land release and lease draft ea

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN REGION AIRPORTS DIVISION

Short Environmental

Assessment Form

for AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS

Airport Name: Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport Identifier: PHF

Proposed Project: Release, Lease, and Avigation Easements of Select Airport Property

This Environmental Assessment becomes a Federal document when evaluated, signed, and dated by the

Responsible FAA official.

Responsible FAA Official Date

Effective 11/19/2015 1

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.

http://www.faa.gov/airports/eastern/environmental/media/C10.DOChttp://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/environmental


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.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction/Background ................................................................................................................. 5

2. Project Description ........................................................................................................................... 8

3. Project Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................. 12

4. Affected Environment .................................................................................................................... 13

5. Alternatives to the Project .............................................................................................................. 31

6. Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................................ 33

7. Permits ............................................................................................................................................ 55

8. Mitigation ....................................................................................................................................... 55

9. Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................ 56

10. List of Attachments ...................................................................................................................... 59

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; Childrens Environmental

Health and Safety Risks; Visual Effects; Wetlands; Floodplains; Surface Waters; Groundwater; Wild and Scenic Rivers;

and Cumulative Impacts.


List of Tables

Table 1 Federal and State Listed and Protected Species with the Potential

to Occur in the Project Study Area .................................................................................. 15

Table 2 Project Study Area Soil Analysis ..................................................................................... 19

Table 3 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetlands ............................................................................... 25

Table 4 Agencies and Persons Consulted for this Short EA Form ............................................... 58

List of Figures

Figure 1 Airport Location ................................................................................................................. 6

Figure 2 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................... 10

Figure 3 Land Anticipated for Development .................................................................................. 11

Figure 4 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 13

Figure 5 York County Land Use .................................................................................................... 21

Figure 6 York County Zoning ........................................................................................................ 22

Figure 7 Preliminary Wetland Delineation with the Project Study Area ....................................... 26

Figure 8 Resource Protection Areas and Resource Management Areas

near the Project Study Area .............................................................................................. 28

Figure 9 Watershed Management and Protection Areas in and around the Project Study Area .... 30

Attachments

Attachment A Early Coordination

Attachment B 2014 PHF MPU Market Analysis and Feasibility Study

Attachment C Additional Biological Resource Information

Attachment D NRCS Web Soil Survey

Attachment E EDR Study

Attachment F VDHR Archives Search

Attachment G Coastal Zone Consistency


Complete the following information:

Project Location Airport Name: Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport Identifier: PHF

Airport Address: 900 Bland Boulevard

City: Newport News County: City of Newport News (Independent City) / York County

State: VA Zip: 23602

Airport Sponsor Information Point of Contact: Ken Spirito, A.A.E. Executive Director

Address: 900 Bland Boulevard

City: Newport News State: VA Zip: 23602

Telephone: (757) 877-0221 Fax: N/A

Email: [email protected]

Evaluation Form Preparer Information Point of Contact: David Alberts, Project Manager RS&H, Inc.

Address: 10748 Deerwood Park Boulevard South

City: Jacksonville State: FL Zip: 32256

Telephone: (904) 256-2500 Fax: (904) 256-2501

Email: [email protected]

1. Introduction/Background

The Peninsula Airport Commission (Commission) has prepared this Short Environmental

Assessment (EA) Form for the release (e.g., sale or lease) of property from the Newport

News/Williamsburg International Airport (Airport).

The Commission owns and operates the Airport. The Airport is about 11 miles northwest of

downtown Newport News, Virginia, and about 15 miles southeast of Williamsburg, Virginia. The

Airport intersects the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Newport News (an independent city)

and York County, Virginia. Figure 1 shows the Airports location.

The Airports total property area is about 2,000 acres. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems categorizes the Airport as a Primary Commercial

Service, Non-Hub Facility.2 There are two runways at the Airport:

Runway 7/25 (primary runway) 8,003 feet long by 150 feet wide and

Runway 2/20 (crosswind runway) 6,526 feet long by 150 feet wide.

According to the FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), there were 265,197 enplanements and 78,494

operations at the Airport in 2014, the most recent reporting year.3

2 FAA. (2014, September 30). 2015-2019 NPIAS Report, Appendix B, Part 6. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from

http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/npias/reports/media/npias-2015-2019-report-appendix-b-part-6.pdf. 3 FAA. (2016). Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), PHF. Retrieved March 31, 2016, from http://taf.faa.gov/.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/npias/reports/media/npias-2015-2019-report-appendix-b-part-6.pdfhttp://taf.faa.gov/


Figure 1

Airport Location

There are 39 sponsor assurances in the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants the Commission

has accepted from the FAA over the years. The Commission must comply with those assurances as

conditions for accepting those grants. According to Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure,

the sponsor of a federally obligated airport shall, maintain a fee and rental structure for the

facilities and services at the airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible under

the circumstances existing at that particular airport, taking into account such factors as the volume

of traffic and economy of collection.


Therefore, the Commission is expected to recover its costs through the establishment of fair and

reasonable fees, rentals, or other user charges that will make the Airport as self-sustaining as

possible under the circumstances existing at the Airport.

The majority of the Commissions revenues is generated by three sources: the fees that commercial

passenger airlines pay for operating at the Airport, fees from on-Airport public automobile parking,

and fees from rental car companies operating at the Airport. Other tenants and services also

contribute revenue, although to lesser degrees. Revenue streams from non-aeronautical sources

include but are not limited to automobile parking, compatible land development, and terminal

concessions. By enhancing non-aeronautical revenues, airport sponsors can minimize the effects of

economic downturns by diversifying their revenue streams, reducing financial risk, while

strengthening cash flow and improving customer service and community relations.

As is the case at most publicly-owned airports, payments by tenants are viable sources of revenue to

make those airports fiscally self-sustainable. Such funding sources directly reduce the amount that

an airport sponsor (e.g., the Commission) must fund. Tenant funding is a particularly important

arrangement to pay the costs to operate and maintain an airport as well as proprietary facilities such

as non-aeronautical development that may be ineligible for FAA funding.4

In 2014, the Commission finalized a comprehensive master planning process to determine future

development needs. The purpose of an airport master plan is to provide specific details and

guidance for future facility development of an individual airport to satisfy the aviation needs of the

community and region it serves. The 2014 PHF Master Plan Update (MPU) provided a

comprehensive look at the facilities of the Airport, described infrastructure plans to meet future

aviation demands, and provided a framework to guide Airport development. One of the many MPU

goals was to enhance the economic value of the Airport. While the primary purpose of an airport is

to provide aviation infrastructure to support aviation related activities, airport property that does not

have an aviation use (i.e., areas not connected to the airfields taxiways or runways) can provide

revenue to enhance financial self-sustainability. The 2014 MPU analyzed the market potential of

approximately 479 acres of underutilized and/or non-aeronautical Airport property in developing a

Conceptual Development Program (CDP). The Proposed Project, described in Section 2, was

included in this market analysis of non-aeronautical land owned by the Commission.

The Commission owns non-aeronautical land located in the Grafton West Area of York County.

According to the York County Comprehensive Plan, areas north of the Airport along Denbigh

Boulevard are designated Limited Industrial and General Business.5 According to the 2014 PHF

MPU, there is comparatively little commercial/retail businesses serving the local population north

of the Airport. The Route 17 Corridor, 2-miles east of the Proposed Project, contains a number of

aging strip centers with a mix of retail and commercial businesses, but there is a good opportunity

for the Commission to develop areas along Denbigh Boulevard for these purposes.6

4 Peninsula Airport Commission, PHF Master Plan Update, 2014. 5 York County, The County of York Comprehensive Plan: Charting the Course to 2035,

https://www.yorkcounty.gov/CountyGovernment/Administration,County/Planning/ComprehensivePlan/2012Comprehe

nsivePlanReviewandUpdate.aspx, Sept 2013, accessed October 2015. 6 Peninsula Airport Commission, PHF Master Plan Update, 2014.

https://www.yorkcounty.gov/CountyGovernment/Administration,County/Planning/ComprehensivePlan/2012ComprehensivePlanReviewandUpdate.aspxhttps://www.yorkcounty.gov/CountyGovernment/Administration,County/Planning/ComprehensivePlan/2012ComprehensivePlanReviewandUpdate.aspx


According to staff of the York County Planning Department, entities interested in developing

commercial and industrial facilities have approached the County regarding the use of the West

Grafton Area.7 The property to be released is zoned as Limited Industrial. As the November 2, 2015

York County letter describes, the Limited Industrial Zone is intended to provide opportunities for a

variety of industrial activities with a low to moderate intensity whose operations will have relatively

low impacts in terms of smoke, noise, vibration or similar factors (see Attachment A-2). These

activities include, but are not limited to: hardware store, paint store, lumberyard, offices, dry

cleaning, auto repair, auto sales, body work/painting, warehousing, mini-storage, light

manufacturing, contracting.

A newspaper article described the York County Economic Development Authoritys (EDAs)

interest in purchasing up to 248 acres of Airport property north of Runway 2-20.8 The newspaper

article described an independent memo from County Administrator Neil Morgan to the York

County Board of Supervisors stating that the EDA proposes to borrow $8 million to buy the land

and perform the initial infrastructure work. The County memo further stated that the EDA selected

Towne Bank for an $8 million line of credit. The York County Board of Supervisors approved a

"letter of support" for the proposed financing of $8 million. The Commission and Airport did not

provide any comments in the article. The article misrepresented the number of acres and the area

that is proposed to be available for purchase. In addition, the powerline easement and the Airport

property south of the existing power lines are not proposed to be sold or leased under this EA. The

Airports layout plan currently shows future aviation related development within this area.

York County has provided the Commission with a non-binding letter of intent to purchase Airport

property for future development. A formal agreement to purchase this area has not been presented

to the Commission. Based on coordination with the York County EDA, it is the Commissions

understanding that, if the York County EDA purchases the Airport property described in Section 2

of this EA, the area would continue to be zoned light industrial. In addition, there are no known

developers or proposed development of this area. If the Proposed Action described in this EA

results in an FAA Finding of No Significant Impact, the Commission would include measures to

continue protecting the safety of aircraft operating on Runway 2-20 at the Airport (e.g., avigation

easements that contains language satisfactory to the FAA).

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 Commission proposes to sell up to about 200 acres and lease up to 20 acres of Airport property

along Denbigh Boulevard to a potential new owner/developer(s). Each transaction would include

FAA approved avigation easement. This release of Airport property and the associated acquisition

of avigation comprises the Proposed Project. The conversion of Airport-dedicated property to non-

aeronautical use for revenue-producing purposes will enhance the Commissions ability to comply

with Assurance 24. Figure 2 shows the location of this property. The land proposed for a new

owner/developer(s) is currently zoned Limited Industrial and General Business, which permits a

7 Record of Conversation, Tim Cross, York County Planning and Ted Kitchens, PHF, June 2015. 8 Daily Press, York EDA plans to buy 248 acres of airport land for business park,

http://www.dailypress.com/news/newport-news/dp-nws-nn-york-land-purchase-20160216-story.html, accessed

February 16, 2016.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/newport-news/dp-nws-nn-york-land-purchase-20160216-story.html


broad range of retail commercial uses, shopping centers, fast food establishments, business and

professional services, and automotive services.

At this time, the specific nature of future development in the land proposed for release or lease is

unknown. Figure 3 shows a constraints map used for planning purposes. The figure shows where

development could occur based on an approach to avoid and minimize environmental effects (e.g.,

impacts to wetlands and surface waters). The new owner or lessee would comply with applicable

laws and regulations, which would include Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This planning

approach assumes that the new land owners development(s) may not occur in areas of potential

high value habitat and/or wetlands. Development(s) within these environmentally sensitive areas

would result in potential environmental effects, subsequent mitigation measures, and significant

time and costs for the new land owner/developer(s). However, the new owner/developer(s) could

develop within wetland areas if they adhered to federal, state, and local regulations (i.e., fulfilled

any applicable mitigation measures) prior to construction.

It is reasonable to assume that such uses of the land anticipated to be developed or leased would be

consistent with the existing zoning, limited industrial and general business for this area. This

assumption that the Proposed Project is assessed on current zoning of the property is per FAA

guidance in Order 5050.4B, NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions.9 The construction

period for any one project is not anticipated to exceed three years.

For each sale up to about 200 acres of Airport property or lease of about 20 acres of Airport

property to a new owner/developer(s), the Commission would require an FAA-approved avigation

easement to protect the continued safe operations of the Airport. The construction of

buildings/facilities on the land to be sold or leased would need to comply with Federal Aviation

Regulations (FAR) Title 14 Part 77 guidelines (Obstructions to Navigation).10 As the York County

letter dated November 2, 2015 describes, the construction of buildings/facilities on the land to be

sold or leased would also need to comply with the height limitations set forth in York Countys

Airport Safety Management overlay district (see Attachment A). These height limitations mean

that development such as cell towers and/or multi-story buildings may not be permitted. With the

sale of about 200 acres or lease of about 20 acres of Airport property, the Commission would

require provisions or avigation easements for the new owner/developer(s) to assure development is

compatible with Airport operations and meets FAA design standards for the continued safe and

secure use of the property. In addition, the Commission would not sell or lease parcel(s) to a new

owner/developer(s) that would result in wildlife attractants near the Airport or incompatible land

uses. Incompatible land uses include, but are not limited to: municipal waste handling facilities,

wildlife refuges/sanctuaries, or developments with water reservoirs (e.g., a park with artificial

ponds). These land use practices have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife and the threaten

aviation safety of the Airport. Therefore, with the sale or lease of Airport property, the Commission

would require the new owner/developer(s) to comply with conditions that assure development

would not cause wildlife attractants and are compatible with Airport operations.

9 FAA Order 5050.4B, NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, Section 207(c)(4), Potential uses of the

land. 10 FAR Part 77 establishes standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace.

Effective 11/19/2015 10

Figure 2

Proposed Project

Effective 11/19/2015 11

Figure 3

Land Anticipated for Development

Effective 11/19/2015 12

In order for the construction of buildings/facilities and supporting infrastructure to occur, the new

owner/developer(s) would need to apply for applicable permits from York County and the

Commonwealth of Virginia. These permits would include, but are not limited to, a land disturbing

activity permit (which includes the submittal of an erosion and sediment control plan), building

permit, a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit for construction

activities, and a wetlands permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for any impacts to

Waters of the U. S. These permits include various stipulations such as coordination with federal and

state agencies regarding potential environmental effects of the new owner/developer(s) proposed

development. The new owner/developer(s) would be responsible for obtaining necessary permits

and adhering to the provisions of each permit. The applicable provisions of permits that a new

owner/developer(s) would need to obtain are further discussed in the applicable environmental

resource categories in Section 6 of this Short EA Form.

The Commission seeks unconditional FAA approval of revisions to the Airport Layout Plan

showing the removal of non-aeronautical property north of Runway 2-20. The Proposed Project

evaluated in this EA includes the sale up to about 200 acres and the lease of up to about 20 acres of

Airport property to a new owner/developer(s) for potential non-aeronautical development in

accordance with current York County zoning for this area.

3. Project Purpose and Need:

According to FAA Order 1050.1F, Change 1, Section 6.2-1(c), the Purpose and Need briefly

describes the underlying purpose and need for the federal action. This section presents the problem

being addressed and describes what the Commission is trying to achieve with the Proposed Project.

The Proposed Project is intended to:

Develop Airport assets to provide the Commission with diversified revenue streams consistent with the Commissions obligation to enhance the Airports financial self-

sufficiency as specified in Grant Assurance 24.

Provide orderly land use planning to ensure potential development is compatible with those operations consistent with the Commissions obligation to ensure the safe and efficient

operation of the Airport.

The Commission has the opportunity to continue making the Airport as financially self-sustaining

as possible under the circumstances existing at the Airport. The 2014 PHF MPU included a Market

Analysis and Feasibility Study to determine future development that could use on-Airport land not

needed for aeronautical purposes. This study analyzed the market potential of the Commissions

undeveloped property. The study identified specific tracts and airport compatible industries that

would support the Commissions efforts to enhance its financial self-sustainability (see Attachment

B). Section 1 provides examples of that development. Such development could occur on 220 acres

of undeveloped, Airport property north of Runway 2-20 that is not needed or cannot be used for

aviation purposes. Developing this current Airport property would provide potential economic and

fiscal benefits for the Commission.11

Land use control measures through the sale or lease of non-aeronautical property to a new

owner/developer(s) would continue the Airports safe and efficient aviation operations. With each

11 Peninsula Airport Commission, PHF Master Plan Update, Appendix F, Non-Aviation Development, Strategy 5 Technical Memorandums 1-5, 2014.

Effective 11/19/2015 13

sale of up to about 200 acres and lease of up to about 20 acres of Airport property, and avigation

easements for the new owner/developer(s) would assure development is compatible with Airport

operations and meets FAA design standards for the continued safe and secure use of the property.

4. Describe the affected environment (existing conditions) and land use in the vicinity of

project:

This Short EA Form establishes a project study area to characterize the existing conditions and

areas of potential environmental effects due to the Proposed Project (see Figure 4). The 220-acre

project study area is entirely on Airport property and is primarily undeveloped, forested land, with

some areas cleared for utility rights-of-way and roadways (e.g., Denbigh Boulevard). The following

paragraphs describe the environmental characteristics of the project study area.

Figure 4

Affected Environment

Effective 11/19/2015 14

Air Quality: The project study area is within the limits of York County, which is a maintenance area

for 1-hour ozone. The area is subject to the Virginia Department of Environmental Qualitys

(VDEQs) Maintenance Plan for the Hampton Roads Nonattainment Area Consisting of the cities of

Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and

Williamsburg and the Counties of James City, York, Gloucester, and Isle of Wight (Maintenance

Plan for Hampton Roads).

Biological Resources: The project study area consists of mature mixed pine-hardwood forest with a

topographical landscape ranging between 25-feet to 55-feet in elevation.

Threatened and Endangered Species: According to FAA Order 1050.1F Desk Reference, biological

resources are valued for their intrinsic, aesthetic, economic, and recreational qualities and include

fish, wildlife, plants, and their respective habitats. During site visits of the 220-acre project study

area, a threatened and endangered species field assessment was completed to determine if habitat

exists for any federally endangered or threatened species in the project study area. The report states,

During the physical inspection of the study area no federal or state endangered or threatened

species were observed. However, physical inspection of the survey area did reveal the likely

presence of habitat associated with the state endangered Canebrake Rattlesnake, Eastern Tiger

Salamander, and state threatened Mabees Salamander (see Attachment C).

Federally Listed Species

U.S. Fish Wildlife Services (USFWS) identified one mammal, the Northern long-eared bat that is

listed as federally threatened that could potentially be located within the project study area (see

Table 1 and Attachment C for more detailed information). Physical inspection of the project study

area for the type of habitat associated with this species was conducted. This species was not

observed during the field visits.

State Listed Species

Five state listed species (two state endangered, and three state threatened) were identified as

potentially present in the project study area. These species were not observed during the field

assessment. The project study area contains multiple Grafton ponds that provides critical habitat for

the Eastern Tiger Salamander and Mabees Salamander (see Attachment C for further details). The

Grafton ponds wetland complex supports several rare plants and animals for Virginia including the

Harpers fimbristylis (Fimbristylis perpusilla), pond spice (Litsea aestivalis), and the barking tree

frog (Hyla gratiosa).

Migratory Birds: As Table 1 shows, USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC)

data identifies one Threatened species within the project study area and 27 Migratory Birds that

could potentially exist within the project study area, one listed Federal Species of Concern and one

listed as Threatened. The Department of Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) identifies 15

bird species in the Commonwealth and two of those are identified as potentially being in the project

study area (see Table 1 and Attachment C for more detailed information).

Effective 11/19/2015 15

Table 1

Federal and State Listed and Protected Species with the Potential to Occur

in the Project Study Area

Common Name

(Scientific Name) Federal Status

State Status /

WAP Tier

Mammals

Northern long-eared Bat

(Myotis septentrionalis) Threatened Not listed

Reptiles

Canebrake Rattlesnake

(Crotalus horridus) Not Listed Endangered/ Tier II

Amphibians

Eastern tiger Salamander

(Ambystoma tigrinum) Not Listed

Endangered / Tier

II

Mabees Salamander

(Ambystoma mabeei) Not Listed Threatened/ Tier II

Birds

Gull-billed Tern

(Gelochelidon nilotica) Bird of Conservation Concern Threatened / Tier I

Perigrine Falcon

(Falco peregrinus) Bird of Conservation Concern Threatened / Tier I

Red Knot

(Calidris canutus rufa) Threatened Not listed

Bald Eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Species of Concern Not listed / Tier II

American Bittern

(Botaurus lentiginosus) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed

Black Skimmer

(Rynchops niger) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed

Brown-headed Nuthatch

(Sitta pusilla) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed / Tier IV

Fox Sparrow

(Passerella illaca) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed

American Oystercatcher

(Haematopus palliates) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed

Least Bittern

(Ixobrychus exillis) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed

Lesser Yellowlegs

(Tringa flavipes) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed

Marbled Godwit

(Limosa fedoa) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed / Tier IV

Nelsons Sparrow

(Ammodramus nelsoni) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed / Tier III

Effective 11/19/2015 16

Table 1 Continued

Federal and State Listed and Protected Species with the Potential to Occur

in the Project Study Area

Common Name (Scientific

Name) Federal Status

State Status /

WAP Tier

Birds Continued

Pied-billed Grebe

(Podilymbus podiceps) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed / Tier IV

Prairie Warbler

(Dendroica discolor) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed

Purple Sandpiper

(Calidris maritima) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed / Tier IV

Red-headed Woodpecker

(Melanerpes erythrocephalus) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed

Rusty Blackbird

(Euphagus carolinus) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed

Saltmarsh Sparrow

(Ammodramus caudacutus) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed / Tier II

Seaside Sparrow

(Ammodramus maritumus) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed

Short-billed Dowitcher

(Limnodromus griseus) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed

Short-eared Owl

(Asio flammeus) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed

Snowy Egret

(Egretta thula) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed

Wood Thrush

(Hylocichla mustelina) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed

Worm Eating Warbler

(Helmitheros vermivorum) Bird of Conservation Concern Not listed / Tier IV

Notes: WAP Tier I = Critical Conservation Need; WAP Tier II = Very High Conservation Need; WAP Tier III = High

Conservation Need; WAP Tier IV Moderate Conservation Need

Sources: USFWS IPaC Trust Resource Report, 8 October 2015; VDGIF T&E database, accessed 25 November 2015;

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Commonwealth of Virginia Natural

Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Animals, Natural Heritage Technical Report 13-05. March 2013

Critical Habitat: USFWS did not identify any critical habitats in the project study area. The

Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VaFWIS) was reviewed for the potential state

endangered or threatened species and habitat potentially present within the project study area. While

these species were not observed during any field assessment, habitat for both the Mabees and Tiger

salamanders as well as the Canebrake rattlesnake appears to be present. VaFWIS identified WAP

(wildlife action plan) tier II predicted habitat as being present for all three state listed species within

the project study area (see Table 1). There are also potential habitat occurrences within the project

study area for Harpers Fimbry, a state listed endangered plant.

Wildlife Refuges: USFWS IPaC shows no Wildlife Refuges within the project study area.

Effective 11/19/2015 17

Climate: Greenhouse gases (GHG) are gases that trap heat in the earths atmosphere. Both naturally

occurring and man-made GHGs primarily include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous

oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Activities that require fuel or

power are the primary stationary sources of GHGs at airports. Aircraft and ground access vehicles

which are not under the control of an airport, typically generate more GHG emissions than airport

controlled sources.

Research has shown there is a direct correlation between fuel combustion and GHG emissions. In

terms of U.S. contributions, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that "domestic aviation

contributes about three percent of total carbon dioxide emissions, according to EPA data,"

compared with other industrial sources including the remainder of the transportation sector (20%)

and power generation (41%).12 The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) estimates that

GHG emissions from aircraft account for roughly three percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions

globally.13 Climate change due to GHG emissions is a global phenomenon; therefore, the affected

environment is the global climate.

Coastal Resources: The project study area is located within the Virginia Coastal Zone Management

Area14, which includes the majority of Tidewater Virginia (Code of Virginia 28.2-100). The

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (P.L. 105-70, as amended) and Special Purpose

Law 15 CFR, Part 930 require that development projects in the coastal zone comply to the

maximum extent practicable with approved state coastal management programs. The project study

area is not located in the area covered by Virginias Coastal Barrier Resources System.15

Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f): The McReynolds Athletic Complex is the closest

Section 4(f) property to the project study area. Located about 1 mile east of the project study area,

the park features lighted athletic fields including: Instructional Soccer Fields, Regulation Soccer

Fields, Youth Baseball/Softball Fields, Adult Softball Field, and Adult Baseball Field. Park

amenities include concession/restroom buildings, playgrounds, picnic shelters, vending machines,

over two miles of multipurpose paths, and bike lane.

See the Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources portion of this section for a description of historic and potentially historic resources within the project study area.

Farmlands: The project study area does not contain any active farmland. A soils report was generated for the project study area using the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey Program (see Attachment D). This program is used to identify soil types in the project study area which may be identified as unique or prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance. The Soil Survey Report identified tracts of land within the project study area as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance (see

12 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Aviation and Climate Change, Aircraft Emissions Expected to Grow, but

Technological and Operational Improvements and Government Policies Can Help Control Emissions, GAO 09-554,

June 2009, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09554.pdf, accessed September 2015. 13 Melrose, Alan, European ATM and Climate Adaptation: A Scoping Study, ICAO Environmental Report, 2010,

http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/EnvironmentReport-2010/ICAO_EnvReport10-Ch6_en.pdf,

pg. 195-198, accessed September 2015. 14 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia Coastal Zone Management Area,

http://www.deq.state.va.us/Programs/CoastalZoneManagement/DescriptionBoundary.aspx, accessed November 2015. 15 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Coastal Barrier Resources System Mapper,

http://www.fws.gov/cbra/Maps/Mapper.html, accessed November 2015.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09554.pdfhttp://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/EnvironmentReport-2010/ICAO_EnvReport10-Ch6_en.pdfhttp://www.deq.state.va.us/Programs/CoastalZoneManagement/DescriptionBoundary.aspxhttp://www.fws.gov/cbra/Maps/Mapper.html

Effective 11/19/2015 18

Table 2). As described previously, the project study area is 220 acres. The 177 acres of farmland soil types described in correspondence with the NRCS (see Attachment D) equals the area of proposed land development; not the total of the project study area (220 acres). The acreage difference is the land within the project study area that would not be suitable for farming (i.e., too wet, poor drainage, and/or critical habitat). (Section 6(f)) discusses this in greater detail.

Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention: Ground examination of the project study area disclosed that the location was free and clear of hazardous materials and toxic substances. The overall natural environment of the area is clean with no evidence of trash and unnatural debris in the area. Review of the EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck confirms the findings (see the EDR Report in Attachment E of this Short EA Form).

Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources: For the purpose of this Short EA Form, the direct area of potential effect (APE) is the project study area and the indirect APE is a 0.5-mile buffer around the direct APE (for potential visual effects).

The closest property listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the Warwick County Courthouses, about three miles southwest of the project study area. An archives search was completed with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) (see Attachment F for the archives search results). According to the VDHRs records, the direct APE and portion of the indirect APE are within a potential National Register Boundary associated with the Battle of Yorktown. Based on the VDHRs records and previous surveys completed as part of non-Airport related projects, there are a number of historical, archaeological, and cultural resources in the indirect project study area (see Attachment F). According to the previous surveys, these resources are artifacts that have been discovered within the ground, or structural foundations of buildings that were previously torn down.

Land Use: The project study area includes Airport property and is consistent with York Countys land use and economic development plan. The existing land use is a mix of Conservation and Limited Industrial Use (see Figure 5). The County Comprehensive Plan identifies the 2035 use of the project study area as a mix of Limited Industrial and General Business. The York County Comprehensive Plan definitions of these land uses are described below.

Conservation: The Conservation designation is intended primarily to recognize parkland, watershed areas surrounding current or potential public water supply reservoirs, and similar reserved areas and ensure their protection. For the most part, these areas are in a natural state and contribute positively to the perception of a rural atmosphere. The Conservation designation is intended as a policy statement to indicate the County's commitment to the proper management and protection of these unique areas as well as other environmentally sensitive areas.

While Conservation designation areas are controlled by the federal or state government and are not

subject to local land use regulations, such areas should in most situations be placed in the least

intensive zoning classification in order to ensure their proper management and protection. This will

ensure that almost any development, unless it is of extremely low intensity, will be reviewed by the

Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors through the rezoning process.

Effective 11/19/2015 19

Table 2

Project Study Area Soil Analysis

Map

Unit Name

Project*

Acreage

Elevation

(feet)

Farmland

Classification Slope

Depth to

Restrictive

Feature

(inches)

Depth to

Water Table

(inches)

Drainage

Class Runoff Class Flooding Ponding

16 Izagora

loam 55.20 30 350

All areas are

Prime

Farmland

0-3% More than

80 About 18-36

Moderately

well

drained

Very low None None

5 Bethera

silt loam 48.3 30-120

Is not prime

farmland. 0-2%

More than

80 About 0

Poorly

drained Negligible None Rare

38

Yemassee

fine sandy

loam

19.1 0-120 Prime

Farmland if

Drained

0-2% More than

80 About 12-18

Somewhat

poorly

drained

Very low None None

29A

Slagle fine

sandy

loam

14.8 30-350 All areas are

Prime

Farmland

0-2% More than

80% About 18-36

Moderately

well

drained

Very low None None

29B

Slagle fine

sandy

loam


Prime

Farmland

2-6% More than

80 About 18-36

Moderately

well

drained

Low None None

27 Peawick

silt loam 10.5 20-350

Farmland of

Statewide

Importance

0-3% More than

80% About 18-36

Moderately

well

drained

Low None None

14B

Emporia

fine sandy

loam


Prime

Farmland

2-6% More than

80% About 36-54

Well

drained Very low None None

11C

Craven-

uchee

complex

3.7 200-700 Farmland of

Statewide

Importance

Craven Farmland of

Statewide

Importance

6-10% More than

80 24-36

Moderately

well

drained

High None None

Uchee Farmland of

Statewide

Importance

6-10% More than

80 About 42-60

Well

drained Very low None None

15D Emporia

complex 4.9 20-150

Farmland of

Statewide

Importance

10-

15%

More than

80 About 36-54

Well

drained Low None None

17 Johnston

complex 0.1 0-150

Not prime

farmland 0-2%

More than

80 About 0 Very poor Very low Frequent Frequent

TOTAL 177 Source: USDA, NRCS Custom Soil Resource Report for James City and York Counties and the City of Williamsburg, VA, PHF Denbigh Blvd. EA, 27 October 2015

*Note The initial area of interest coordinated with the NRCS was 239.4 acres. The total acreage (177 acres) equals the area of proposed land development;

not the total of the project study area (220 acres).

Effective 11/19/2015 20

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Effective 11/19/2015 21

Limited Industrial: According to the York County Comprehensive Plan and the York County letter

dated November 2, 2015 (see Attachment A-2), this zoning designation is intended to provide

opportunities for a variety of industrial activities of low to moderate intensity whose operations will

have relatively low impacts in terms of smoke, noise, vibration, or similar factors. Desirable

features of areas encompassed by this designation include full transportation access (e.g., highway,

rail, water, air), available utilities, and favorable soil conditions.

Figure 5

York County Land Use

General Business: The General Business designation is intended to provide opportunities for retail

and other commercial uses oriented primarily toward supplying goods or services for a community

or regional market. The scope of commercial activities envisioned by this designation would

include uses that need access to arterial highways. The high intensity activity levels envisioned by

this designation dictate that it be located with a full understanding of the potential impacts on

adjacent residential and commercial development and traffic and circulation patterns.

As Figure 6 shows, the majority of the project study area is zoned as Limited Industrial (IL) with

potential uses including: wholesaling and warehousing activities, limited manufacturing and

Effective 11/19/2015 22

assembly and recycling centers, agriculture, aquaculture.16 The western portion of the project study

area is zoned as General Business (GB) with potential uses including: broad range of retail

commercial uses, shopping centers, fast food establishments, business and professional services,

and automotive services.

Figure 6

York County Zoning

As the York County letter dated November 2, 2015 describes, the project study area is also within

the FAA Part 77 surfaces for the Airport and is subject to special height limitations set forth in the

Airport Safety Management (ASM) overlay district (see Attachment A-2).

Natural Resources and Energy Supplies: The project study area is currently undeveloped and

heavily vegetated. The project study area is entirely on Airport property and the Commission does

not obtain natural resources (e.g., wood, water) from this area. The project study area is within the

limits of York County, in which the electricity supplier is Dominion Virginia Power and natural gas

16 York County General Ordinances of the County,

https://www.yorkcounty.gov/portals/0/code/code.pdf, accessed December 2015.

https://www.yorkcounty.gov/portals/0/code/code.pdf

Effective 11/19/2015 23

supplier, where available, is Virginia Natural Gas.17 Aside from power for roadway lighting, power

is not currently supplied to the project study area.

Noise and Compatible Land Use: The project study area is within the Airports DNL 65 and 70

dBA contours. The project study area is zoned as limited industrial and general business, which is

compatible with the noise levels of the area.

Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Childrens Environmental Health and Safety Risks:

The project study area is entirely within the U.S. Census Tract 503.06 for York County. About 24%

of the population within the Census Tract are minorities and about nine percent of the population

are below the poverty level. With regard to transportation, Denbigh Boulevard is the only roadway

within the project study area. According to the York County Comprehensive Plan, the portion of

Denbigh Boulevard that intersects the project study area had an afternoon (PM) peak hour level of

service (LOS) of E18 in 2010.19 The York County Comprehensive Plan and the 2034 Long Range

Transportation Plan forecast that the LOS would remain at E in 2034.20

Visual Environment: The project study area is primarily undeveloped and heavily vegetated, with

the exception of areas that have been cleared for utility right-of-ways and roadways. Aside from

safety lighting on utility lines and roadway lighting, there are no light emissions from the project

study area.

Water Resources: The project study area contains multiple Grafton ponds. Many of these ponds

possess similar characteristics to those associated with the nearby Grafton Ponds Natural Area

Preserve, located two miles north of the study area.21

Wetlands: The result of the project study area wetland delineation identified about 32 acres of

Palustrine Forested (PFO) wetlands, about 159 feet of intermittent stream segments, about 1,505

feet of jurisdictional ditches, an about 364 feet of ephemeral stream segments. Coastal Plain

Wetlands consist of a diverse group of poorly-drained basin wetlands is characteristic of flat

Coastal Plain terraces with fluctuating, seasonally perched water tables. Similar wetlands are

scattered throughout the mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. The best-documented examples of this group in

Virginia are the Grafton Ponds, located on The Peninsula in York County, but other sizeable

complexes occur on Coastal Plain terraces in Dinwiddie, Surry, Isle of Wight, Gloucester, and

Matthews Counties.22 17 York County, Virginia, New Resident Checklist,

http://www.yorkcounty.gov/CountyGovernment/Administration,County/PublicInformationOffice/NewResident/NewRe

sidentsChecklist.aspx, accessed October 2015. 18 There are six LOS with letter designations of A through F. LOS A represents the best operating conditions and LOS F

represents the worst (gridlock). LOS A through D are considered acceptable operating conditions, while LOS E and F

are considered unacceptable. 19 York County, The County of York Comprehensive Plan: Charting the Course to 2035,

https://www.yorkcounty.gov/CountyGovernment/Administration,County/Planning/ComprehensivePlan/2012Comprehe

nsivePlanReviewandUpdate.aspx, Sept 2013, accessed April 2016. 20 Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, 2034 Long Range Transportation Plan,

http://hrtpo.org/page/2034-long-range-transportation-plan/, accessed April 2016. 21 The November 2, 2015 letter from York County describes that the project study area intersects a portion of the

Grafton Ponds Natural Area Preserve. Upon further research, it is confirmed that the project study area does not

intersect the Grafton Ponds Natural Area Preserve. 22 VDCR, The Natural Communities of Virginia Classification of Ecological Community Groups,

http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/natural-communities/ncpiiia, accessed November 2015.

http://www.yorkcounty.gov/CountyGovernment/Administration,County/PublicInformationOffice/NewResident/NewResidentsChecklist.aspxhttp://www.yorkcounty.gov/CountyGovernment/Administration,County/PublicInformationOffice/NewResident/NewResidentsChecklist.aspxhttps://www.yorkcounty.gov/CountyGovernment/Administration,County/Planning/ComprehensivePlan/2012ComprehensivePlanReviewandUpdate.aspxhttps://www.yorkcounty.gov/CountyGovernment/Administration,County/Planning/ComprehensivePlan/2012ComprehensivePlanReviewandUpdate.aspxhttp://hrtpo.org/page/2034-long-range-transportation-plan/http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/natural-communities/ncpiiia

Effective 11/19/2015 24

A wetland delineation report has been submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for

preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (JD). Both wetland delineation report and the Preliminary

JD are included in this Draft Short EA Form (see Table 3, Figure 7, and Attachment C-2). As the

York County Wetlands Board letter dated October 26, 2015 describes, there are no tidal wetlands

within the project study area and the property is therefore outside of the jurisdiction of the Wetlands

Board (see Attachment A-2). Additionally, as the November 2, 2015 York County letter describes,

there are no Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) and about 0.28 acre of a Resource Management

Area (RMA) as defined by York County in the project study area (see Figure 8 and Attachment A-

2).

Floodplains: The project study area is outside the limits of the 100-year flood zone (Areas A and

AE) identified on FEMAs Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (Map # 5119C0136D and

5119C138D).

Surface Waters: Portions of the wetlands delineated within the project study area possess

characteristics associated with coastal plain pond complexes, and resemble those associated with the

nearby Grafton Ponds Natural Preserve Area. There are three unnamed streams within the project

study area, all located within the 200 acres proposed for release. According to the City of Newport

News in their letter dated November 9, 2015, the stream that crosses the northernmost portion of the

200 acres proposed for release ends at Harwoods Mill Reservoir (see Attachment A-2).

Precipitation falling within the boundaries of the project study area flows to Harwoods Mill

Reservoir and eventually to the Poquoson River and finally to the lower Chesapeake (HUC

02080108).

As the November 9, 2015 City of Newport News letter describes, Newport News Waterworks

(Waterworks) supplies water to more than 400,000 customers in the region, including portions of

York County (see Attachment A-2). Waterworks owns Harwoods Mill Reservoir, which is

adjacent to the 200 acres proposed for release. The USEPA identifies the Poquoson River, which

intersects the Harwoods Mill Reservoir, as an impaired stream (see Attachment A-2 for the

USEPA letter dated November 9, 2015). The Poquoson River is impaired due to the presence of

copper from metals (other than mercury).23 The USEPA also identifies the Chesapeake Bay, a

receiving water of the Poquoson River, as an impaired waterbody.24 According to the Virginia

Department of Health Office of Drinking Water, there are two surface water intakes within five

miles of the project study area: the Harwood Mill facility and Lee Hall facility.

23 USEPA, 2014 Waterbody Report for Hardwood Mills Reservoir,

https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_list_id=VA-C07L-01-CU&p_cycle=2014, accessed

April 2016. 24 USEPA, NEPAssist, https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx?wherestr=newport+news%2C+va,

accessed April 2016.

https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_list_id=VA-C07L-01-CU&p_cycle=2014https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx?wherestr=newport+news%2C+va

Effective 11/19/2015 25

Table 3

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetlands

Classification

Code System Class Subclass Modifier System Class Subclass Modifier

Special

Modifier Acres

PFO1E Palustrine Forested

Broad-

Leaved

Deciduous

Seasonally

Flooded/Saturated - - - - - 12.2

PFO1A Palustrine Forested

Broad-

Leaved

Deciduous

Temporary

Flooded - - - - - 6.54

PFO1/4D Palustrine Forested

Broad-

Leaved

Deciduous

- 4.45

PFO1/4B Palustrine Forested

Broad-

Leaved

Deciduous

- Palustrine Forested Needle-Leaved

Evergreen

Water

Regime:

Saturated

- 2.89

PFO1F Palustrine Forested

Broad-

Leaved

Deciduous

Semipermanenetly

Flooded - - - - - 2.08

PFO1C Palustrine Forested

Broad-

Leaved

Deciduous

Seasonally

Flooded - - - - - 1.38

PFO1B Palustrine Forested

Broad-

Leaved

Deciduous

Saturated - - - - - .799

Subtotal 30.339

PSS1E Palustrine Scrub-

Shrub

Broad-

Leaved

Deciduous

Seasonally

Flooded/Saturated - - - - - 0.0688

Subtotal 0.688

PUBHx Palustrine

Unconsolid

ated

Bottom

- Permanently

Flooded - - - - Excavated .459

Subtotal .459

459Pf Palustrine - - Farmed - - - - - 2.87

TOTAL 33.7368 Source: USFWS Newport News Airport Land Release IPaC Trust Resource Report, October 8, 2015

Mill Creek Environmental Consultants, Ltd. Wetland Delineation, 2015.

Effective 11/19/2015 26

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Effective 11/19/2015 27

Figure 7

Preliminary Wetland Delineation with the Project Study Area

Effective 11/19/2015 28

Figure 8

Resource Protection Areas and Resource Management Areas

near the Project Study Area

The Chesapeake Bay is impaired because of the presence of various contaminants. These include,

but are not limited to, polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins and furans, pesticides, and metals and

metalloids. Detailed information regarding the types and occurrences of contaminants is available in

the 2012 Toxic Contaminants in the Chesapeake Bay and its Watershed: Extent and Severity of

Occurrence and Potential Biological Effects.25 Executive Order 13508 (74 Federal Register 23099),

Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, provides protection to the Chesapeake Bay with an

overall goal of restoring the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary waters.

25 US Environmental Protection Agency, US Geological Survey, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012 Toxic

Contaminants in the Chesapeake Bay and its Watershed: Extent and Severity of Occurrence and Potential Biological

Effects, USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD, December, 2012, 175 pages. Available at:

http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/ChesBayToxics_finaldraft_11513b.pdf.

http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/ChesBayToxics_finaldraft_11513b.pdf

Effective 11/19/2015 29

As the November 9, 2015 City of Newport News letter describes, there are several easements

running across the 200 acres proposed for release (see Attachment A-2). The easements include a

30-inch raw water pipeline that ends at an outfall along an intermittent stream in the project study

area, a residuals interplant pipeline that bisects the property, and an unused 20-inch raw water

pipeline along the western side of the property. The USACE owns the 20-inch raw water pipeline,

which was constructed to supply Big Bethel Reservoir. As the November 9, 2015 City of Newport

News letter describes, the outfall from a 48-inch raw water pipeline is located near the project study

area. At times, the outfall from delivers a very large volume of water and forms a fast flowing

stream (see Attachment A-2).

Groundwater: There are no designated Sole Source Aquifers in the project study area; however, as

the November 9, 2015 City of Newport News letter describes, a stream segment within the project

study area is included in the York County Watershed Management and Protection Area Overlay

District (WMP) (see Figure 9 and Attachment A-2). As the November 2, 2015 York County letter

(see Attachment A-2) describes, the WMP limits uses of land within the 200 and 500 buffers

established by York County Ordinance Sec. 24.1-376 in order to ensure the protection of

watersheds surrounding current or potential public water supply reservoirs. Precipitation falling

within the boundaries of the project study area would make its way to Harwoods Mill Reservoir,

which is within five miles of the project study area, and eventually to the Poquoson River and

finally to the lower Chesapeake Bay.

Wild and Scenic Rivers: The Commonwealth does not have any federally designated Wild and

Scenic Rivers. The closest Wild and Scenic River Segment is the Maurice River, about 170 miles

northeast of the project study area.26 The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

(VDCR) has designated 33 rivers totaling 815 miles in the Commonwealth as Scenic Rivers. The

closest Commonwealth designated Scenic River Segment is the Upper James River, about 9.5 miles

northwest of the project study area.27

26 NPS, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, http://www.rivers.gov/maps/conus.php, accessed October 2015. 27 VDCR, Scenic Rivers Program, http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational-planning/srmain, accessed December 2015

http://www.rivers.gov/maps/conus.phphttp://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational-planning/srmain

Effective 11/19/2015 30

Figure 9

Watershed Management and Protection Areas in and around the Project Study Area

Effective 11/19/2015 31

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):

Considering a reasonable range of options ensures that alternatives have not been prematurely

dismissed from consideration. As required by Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations

and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), reasonable alternatives includes taking no

action (the No Action Alternative).

Identification of Reasonable Alternatives

The Commissions sale of up to about 200 acres, lease of up to about 20 acres of non-aeronautical

use Airport property, and avigation easement acquisition would not directly impact environmental

resources subject to special purpose laws (e.g., Executive Order 11988, the Floodplain Management

or Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands and DOT Order 5660.1A, Preservation of the

Nation's Wetlands). The Commissions selling or leasing of Airport property could result in indirect

environmental impacts as a result development by the new property owner(s)/developer(s) or

lessee(s) (see Section 6 of this EA for further details). FAA Order 1050.1F, Paragraph 6-2.1 states:

An EA may limit the range of alternatives to the proposed action and no action when there are no

unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. In the absence of

unresolved conflicts, the consideration of other alternatives to avoid or minimize potential impacts

to these resources are not warranted.

No Action Alternative. As noted in the CEQ Memorandum: Forty Most Asked Questions

Concerning CEQs National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, analysis of the No Action

Alternative provides a benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare the magnitude of

environmental effects of the action alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, the Commission

would not sell or lease vacant non-aeronautical Airport property north of Runway 2-20.

Proposed Project. The Proposed Project is the selling of up to about 200 acres and the leasing of up

to about 20 acres of vacant non-aeronautical Airport property north of Runway 2-20 for airport-

compatible, non-aeronautical use. With each sale up to about 200 acres and lease of up to about 20

acres of Airport property, an avigation easement(s) for the new owner/developer(s) would assure

development is compatible with Airport operations and meets FAA design standards for the

continued safe and secure use of the property.

Proposed Project would allow new owner(s)/developer(s) or lessees to construct a mixed-use of

development in accordance with the existing York County zoning. The Proposed Project would

enable the Commission to respond to market conditions in the Airport area as new

owner/developer(s) commit to the purchase, or long-term lease(s), of that area. This would allow

those entities to construct facilities to meet their respective needs, and those of the local clientele,

provided the development is compliant with FAR Part 77 guidelines and is compatible with airport

operations (i.e., would not result in a hazard to aviation operations). The Commission would not sell

or lease parcel(s) to a new owner/developer(s) who would use the land for purposes that are

incompatible with airport operations or that attract wildlife hazardous to aviation. The Proposed

Project would promote the Airports financial self-sufficiency by generating non-aeronautical

revenue through the sale and lease of Airport property not required for aeronautical use.

Effective 11/19/2015 32

Explanation

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative does not meet the stated Purpose and Need for

the Proposed Project. This alternative would not provide additional revenue for the Commission.

The No Action Alternative would avoid any potential environmental impacts. While the No Action

Alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need described in Section 3; it is retained for analysis,

as required by 40 CFR 1502.14(d), to serve as a baseline against which the potential impacts of the

Proposed Project and any reasonable alternatives are assessed.

Proposed Project. Under the Proposed Project, new owner/developer(s) or lessees would develop

up to 220 acres of available vacant Airport property north of Runway 2-20 (see Figure 2) in

accordance with an FAA approved avigation easement(s) for each transaction completed between

the Commission and the new property owner(s) or lessee(s). As part of each sale or lease

agreement, the Commission would include avigation easement(s) requiring new development to

comply with FAR Part 77 restrictions to ensure that development is compatible with Airport

operations and meets FAA design standards for the continued safe and secure use of the property.

In addition, the Commission would not sell or lease parcel(s) to a new owner/developer(s) that

would result in wildlife attractants near the Airport, thereby threatening the safety of aviation

operations. With the sale or lease of Airport property, the Commission would require provisions for

the new owner/developer(s) to comply with conditions that assure development would be

compatible with Airport operations, meet FAR Part 77 requirements for the continued safe and

secure use of the property, and not cause wildlife attractants.

In order for the construction of buildings/facilities and supporting infrastructure to occur, the new

owner/developer(s) would need to apply for applicable permits from York County and the

Commonwealth of Virginia. These permits would include, but are not limited to, a land disturbing

activity permit (which includes the submittal of an erosion and sediment control plan), building

permit, and a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit for construction

activities. These permits include various stipulations such as coordination with federal and state

agencies regarding potential environmental effects of the new owner/developer(s) proposed

development. The new owner/developer(s) would be responsible for obtaining necessary permits

and adhering to the provisions of each permit. The applicable provisions of permits that a new

owner/developer(s) would need to obtain are further discussed in the appropriate environmental

resource categories in Section 6 of this Short EA Form.

The Proposed Project would provide the Commission with non-aeronautical revenue from otherwise

vacant Airport property. The sale or lease of this property would not directly impact environmental

resource categories described in FAA Orders 1050.1F or 5050.4B. While development of the

property by a new owner/developer(s) could result in impacts to environmental resources, a new

owner/developer(s) has not identified a specific project. As a result, this Short EA Form assesses the

potential indirect effects of future development of the land to be sold (up to 200 acres) or leased (up

to 20 acres) based on the current limited industrial and general business zoning. These potential

indirect effects are described in Section 6.

Effective 11/19/2015 33

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

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.

No. The business transaction of selling of up to about 200 acres and leasing of up to 20 acres of

Airport property, including avigation easements would not directly cause or create an increase in

emissions.

An indirect effect of the Proposed Project would increase emissions during construction, as well as

during day-to-day access of the development once in operation. As previously described, the exact

development (including size and types of buildings/facilities) and associated number of potential

employees and/or customers is not known at this time. For that reason, this section provides a

qualitative analysis of the potential indirect air quality effects associated with the sale of about 200

acres and lease of up to 20 acres of Airport property. The Commission anticipates selling and

leasing the proposed land over a three-year period. The development of the land would occur over a

similar timeframe; however, no one project is anticipated to be constructed for greater than three

years.

As Section 4 describes, York County is subject to the VDEQs Maintenance Plan for the Hampton

Roads Nonattainment Area. Under an avigation easement associated with the release or lease of

Airport property, the new owner(s)/developers construction contractors could conduct construction

activities in accordance with the Maintenance Plan for Hampton Roads. Additionally, the

construction contractors could use best management practices (BMPs) during construction activities

in an effort to reduce emissions. These could include the:

regular maintenance of construction equipment;

prohibiting the idling of construction vehicles for longer than five minutes;

stabilizing construction roads; and/or

stabilizing vehicle staging areas, or requiring that vehicles park on paved areas.

With regards to the operation of future development, the York County Comprehensive Plan,

Charting the Course to 2035, the project study area is zoned as Limited Industrial and a land use

designation of Limited Industrial and General Business. As noted in the November 2, 2015 letter

from York County during early coordination efforts (see Attachment A-2), this land use

designation is intended to provide opportunities for a variety of industrial activities with low to

moderate intensity whose operations would have relatively low impacts in terms of smoke, noise,

vibration, or similar factors. Other sources of air emissions potentially associated with land

Effective 11/19/2015 34

development include electrical usage (onsite generation of electricity using coal, oil or natural gas),

refrigerants (chemicals used for refrigeration or air conditioning), and waste management

(emissions associated with solid waste generation). The increase in vehicular traffic to and from the

potential future development could increase the areas emissions. This development would be

limited to a maximum of 220 acres, which would not represent a major new employment center in

the region. This scale of development is likely to draw employees and customers from the regional

cities and counties included in the Hampton Roads area (e.g., the cities of Chesapeake, Hampton,

Newport News, Norfolk, Poquoson, Suffolk, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg and the Counties of

James City, Gloucester, and Isle of Wight). The potential increase in local traffic would not

constitute an increase in regional traffic and traffic-related emissions of the Hampton Roads area.

Given the existing programs and regulations in effect to ensure that the area remains in attainment

for the NAAQS and that operation of future development would have to comply with the

Maintenance Plan for the Hampton Roads Nonattainment Area, the operation of future development

in the project study area is not anticipated to cause significant effects to air quality.

(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 (3); if yes, an analysis of ambient pollutant concentrations may be

necessary. Contact your local ADO regarding how to proceed with the analysis.

No. The Proposed Project does not contain any known project components with unusual

circumstances. There are no known unusual circumstances as a result of the indirect effects.

(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. As Section 4 describes, the Proposed Project is located in a maintenance area for 1-hour ozone.

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 (5).

No. The Proposed Project and potential future development are not listed as exempt or presumed to

conform.

(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 Section 6(A)(1), the Commission anticipates selling the land over an estimated three year

period. Taking into consideration compliance with the Maintenance Plan for Hampton Roads and

the states air quality regulations, staggering construction years, and use of BMPs, the annual

emissions from the indirect effect of potential development would not represent a net increase in

regional activity.

Effective 11/19/2015 35

(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?

Yes. According to the USFWS IPaC, VDGIF and VaFWIS, candidate, threatened, or endangered

species could potentially exist in or near the project study area (see Table 1). State listed species

including the Eastern Tiger Salamander, Canebrake Rattlesnake, and Mabees Salamander were not

observed during field visits of the project study area.

(2) Will the action have any long-term or permanent loss of unlisted plants or wildlife species?

No. The Proposed Project (selling of up to about 200 acres and leasing of up to 20 acres of Airport

property, with associated avigation easements) would not have any direct long-term or permanent

loss of unlisted plants or wildlife species. An indirect effect of the Proposed Project (development

of the land) could affect unlisted plants or wildlife species located within the project study area.

Species nesting within the project study area would be impacted by the Proposed Project.

(3) Will the action adversely impact any species of concern or their habitat?

Federally Listed Species

No. Based on the USFWS IPaC Online Project review, the Proposed Project would not affect and/or

is not likely to adversely affect federally protected species or critical habitat (see Attachment C).

State Listed Species

No. Mixed pine-hardwood forests as well as palustrine forested wetlands (PFO) typically associated

with the Canebrake Rattesnake are present throughout the project study area. The Proposed Project

would not adversely affect state listed species. Indirect impacts to this habitat may affect, but not

likely to adversely affect, this state endangered species.

The Eastern Tiger Salamander and Mabees Salamander have the potential to be located within the

project study area. Impacts to this type habitat may affect, but not adversely affect the state

endangered Eastern Tiger Salamander and state threatened Mabees Salamander.

Development over one acre would require the new owner/developer(s) to apply for a VPDES

construction permit. The application process includes notifying federal and state agencies with

jurisdiction over fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources of the draft permit (9VAC25-870-530).

Those agencies would have an opportunity to provide comments regarding the issuance of a

VPDES construction permit for that development. Similar requirements are also associated with any

USACE nationwide permit or Section 404 permit that a new owner/developer(s) may seek. The

coordination could result in a species survey, mitigation based on presumed presence of T&E