FINAL United States Air Force Environmental Assessment OF • Construction of Chapel Addition at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma Contract No.: F34650-98-D-0032 Delivery Order 5058 January 2003 E012003005ATL Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED JAN 2003 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2003 to 00-00-2003 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Final United States Air Force Environmental Assessment: Construction 5b. GRANT NUMBER of Chapel Addition at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CH2M Hill,115 Perimeter Center Place, NE, Ste. 700,Atlanta,GA,30346 REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 45 unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 Finding of No Practicable Alternatives (FONPA) for the Environmental Assessment for the Construction of an Addition to the Chapel at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma Introduction Tinker Air Force Base (Tinker AFB, the base) has completed an environmental assessment (EA) to determine environmental and socio-economic impacts of construction of an addition to the base chapel that would enhance and complement current chapel services. The preferred location for the addition is adjacent to the existing chapel. This site was assessed and approved for a smaller addition in a 1997 EA, but the addition was never built. No other action alternatives were considered. The no-action alternative is continued operation of the base chapel without the addition. Descriptions of these alternatives are provided in the EA. This document assesses the alternatives to determine whether there exists a practicable alternative to construction of the addition to the chapel that would have less or no impacts to the floodplain of Crutcho Creek. Consideration of Alternatives Proposed Action The proposed action has no identified negative environmental or socio-economic consequences other than encroachment on the floodplain of Crutcho Creek. The proposed location is within the Community Development Area of Tinker AFB. Within this part of the base, Crutcho Creek has been channelized to enhance flood conveyance, resulting in a floodway that is narrower than the floodplain. Crutcho Creek is no longer hydrologically connected with its historic floodplain. Several structures have been built within the historic floodplain. These structures and the proposed chapel addition location are outside the designated flood way for Crutcho Creek. As a result, should the proposed action be implemented, there would be no change in flood elevations upstream of the chapel and no reduction in flood conveyance downstream of the chapel. Because the general area is already highly developed, there is no functional floodplain and the typical ecological functions of a natural floodplain do not occur. Implementation of the proposed project would result in placing a structure over less than 0.005 percent of the total floodplain of Crutcho. Creek. Total floodplain encroachment of all projects considered that would impact the floodplain of Crutcho Creek is less than 0.1 percent of the floodplain. There would be no significant increase in impervious surface area and surface runoff. Impacts to the floodplain would be minor and insignificant. Action Alternative The proposed action would enhance and complement existing services at the base chapel. Tinker AFB lacks sufficient personnel and fiscal resources to operate the base chapel and a chapel support building in separate locations, or to construct a new chapel in a different location. Therefore, an additional site for the addition is not considered a practicable alternative. No-Action Alternative The no-action alternative would continue existing use of the chapel without the addition. Because the current facilities are overburdened and cannot meet the existing demand for services, the no-action alternative is not a practicable alternative. Finding of No Practicable Alternative Based on the above information, including the analysis contained in the EA and taking into account the economic, environmental, and other pertinent factors analyzed in the EA, I find there are no practicable alternatives to construction in a floodplain for the proposed action. I further find that all practicable measures have been taken to minimize impacts to floodplains from activities associated with the proposed action. CHARLES H. COOLIDGE, JR Lieutenant General, USAF Vice Commander, AFMC Tinker AFB Environmental Assessment: Addition to Building 5701 (Base Chapel) Contract No. F34650-98-D-0032; Delivery Order 5058 Executive Summary Introduction This environmental assessment (EA) evaluates the potential socio-economic and environmental impacts associated with proposed construction of a 4,000-square-foot addition to the chapel (building 5701) within the Community Development Area at Tinker Air Force Base (AFB), Oklahoma. No additional facilities would be constructed and no existing facilities would be demolished to construct the addition. Alternatives Considered Proposed Action The proposed action evaluated in this EA is the preferred alternative. The proposed action is construction of a 4,000-square-foot addition to the Tinker AFB Chapel (building 5701). No action alternatives beyond the proposed action were considered in this analysis; only the proposed action and no-action alternative were analyzed. No-Action Alternative By definition, under the no-action alternative, a chapel addition would not be constructed. Not constructing the addition would result in continued operation of the chapel with excessive demands for use of its facilities. Environmental, Social, and Economic Issues and Concerns No significant environmental or socio-economic concerns have been identified for the proposed action or the no-action alternative in this EA. There are no impacts on any examined resources resulting from the no-action alternative. Minor impacts to the floodplain would occur from the proposed action. The location for the proposed action is within the 100-year floodplain. Impacts to the floodplain are anticipated to be minor, as construction would be outside the designated floodway. There would be no decrease in flood transport and no increase in flood elevation upstream of the proposed project. Short-term construction-related impacts would occur from fugitive dust emissions and construction equipment noise, but these impacts would be relatively isolated, of short duration, and can be mitigated using standard construction practices. Minor stormwater impacts, primarily associated with erosion during construction, would be minimized using standard best management practices (BMPs) as defined in the Tinker AFB Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Temporary noise and air quality impacts would be associated with the operation of heavy equipment and site work during construction of the facility. Potential impacts on adjacent land uses would be minimized by restricting construction activity to normal business hours. Beneficial short-term impacts may result from construction employment opportunities. ES-1 Tinker AFB Environmental Assessment Addition of building 5701 (Base Chapel) Contract No. F34650-98-D-0032; Delivery Order 5058 This page left blank intentionally. ES-2 Tinker AFB Environmental Assessment: Addition to Building 5701 (Base Chapel) Contract No. F3465Q-98-D-0032; Delivery Order 5058 Contents Executive Summary. ........................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Alternatives Considered ........................................................................................................ 1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 1 No-Action Alternative .............................................................................................. 1 Environmental, Social, and Economic Issues and Concerns ............................................ 1 Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................... iii 1.0 Purpose and N eed ................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ....................................................... 1-1 1.2 Location of the Proposed Action .......................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Scope of the Environmental Analysis .................................................................. 1-1 1.3.1 Analyses Eliminated from Further Consideration ............................... 1-2 1.3.2 Analyses Carried Forward ....................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Applicable Regulatory Requirements and Coordination ................................. 1-2 2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 History of the Formulation of Alternatives ........................................................ 2-1 2.3 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 2-2 2.5 Comparison Matrix of the Environmental Effects ............................................. 2-2 3.0 Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 3-1 4.0 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Effects of Alternatives on the Affected Environment. ...................................... A-1 4.2.1 Topography and Soils .............................................................................. A-1 4.2.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.3 Noise ............................................................................................................ 4-2 4.2.4 Surface Water ............................................................................................. 4-3 4.2.5 Biological Resources .................................................................................. 4-4 4.2.6 Utilities and Solid Waste ......................................................................... .4-4 4.2.7 Economic Resources ................................................................................. A-4 4.2.8 Transportation ........................................................................................... 4-6 4.2.9 Summary of Potential Mitigation Actions ............................................ .4-6 4.3 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects ................................................... .4-6 4.4 Compatibility with Objectives of Federal, Regional, State, and Local Land Use Plans and Policies ...................................................................... A-6 4.5 Relationship Between the Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity ........................................................................................ 4-6 4.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................... .4-7 4.7 Cumulative Environmental Consequences ....................................................... .4-7 5.0 List of Preparers .................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Tinker AFB, Oklahoma .......................................................................................... 5-1 Tinker AFB Environmental Assessment: Addition of building 5701 (Base Chapel) Contract No. F34650-98-D-Q032; Delivery Order 5058 5.2 CH2M HILL ............................................................................................................ 5-1 6.0 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted or Provided Copies of the EA .................... 6-1 7.0 Literature Cited ....................................................................................................... :. ............ 7-1 Appendix A Agency Correspondence List of Figures Figure 1-1 Regional Location of Tinker Air Force Base ....................................................... 1-3 Figure 1-2 Location of Proposed Action ................................................................................ 1-5 List of Tables Table 2-1 Coimparative Impact Summary of Analyses Considered for Chapel Addition ................................................................................................................... 2-2 Table 4-1 Estimated Peak Hours of Construction Noise .................................................... 4-3 Tinker AFB Environmental Assessment: Addition to Building 5701 (Base Chapel) Contract No. F34650-98-D-0032; Delivery Order 5058 Acronyms ABW Air Base Wing AFB Air Force Base AFI Air Force Instruction BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis BMP Best Management Practice CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations EA Environmental Assessment EIAP Environmental Impact Analysis Process EO Executive Order FONPA Finding of No Practicable Alternative FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact HVAC heating, ventilation and air conditioning IRP Installation Restoration Program IWTP Water Treatment Plant MAJCOM Major Command MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area MSL mean sea level NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPL National Priorities List OC-ALC Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center ODOC Oklahoma Department of Commerce ONHI Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer US ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ill Tinker AFB Environmental Assessment: Addition of building 5701 (Base Chapel) Contract No. F34650-98-D-0032; Delivery Order 5058 This page left blank intentionally. IV