplying with environmental regulations, reducing risk, minimizingenvironmental impacts, setting environmental goals, and achievingimprovements in its environmental performance. DEQ offers EMS developmentassistance and recognizes facilities with effective Environmental ManagementSystems through its Virginia Environmental Excellence Program (VEEP). VEEPprovides recognition, annual permit fee discounts, and the possibility foralternative compliance methods.

. Consider environmental attributes when purchasing materials. For example, theextent of recycled material content, toxicity level, and amount of packagingshould be considered and can be specified in purchasing contracts.

. Consider energy efficiency when choosing materials and products, like insulation,fixtures, and HVAC systems.

. Consider contractors' commitment to the environment when choosingcontractors. Specifications regarding raw materials and constructiorTpracticescan be included in contract documents and requests for proposals.

. Choose sustainable materials and practices for building construction and design.

. Integrate pollution prevention techniques into the facility maintenance andoperation, to include inventory control for centralized storage of hazardousmaterials. Maintenance facilities should have sufficient and suitable space toallow for effective inventory control and preventive maintenance.

DEQ's Office of Pollution Prevention provides information and technical assistancerelating to pollution prevention techniques and EMS. If interested, please contact

12



Meghann Quinn, (804) 698-4021

13. Water Conservation. The following recommendations will result in reduced wateruse associated with the operation of the facility.

. Grounds should be landscaped with hardy native plant species to conserve wateras well as minimize the need to use fertilizers and pesticides.

. Convert turf to low water-use landscaping such as drought resistant grass,plants, shrubs and trees.

. Consider installing low-flow restrictors/aerators to faucets.

. Improve irrigation practices by:o upgrading with a sprinkler clock; watering at night, if possible, to reduce

evapotranspiration (lawns need only 1 inch of water per week and do notneed to be watered daily; over watering causes 85 percent of turf problems);

o installing a rain shutoff device; ando collecting rainwater with a rain bucket orcistern system with drip lines.

. Check for and repair leaks during routine maintenance activities.

14. Energy Conservation. The proposed facility should be planned and designed tocomply with state and federal guidelines and industry standards for energy conservationand efficiency. The commonwealth encourages architectural and engineering designersto recognize and incorporate the energy, environmental, and sustainability conceptslisted in the LEED Green Building Rating System into the development andprocurement of their projects.

The energy efficiency of the facilities can be enhanced by maximizing the use of thefollowing:

. thermally-efficient building shell components (roof, wall, floor, windows, andinsulation);

. facility siting and orientation with consideration towards natural lighting and solarloads;

. high efficiency heating, ventilation, air conditioning systems;

. high efficiency lighting systems and daylighting techniques; and

. energy-efficient appliances.

Contact the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, David Spears at (434)9516350, for assistance in meeting this challenge.

13



FEDERAL CONSISTENCY UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACTPursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (§ 1456(c)), as amended, andthe^ederaLconsistency re9ulations implementing the CZMA (15CFR Part 930, Subpart. ; § 930-30 et se(7-)' federal actions that can have reasonably foreseeable effects onVirginia's coastal uses or resources must be conducted in a manner which is consistent.tothe maximumjixtent practicable, with the Virginia Coastal Zone Management (CZM)Program. The CZM Program is comprised of a network of programs administered byseveral agencies. In order to be consistent with the CZM Program, the federal agencymust obtain all the applicable permits and approvals listed under the enforceablepolicies of the CZM Program prior to commencing the project.

Federal Consistency Public Participation!n , cc^aJ?c^ with 15 CFR § 930-2' Public notice ofthe Proposed action was publishedlnAhe OEIR pro9ram Newsletter and on DEQ's web site from July 14, 2016 to'August 9,2016. No public comments were received in response to the notice.

Federal Consistency DocumentationA Federal Consistency Determination for the proposed Collections Storage Facility wasincluded in the EA as Appendix 10. The document provided an analysis of the project'simpact on each of the nine enforceable policies. According to the FCD, the project willbe consistent with each of the enforceable policies and will have no significant impacton Virginia's coastal zone.

The FCD states that the proposed activity will have no effect on the followingenforceable policies of the Coastal Zone Management Program: fisheries management,subaqueous lands, dunes management, point source pollution control, wetlandsmanagement and shoreline sanitation.

The project will have a minor effect on air pollution control due to dust and emissionsgenerated during construction as well emissions from emergency generators when inuse. Ground disturbance may result in an increase in stormwater runoff and erosion andthe VAR 10 VDPES permit for discharges of stormwater from construction activities willbe obtained. The project is expected to have less than significant impacts to coastallands (RMAs) and all erosion and sediment control and stormwater managementrequirements will be followed. These impacts and jurisdictional agency comments,recommendations, and requirements are discussed above in the "EnvironmentalImpacts and Mitigation" section of this document.

Federal Consistency ConcurrenceBased on our review of the FCD and the comments submitted by agenciesadministering the enforceable policies of the CZM Program, DEQ finds that the proposalis consistent with the CZM Program provided all applicable permits and approvals areobtained as described below in the Regulatory and Coordination Needs section.However, other state approvals which may apply to this project are not included in thisconsistency concurrence. Therefore, the Smithsonian Institute must ensure that this

14



project is operated in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws andregulations.

REGULATORY AND COORDINATION NEEDS

1. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control.

1(a) Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management. The Sl andMWAA must ensure that this project is in compliance with Virginia's Erosion andSediment Control Law (Virginia Code § 62. 1-44. 15:61) and Regulations (9 VAC 25-840-30 etseq. ) and Stormwater Management Law (Virginia Code § 62. 1-44. 15:31) andRegulations (9 VAC 25-870-210 et seq.). Land-disturbing activities of equal to or greaterthan 2, 500 square feet or more in a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area would beregulated by VESCL&R and VSWML&R.

Erosion and sediment control, and stormwater management questions should bedirected to the DEQ Northern Regional Office (NRO) at (703) 583-3800.

1(b) Virginia Stormwater Management Program General Permit for StormwaterDischarges from Construction Activities (VAR10). For projects involving land-disturbing activities of equal to or greater than one acre the applicant is required toregister for coverage under the Virginia Stormwater Management Program GeneralPermit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities (9 VAC 25-870-1 etseq. ). Specific questions regarding the Stormwater Management Programrequirements should be directed to DEQ, Holly Sepety at (804) 698-4039.

2. Air Quality Regulations. Guidance on minimizing the emission ofVOCs and NOxduring construction may be obtained from DEQ-NRO. Activities associated with thisproject may be subject to air regulations administered by DEQ. The installation of fuelburning equipment (e. g. boilers and generators), may require a permit (9 VAC 5-50-10et seq. and 9 VAC 5-80-10 et seq. ) prior to construction. For additional information andcoordination concerning potential requirements for air pollution control, contact DEQ-NRO at (703) 583-3800.

3. Solid and Hazardous Wastes. All solid waste, hazardous waste, and hazardousmaterials must be managed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and localenvironmental regulations.

For additional information concerning location and availability of suitable wastemanagement facilities in the project area or if free product, discolored soils, or otherevidence of contaminated soils are encountered, contact DEQ NRO at (703) 583-3800.

4. Natural Heritage Resources. Contact DCR-DNH, Rene Hypes at (804) 371-2708, tosecure updated information on natural heritage resources if the scope of the project

15



changes and/or six months has passed before the project is implemented, since newand updated information is continually added to the Biotics Data System.

5. Protected Species. Coordinate with DGIF (Amy Ewing, 804-367-2211) regarding thepotential impacts on the state-listed threatened wood turtle.

6. Coastal Lands Management. The project must be conducted in a manner that isconsistent with the coastal lands management enforceable policy of the CZM Programas administered by DEQ pursuant to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (VirginiaCode §62. 1-44. 15 et seq.) and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation andManagement Regulations (9 VAC 25-830 et. seq. ).

For additional information and coordination, contact DEQ-OLGP, Daniel Moore at (804)698-4520.

7. Historic Resources. If necessary, continue to coordinate with DHR pursuant toSection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and itsimplementing regulation 36 CFR Part 800.

8. Water Distribution and Sewage Collection System. Impacts on the public waterdistribution and sanitary sewer collection system must be verified with the local utilityContact VDH (Arlene Warren, 804-864-7781) with questions.

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the Environmental Assessmentand Federal Consistency Determination for the Collections Storage Facility at theNational Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center in Fairfax. Detailedcomments of reviewing agencies are attached for your review. Please contact me at(804) 698-4204 or Janine Howard at (804) 698-4299 for clarification of these comments.

Sincerely,

Bettina Sullivan, Program ManagerEnvironmental Impact Review

Ec: Amy Ewing, DGIFRobbie Rhur, DCRRoy Soto, VDHRoger Kirchen, DM R

16



Chip Ray, VDOTJim Cromwell, VDOTLiz Jordan, VDOTSusan Stafford, FAAErik Schwenke, MWAAGreg Wollard, MWAARusty Harrington, DOAVMark Gibb, Northern Virginia Regional CommissionDenise James, Fairfax CountyTim Hemstreet, Loudoun CountyJoan Glynn, Stantec Consulting Services, LLCJane Passman, Smithsonian Institution

17


Molly Joseph WardSecretan' of Natural Resources

Clyde E. CristmanDirector

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIADEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION

Rochelle AltholzDeputy Director of

Administration and Finance

David C. DowlingDeputy Director of

Soil and Water Conservationand Dtim Safety'

Thomas L. SmithDepiit)' Director of Operations

MEMORANDUM

DATE:

TO:

FROM:

August 9, 2016

Janine Howard, DEQ

Roberta Rhur, Environmental Impact Review Coordinator

DEQ 16-159F, National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center Short EASUBJECT:

Division of Natural Heritaee

The Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural Heritage CDCR) has searched itsBiotics Data System for occurrences of natural heritage resources from the area outlined on the submittedmap. Natural heritage resources are defined as the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant andanimal species, unique or exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic formations.

According to the information currently in our files, the Cub Run Stream Conservation Unit [SCU) is locateddownstream from the project site. SCUs identify stream reaches that contain aquatic natural heritageresources, including 2 miles upstream and 1 mile downstream of documented occurrences, and alltributaries within this reach. SCUs are also given a biodiversity significance ranking based on the rarity,quality, and number of element occurrences they contain. The Cub Run SCU has been given a biodiversityranking of B5, which represents a site of general biodiversity significance. The natural heritage resourceassociated with this site is:

Gtyptemys insculpta Wood turtle G3/S2/NL/LT

The Wood turtle ranges from southeastern Canada, south to the Great Lake states and New England. InVirginia, it is know from northern counties within the Potomac River drainage [NatureServe, 2009). TheWood turtle inhabits areas with clear streams with adjacent forested floodplains and nearby fields, wetmeadows, and farmlands [Buhlmann et al., 2008; Mitchell, 1994). Since this species overwinters on thebottoms of creeks and streams, a primary habitat requirement is the presence of water (Mitchell, 1994).

Threats to the Wood turtle include habitat fragmentation, urbanization, and automobile or farm machinerymortality (Buhlmann et al., 2008). Please note that the Wood turtle is currently classified as threatened bythe Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF).

In addition, Cub Run has been designated by the VDGIF as a "Threatened and Endangered Species Waters"for the Wood turtle.

600 East Main Street, 24th Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 804-786-6124

State Parks . Soil and Water Conservation . Outdoor Recreation PlanningNatural Heritage . Dam Safety and Floodplain Management . Land ConservationAttachments: Page 101

To minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem as a result of the proposed activities, DCRrecommends the implementation of and strict adherence to applicable state and locaf erosion and sedimentcontrol/storm water management laws and regulations. Due to the legal status of the Wood turtle, DCRalso recommends coordination with Virginia's regulatory authority for the management and protection oftMs species, the VDGIF, to ensure compliance with the Virginia Endangered Species Act (VA ST §§ 29. 1-563

There are no State Natural Area Preserves under DCR's jurisdiction in the project vicinity.

Under a Memorandum of Agreement established between the Virginia Department of Agriculture andConsumer Services [VDACS) and the DCR, DCR represents VDACS in comments regarding potential impactson state-Iisted threatened and endangered plant and insect species. The current activity'will not affect anydocumented state-Iisted plants or insects.

New and updated information is continually added to Biotics. Please re-submit project information andmap for an update on this natural heritage information if the scope of the project changes and/or sixmonths has passed before it is utilized.

The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries [VDGIF) maintains a database of wildlife locations,including threatened and endangered species, trout streams, and anadromous fish waters that may containinformation not documented in this letter. Their database may be accessed from http://vafwis. org/fwis/ orcontact Ernie Aschenbach at 804-367-2733 or Ernie.AschenbachOdeif. virmnia. gov.

The remaining DCR divisions have no comments regarding the scope of this project. Thank you for theopportunity to comment.

Cc: Amy Ewing, VDGIF


Literature Cited

Buhlmann, K,J. Tuberville, and W. Gibbons. 2008. Turtles of the southeast. University of Georgia Press.Athens, GA. 252 pp.

Mitchell, J. C. 1994. Reptiles of Virginia. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. pp. 88-91.

Natureserve' 20?9' Natureserve Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7. 1.!S^eserve' Arlington' Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve. org/explorer. CAccessed: April 8,


Molly Joseph WardSecretary of Natural Resources

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Street address: 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219Mailing address: P.O. Box 1 105, Richmond, Virginia 23218

www.deq.virginia.govDavid K. Paylor

Director

(804) 698-40001-800-592-5482

MEMORANDUM

TO: Janine Howard, DEQ EIR Coordinator

FROM: Daniel Moore, Principal Environmental Planner

DATE: July 13, 2016

SUBJECT: DEQ #16-159F: FAA/Smithsonian - National Air and SPACE Museum DullesCollection Center Expansion, Fairfax County

We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed project and offer thefollowing comments regarding consistency with the provisions of the Chesapeake BayPreservation Area Designation and Management Regulations (Regulations):

In Fairfax County, the areas protected by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, as locallyimplemented, require confonnance with performance criteria. These areas include ResourceProtection Areas (RPAs) and Resource Management Areas (RMAs) as designated by the localgovernment. RPAs include tidal wetlands, certain non-tidal wetlands and tidal shores, and aminimum 100-foot vegetated buffer area located adjacent to and landward of these features andalong both sides of any water body with perennial flow. RMAs, which require less stringentperformance criteria, include all areas of the County outside of designated RPAs. Areas withinthe RMA are subject to the general performance criteria as specified in § 9VAC 25-830-130 ofthe Regulations and the local ordinance. Projects within the RMA must minimize landdisturbance (including access and staging areas), retain existing vegetation and minimize *impervious cover.

Federal actions on installations located within Tidewater Virginia are required to be consistentwith the performance criteria of the Regulations on lands analogous to locally designatedRPAs/RMAs as provided in §9VAC25-830-130 and 140 of the Regulations, includingcompliance with the requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, andstormwater management criteria consistent with water quality protection provisions of theVirginia Stormwater Management Regulations. " For land disturbance over 2,500 square feet,


the project must comply with the requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment ControlHandbook.

Based on the information contained in the EA submittal, the proposed project involves theconstruction of three new storage buildings on previously disturbed land (currently a maintained/awn arGS adjacent to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Stephen F. Udvar-HazyCenter. The project would result in 241, 880 additional square feet of storage area. There are nowetlands on-site and no lands analogous to RPA. Provided adherence with the aboverequirements as provided in §9VAC25-830-130 and 140 of the Regulations, the proposedactivity would be consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and the Regulations'


Howard, Janine (DEQ)

From:Sent:To:Subject:

Warren, Arlene (VDH)Thursday, July 28, 2016 10:50 AMHoward, Janine (DEQ)RE: NEW PROJECT FAA 16-159F

Project Name: National Air and Space Museum Duties Collections CenterProject #: 16-159 FUPC#:N/ALocation: Loudoun/Fairfax Counties

VDH - Office of Drinking Water has reviewed the above project. Below are our comments as they relate to proximity topublic drinking water sources (groundwater wells, springs and surface water intakes). Potential impacts to public waterdistribution systems or sanitary sewage collection systems must be verified by the local utility.

There are no public groundwater wells within a 1 mile radius of the project site.

There are no surface water intakes located within a 5 mile radius of the project site.

The project is within the watershed of the following public surface water sources (intakes where the project falls within5 miles into their watershed are formatted in bold):PWSID6059501

SYSNAME

FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITYFACNAME

OCCOQUAN RESERVIOR INTAKE

Best regards,

Arlene Fields WarrenVirginia Department of Health,Office of Drinking WaterJames Madison Building109 Governor St,Richmond, VA 23219804. 864. 7781

From: Fulcher, Valerie (DEQ)Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:31 PMTo: dgif-ESS Projects (DGIF); Rhur, Robbie (DCR); odwreview (VDH); Dacey, Katy (DEQ); Narasimhan, Kotur (DEQ);Gavan, Larry (DEQ); Moore, Daniel (DEQ); Sepety, Holly (DEQ); Burstein, Daniel (DEQ); Kirchen, Roger (DHR); Ray,Alfred C. (VDOT); Cromwell, James R. (VDOT); Jordan, Elizabeth (VDOT); ama@novareaion. ora: coadmin(a)lo'udoun'. aov;[email protected]; Harrington, Rusty N. (DOAV)Cc: Howard, Janine (DEQ)Subject: NEW PROJECT FAA 16-159F

Good afternoon - this is a new OEIR review request/project:

Document Type: EA/Federal Consistency DeterminationProject Sponsor: Federal Aviation Administration/Smithsonian InstituteProject Title: National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center


VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

MEMORANDUM

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

COPIES:

SUBJECT:

Janine Howard, DEQ/EIR Environmental Program Planner

Katy Dacey, Division of Land Protection & Revitalization Review Coordinator

July 15, 2016

Sanjay Thirunagari, Division of Land Protection & Revitalization Review Manager; file

Environmental Impact Review: EIR Proj No 16-159F National Air and Space MuseumDulles Collection Center, Loudoun and Fairfax Counties, VA

The Division of Land Protection & Revitalization (DLPR) has completed its cursory review of theNational Air and Space Museum Dulles Collection Center located at 14390 Air and Space MuseumParkway, Chantilly, VA 20151

Project Scope: constmction of three collections storage buildings

Solid and hazardous waste issues were addressed in the submittal. The submittal did indicate that asearch of Federal or State environmental databases was conducted. DLPR staff conducted a cursorysearch (500 feet radius) of solid and hazardous waste databases for waste sites in close proximity to theproject area, and did not identify any waste sites in close proximity which might impact the projectactivity. Additionally, no waste sites of possible concern were located within the same zip code, 20151.The DEQ DLPR staff has reviewed the submittal and offers the following comments concerning possiblewaste issues associated with this proposed project:

Hazardous Waste/RCRA Facilities - none in close proximity to the project site

CERCLA Sites - none in zip code of the project site

FUDS -none

Solid Waste - none

VRP- none

Petroleum Releases none in close proximity to project site

GENERAL COMMENTS


Soil. Sediment, and Waste Manasement

Any soil that is suspected ofcontamination or wastes that are generated must be tested and disposed of inaccordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Some of the applicable statelaws and regulations are: Virginia Waste Management Act, Code of Virginia Section 10. 1-1400 etseq.Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (VHWMR) (9VAC 20-60); Virginia Solid WasteManagement Regulations (VSWMR) (9VAC 20-81); Virginia Regulations for the Transportation ofHazardousMaterials (9VAC 20-110). Some of the applicable Federal laws and regulations are: theResource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U. S.C. Section 6901 et seq~, and the applicableregulations contained in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and the U. S^ Department ofTransportation Rules for Transportation of Hazardous Materials, 49 CFR Part 107

Pollution Prevention - Reuse - Recycline

Please note that DEQ encourages all construction projects and facilities to implement pollution preventionprinciples, including the reduction reuse, and recycling of all solid wastes generated. All generation ofhazardous wastes should be minimized and handled appropriately.

If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Katy Dacey at (804) 698-4274.


Howard, Janine (DEQ)From:Sent:To:Subject:

Burstein, Daniel (DEQ)Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:08 AMHoward, Janine (DEQ)Re:_FAA/smithsonian lnstitute- National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center.DEQ#16-159F-Review ' -----.-..---..-.,

NROCOmments regardingthe Environmental Assessment and Federal Consistency Determination for theFAA/Smithsonian Institute- National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center located inLoudoun/Fairfax Counties, Virginia are as follows:

Land Protection Division - The project manager is reminded that if any solid or hazardous waste isgenerated/encountered during construction, the FAA would follow applicable federal, state, and iregulations for their disposal.

Air CompUance/Permittmg - The project manager is reminded that during the construction phases that occur??û!ir?^ct;. the py<)Ject su1?Jec. t to the Fugitive Dust/Fugitive Emissions Rule 9 VAC 5-50-60 throuî 9VAC 5-50-120. In addition, should the project install fuel burning equipment (Boilers, Generators,Compressors, etc. ), or any other air pollution emitting equipment, the project may be subject to 9 VAC 5-80,Article 6, j>ermitsjbr New and Modified sources and as such the project manager should contact the Air PermitManager DEQ-NRO prior to installation or construction, and operation, offuefbuming or other air ponutionemitting equipment for a permitting determination. Lastly, should any open burning or use of specialincineration devices be employed in the disposal of land clearing debris during demolition and construction, theoperation would be subject to the Open Burning Regulation 9 VAC 5-130-10 through 9 VAC 5-130-60 and'9VAC 5-130-100.

Iir8iâ^vater, protection permit VWPP^ Proeram - The project manager is reminded that a VWP permitfrom DEQ may be required should impacts to surface waters be necessary. DEQ VWP staff recommends thatthe avoidance and minimization of surface water impacts to the maximum extent practicable as weUascoordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers. Upon receipt of a Joint Permit Application for theproposed surface water imPacts' DEQ vwp permit staff will review the proposed project in accordance withthe VWP permit program regulations and current VWP permit program guidance.

Water Pernuttms/VPDES Proffram/Stormwater: The project manager is reminded to follow all applicableregulations related to stormwater management and erosion and sediment controls.

Daniel BursteinRegional Enforcement Specialist, Senior IIVirginia Department of Environmental QualityNorthern Virginia Regional Office13901 Crown CourtWoodbridge, VA22193Phone:(703)583-3904daniel. burstein(S), deq. Virginia, sov.


DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYDIVISION OF AIR PROGRAM COORDINATION

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO AIR QUALITY

TO: Janine L. Howard DEQ - OEIA PROJECT NUMBER: DEQ #16-159F

PROJECT TYPE: D STATE EA/EIRX FEDERAL EA/EIS D SCC

X CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION

PROJECT TITLE: National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center

PROJECT SPONSOR: Federal Aviation Administration/Smithsonian Institute

PROJECT LOCATION: X OZONE NONATTAINMENTAND EMISSION CONTROL AREA FOR NOX & VOC

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTSMAY BE APPLICABLE TO: X CONSTRUCTIOND OPERATION

STATE

3. X4. X5.

7. D8.9. 510. D

11. D

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REGULATIONS THAT MAY APPLY-9 VAC 5-40-5200 C & 9 VAC 5-40-5220 E - STAGE I9 VAC 5-45-760 et seq. - Asphalt Paving operations9 VAC 5-130 et seq. - Open Burning9 VAC 5-50-60 et seq. Fugitive Dust Emissions9 VAC 5-50-130 et seq. - Odorous Emissions; Applicable to_9 VAC 5-60-300 et seq. - Standards of Performance for Toxic Pollutants9 VAC 5-50-400 Subpart_, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,designates standards of performance forthe_9 VAC 5-80-1100 et seq. of the regulations - Permits for Stationary Sources9 VAC 5-80-1605 et seq. Of the regulations - Major or Modified Sources located inPSD areas. This rule may be applicable to the9 VAC 5-80-2000 et seq. of the regulations - New and modified sources located innon-attainment areas9 VAC 5-80-800 et seq. Of the regulations - State Operating Permits. This rule may beapplicable to

COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECT:All precautions are necessary to restrict the emissions of volatile organiccompounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx).

i^. s^^(KoturS. Narasimhan)

Office of Air Data Analysis DATE: July 18, 2016


CHARLES A. KILPATRICK, P.&COMMISSIONER

COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIADEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

4975 Alliance DriveFairfax, VA 22030

August 9, 2016MEMORANDUM

To: Ms. Janine Howard; Department of Environmental Quality

From: Rahul Trivedi, P. E. ; VDOT NoVA, Transportation Planning Section

Subj: New Project FAA 1 6-159F - National Air and Space Museum Duties Collections Center

The subject project consists of construction of new collection and storage space for theSmithsonian Institution for long term use of the Duties Collection Center (DCC) located at theDulles International Airport. The puq>ose of this project is to provide adequate storage space formedium and large object collections maintained by the Smithsonian Institution^ National Airand Space Museum (NASM). NASM maintains the largest collection of historic air andspacecraft in the world; and is a vital center for research, science, and technology in aviation andspace flight. Four alternatives are being evaluated ranging from the no build alternative to thep^efT^e.d altemative which results in addition of maximum space - 241, 880 net square feet (nsf)of additional storage space. The preferred alternative consists of two three-story modules each?!°^1 gJ?7'820 nsfofcollections storage and a single-story free span module providing26,240 nsffor storage for large air and space craft storage. Entire project is within the aiiportproperty and adjacent to the existing Udvar Hazy Center.

The VDOT, Northern Virginia District Office staff has reviewed the draft EnvironmentalAssessment for the subject project and as the proposed work is within the airport property and isanticipated to not generate many trips it will not have an impact to existing or proposed VDOTinfiastructure. However, if this were to change and work is required to be done within the stateright-of-way operated and maintained by VDOT, then Smithsonian or their designee wouldI beresponsible for compliance with applicable federal and state environmental laws.

ec: Mr. John Muse, VDOTMr. Brian Costello, VDOTMr. Robert Caparas, VDOTMr. Terry Yates, VDOTMr. Paul Kraucunas, VDOTMr. Imad Salous, VDOTMr. Jim Cromwell, VDOTMr. Alfred Ray, VDOTMs. Elizabeth Jordan, VDOT

VirginiaDot.orgWE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING


County of Fairfax, VirginiaTo protect and enrich the quality of life for the people, neighborhoods and diverse communities of Fairfax County

I

'^ECEr August 9, 2016i MJG ^WJanine Howard

Department of Environmental QualityOffice of Environmental Impact Review629 East Main Street, 6th FloorRichmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Ms. Howard:

'TOQ-Offic90(E"WQn-"dlImpact Review

The Fairfax County Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) has reviewed the Draft EnvironmentalAssessment and the Coastal Consistency determination for the expansion of the National Air and SpaceMuseum (NASM) Dulles Collections Center. This project consists of the construction either a two-storycollections facility with a single story hangar or a three-story collections facility and a single story hangarin order to provide the Smithsonian with more space for storing the museum collections and storageduring renovations.

None of the alternative configurations will have an impact on existing wetland, water or forest resources.The area under consideration for the storage structures is currently vacant land previously cleared andprepared for development immediately adjacent to the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center. This project is partof the NASM Master Plan and a pan-Smithsonian Space Framework both of which recommend additionalcollection space. Fairfax County staff does not anticipate any negative environmental impacts from thisproposed project.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Environmental Assessment. If you have any questionsabout our comments, please do not hesitate to contact Mary Ann Welton of my staff at 703-324-1380.

Sincerely,

Marianne R. Gardner, DirectorPlanning Division, Department of Planning and Zoning

MRG: MAW

ec: Board of SupervisorsEdward L. Long Jr., County ExecutiveRobert A. Stalzer, Deputy County ExecutiveDenise M. James, Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ)Mary Ann Welton, Environmental Planner, DPZ

Excellence * Innovation * StewardshipIntegrity * Teamwork* Public Service

Department of Planning and ZoningPlanning Division

12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 730Fairfax, Virginia 22035

Phone 703-324-1380 FAX 703-653-9447www. fairfaxcounty. gov/dpz/

PLANNING&ZONING


1

Cooper, Laura

From: Ewing, Amy (DGIF) <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:21 PMTo: Cooper, LauraCc: Howard, Janine (DEQ)Subject: RE: FAA Collections Storage Facility 16-159F - Next Steps (ESSLog# 37158)

Laura (and Janine), I apologize for the delay. I am behind in everything right now due to some unforeseen and extensive database issues. I have reviewed this project and based on its scope and location, we do not anticipate any impacts upon state Threatened wood turtles, which have been documented from Cub Run. We appreciate your coordination with us, as well as your patience. Amy

Amy M. Ewing Environmental Services Biologist/FWIS Biologist Supervisor Chair, Team WILD (Work, Innovate, Lead and Develop) VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 7870 Villa Park Dr., Suite 400, PO Box 90778, Henrico, VA 23228 804-367-2211 www.dgif.virginia.gov

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

From: Cooper, Laura [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:44 PM To: Ewing, Amy (DGIF) Cc: Glynn, Joan Subject: FAA Collections Storage Facility 16-159F - Next Steps Amy, We have recently received the completed Federal Consistency Review for the National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center project. The response from DEQ instructed us to coordinate directly with you about potential impacts to the wood turtle. The wood turtle was addressed in our Environmental Assessment as follows: According to our VaFWIS results, the wood turtle is listed as confirmed in Cub Run in the T&E Waters database, and Cain Branch is listed as predicted habitat. Cub Run is located over one mile from the project area, and Cain Branch is located approximately 650 feet southwest. The project will require coverage under the VSMP General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities, and subsequently a SWPPP and erosion and sediment control plan, which would prevent any sedimentation to Cain Branch. We indicated that by developing and adhering to a strict E&SC plan, no impacts to the wood turtle would occur. We would like to touch base with you regarding DEQ’s instructions. What specific coordination needs to occur?Thank you very much for you time, and we hope to hear from you soon. Regards, Laura Cooper


2

Environmental Scientist 6110 Frost Place Laurel MD 20707-2927 Phone: (301) 220-1892 Cell: (703) 501-2807 Fax: (301) 220-2595 [email protected]

The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.


This page intentionally left blank....Effective 11/19/2015 7 in the unsuitable temporary buildings...

Documents

Transcript of This page intentionally left blank....Effective 11/19/2015 7 in the unsuitable temporary buildings...