![](media/image1.png){width="7.436111111111111in" height="10.14375in"}

Draft\
Environmental Impact Statement

For The

Rocky Mountain Laboratories

Master Plan

Department of Health and Human Services

National Institutes of Health

sEPTEMBER 2008

Draft\
Environmental Impact Statement\
Rocky Mountain Laboratories Master Plan

National Institutes of Health

Ravalli County

Hamilton, Montana

SEPTEMBER 2008

+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Responsible Official:  | Daniel Wheeland                             |
|                        |                                             |
|                        | Director, Office of Research Facilities     |
|                        | Development and Operations                  |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| For Further            | Valerie Nottingham                          |
| Information, Contact:  |                                             |
|                        | NIH, B13/2S11                               |
|                        |                                             |
|                        | 9000 Rockville Pike                         |
|                        |                                             |
|                        | Bethesda, MD 20892                          |
|                        |                                             |
|                        | Fax (301) 480-8056                          |
|                        |                                             |
|                        | nihnepa@mail.nih.gov                        |
+------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

Abstract

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is developing a 20-year Master
Plan at Rocky Mountain Laboratories (RML) in Hamilton, Montana. The
Master Plan is part of broader long-term planning effort at the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and is a requirement for
all HHS owned campuses. The plan outlines a strategy for accommodating
potential campus development subject to NIH and HHS priorities and the
availability of resources. It also serves as a guide for the development
of individual projects. The Master Plan will also assist local
jurisdictions and utilities in anticipating and planning for
infrastructure and systems as they relate to the needs of RML.

Three alternatives were considered in detail in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement: the Proposed Action Alternative, the Capacity Growth
Alternative, and the No Action Alternative (continue current RML
operations).

The agency's preferred alternative is the Proposed Action Alternative.
The public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
will close 60 days after the Notice of Availability appears in the
Federal Register. Comments should be sent to Valerie Nottingham at the
above address.

# Summary

## Background {#background .Style-Heading-2-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\"}

The Rocky Mountain Laboratories (RML) is a 33-acre facility located in
Hamilton, Montana. It is occupied by the National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), one of the 27 Institutes or Centers of
the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Three alternatives were considered in detail in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS): the Proposed Action Alternative, the Capacity
Growth Alternative, and No Action Alternative (continue current RML
operations). The objective of this DEIS is to provide NIH with
sufficiently detailed information to decide whether to proceed with its
Proposed Action given its anticipated environmental consequences and
those of other reasonable courses of action.

The RML Master Plan provides a long-range planning envelope for the RML
campus, and outlines a strategy for accommodating potential campus
development subject to future NIH priorities and the availability of
resources. It identifies the physical opportunities and limitations of
the campus and projects future staff population and associated
facilities for planning purposes. It recognizes, however, that actual
program realization at any given time will depend on NIH and HHS
priorities, congressional and presidential policy decisions and federal
budgetary realities. Although the proposed projects may not be required
or carried out to the extent shown in this plan, the Master Plan will
help ensure orderly future development of the campus if and as it
occurs.

Furthermore, while the Master Plan is a reasonable guideline for future
development it does not represent the pre-approval of any individual
facilities project, nor the particular needs of specific programs to be
accommodated on the campus, since the financing of such projects and
programs must be addressed within the annual HHS budget processes and
the HHS Capital Investment Review Board mechanisms.

## Purpose of and Need for Action {#purpose-of-and-need-for-action .Style-Heading-2-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\"}

The HHS requires that NIH facilities have a Master Plan; however, there
currently is no official Master Plan for the RML campus. In addition,
factors such as the construction of Building 28, associated established
physical security requirements, concerns in the Hamilton area about
growth, and increased interest within the local community regarding
activities on the RML campus have made clear the need for greater
coordinated development of the campus. In order to accomplish the NIH
mission, NIH has decided to prepare updated long-range facilities plans
for all its campuses to address issues of facility requirements, prudent
land use, and orderly future development.

The Master Plan contains information and recommendations to guide
development of individual projects. It also serves as a means of
informing city and county officials and utilities of future RML
development plans so they can anticipate and plan for the potential
effects of RML proposals on their systems.

The plan is not intended to be a specific design and construction
program, but rather a base within which design and construction can
occur for actual projects in the next twenty years as the programmatic
needs upon which the plan is based arise. Nor does it attempt to
anticipate unpredictable budgets, or congressional and presidential
priorities and mandates. The objective has been to base the Master Plan
solely on the NIH's best estimate of scientific program and
infrastructure needs in the future on the premise that the more
inclusive the plan, the more receptive it would be to a variety of
future development possibilities.

Finally, the Master Plan is needed to inform the public of future
development and operations that may occur at the RML campus, and RML's
intentions for minimizing its effects on the local community.

The RML Master Plan seeks to create and maintain a campus environment
conducive to accomplishing the NIH, NIAID, and RML missions while
providing a physical framework for the changing character, nature, and
urgency of RML's biomedical research programs. While the Master Plan is
a reasonable guideline for future development, it does not represent the
pre-approval of any individual facilities or the particular needs of
specific programs to be accommodated on the campus.

The goals of the plan are to support:

-   An attractive campus whose setting and composition promote collegial
    interaction and opportunities for informal collaboration and
    conversation.

-   A flexible framework for development of the campus, one that can
    adapt to the potential needs of current and future RML and NIAID
    programs over time.

-   A campus that affords a secure, supportive, and convenient work
    environment for RML personnel, with amenities that enhance the
    quality of life for staff.

-   Enhanced appearance of the RML campus to complement the surrounding
    residential community.

-   Protected and enhanced natural, historic, and scenic resources at
    RML.

-   Enhanced communication about NIH goals and policies.

## Location of Proposed Action and Capacity Growth Action Alternatives {#location-of-proposed-action-and-capacity-growth-action-alternatives .Style-Heading-2-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\"}

The RML campus is located in Hamilton, Montana, in Ravalli County in
western Montana's Bitterroot Valley, approximately 46 miles south of
Missoula east of the Bitterroot River in the southwest portion of
Hamilton (see Error: Reference source not found in the main text).

## Scope {#scope .Style-Heading-2-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\"}

The scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is defined
by the purpose and need and by HHS procedures and authority. The scope
(40 CFR 1508.25) consists of the range of actions, alternatives,
environmental issues, and impacts discussed in the DEIS.

## Decision to Be Made  {#decision-to-be-made .Style-Heading-2-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\"}

Based on the environmental analysis, public comments on the DEIS, and
consideration of other factors, NIH will decide whether to proceed with
the Proposed Action or one of the other alternatives.

The scope of this DEIS is confined to issues and potential environmental
consequences relevant to the above decisions.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires consideration of
environmental effects and prescribes mitigation where practical to limit
those effects. Reconsideration of previous NIH/RML decisions or
programmatically prescribing mitigation or standards for future NIH/RML
activities is beyond the scope of this document.

## Alternatives Considered in Detail {#alternatives-considered-in-detail .Style-Heading-2-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\"}

Three alternatives were evaluated in detail; they include the Proposed
Action, the Capacity Growth Alternative and the No Action Alternative.

## Proposed Action Alternative  {#proposed-action-alternative .Style-Heading-2-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\"}

The Proposed Action Alternative is one of the development alternatives
for a long-range physical Master Plan for RML. This alternative covers a
20-year planning period, with reviews every 5 years to ensure that the
plan continues to address issues affecting the campus. The Proposed
Action Alternative addresses the future development of the RML site,
including placement of future construction; vehicular and pedestrian
circulation on and off-campus; parking within the property boundaries;
open space in and around the campus; required setbacks; historic
properties; natural and scenic resources; noise; and lighting. This
alternative accounts for potential growth in RML personnel, possible
land acquisitions, and consequent construction of space over the
planning period. Future construction on the site could include such
facilities as new animal holding, research laboratories, and support
facilities.

NIH would continue to develop RML to accommodate NIH's and NIAID's
research needs and required programmatic adjacencies consistent with the
commitment to maintain the "campus" character of the site. The Proposed
Action Alternative advances this objective by programming and locating
future RML growth so that local services and utilities are available to
support growth, and establishing development guidelines for future
changes to the site that ensure that as the campus grows new development
would be responsive to the context of adjacent neighborhoods or
developments.

Under this Proposed Action Alternative, RML population is anticipated to
grow in the next twenty years to a total campus population of 427. The
primary growth at the campus would be in intramural research personnel
and the administrative and facility staff to support them.

#### Site Development {#site-development .unnumbered}

The Proposed Action Alternative uses personnel growth estimates and
assessments of existing deficiencies to determine net and gross area
requirements. **Table S-1** compares the land requirements for all the
alternatives discussed in this DEIS.

  ------------------------ ------------- ----------------- -----------------
  Table S-1\                                               
  Summary of Alternative                                   
  Land Requirements                                        

                           No Action     Proposed Action   Capacity Growth
                           Alternative   Alternative       Alternative

  RML size (acres)         33            36                36

  Developed area (acres)   9             17                18

  Open, undisturbed area   24            19                18
  (acres)                                                  

  Proposed occupied        323,805       445,713           530,494
  building area gross                                      
  square feet (gsf)                                        
  ------------------------ ------------- ----------------- -----------------

*Campus Upgrades*

Upgrades could include the replacement of obsolete buildings (to be
demolished). Much of the building area growth would be accommodated
through construction of a central administrative and storage building to
replace obsolete buildings and those located within the site standoff
area; expanded animal facilities south of Building 25; a new research
laboratory building west of Building 28; and consolidation of
maintenance facilities support activities in the southwest corner of the
buildable site area. Solid waste management facilities would be
constructed just inside the service entrance and opposite Building 29,
the Shipping and Receiving Building. Central plant expansion and
improvements would include consolidated and expanded generator capacity
at Building 27.

All new development follows the orthogonal grid initially generated by
the Historic Core and subsequent Buildings 13, 25, and 28. This pattern
is continued and built on with the placement of new buildings.
Advantages of developing the campus on a grid system include ease of
integration with existing orthogonally oriented structures, efficiency
of land use, economical integration with, and extension of, the utility
distribution system, and the acknowledgment and further establishment of
a clearly defined pattern to guide future growth.

The primary concept for building massing on the RML Campus is the
concentration of the tallest structures at the center of the campus,
with a transition in height to lower buildings toward the perimeter. The
Proposed Action Alternative establishes the Quad (Buildings 1, 2, 3, 5,
6, 7, and A) and Building 28 as the framework, with buildings and open
spaces built around them and all parts of the campus linked into an
orthogonal grid. The core of the campus has a denser character; while
buildings near the perimeter are set at more generous spacing within the
landscape.

The primary concept underlying the functional relationships in the
Proposed Action Alternative is the idea of locating the research
laboratories in close proximity to animal facilities and the animal
facilities immediately adjacent to each other. In turn, these central
laboratory/animal facilities are flanked on the north by administrative
and supply support and on the west by the maintenance complex.

Future buildings on the RML campus would have a minimum clearance of 30
feet from other structures to provide for fire separation and emergency
vehicle access. Primary access within the site is the loop road.
Emergency north-south travel can be accommodated through the Central
Pedestrian Concourse and between the Quad and Building 13.

In addition, planned acquisition of property at the northeast corner of
the site would allow RML to develop a public information facility, to be
called the Interpretive Center. The center would consist of new
construction and the renovation of an existing log house. It would be
outside the protected site perimeter and with its own access and
parking.

A combination of renovation of existing structures and construction of
new facilities would be required to accommodate RML's future functional
needs. The increases in space would consist of new construction to
expand capacity, to replace obsolete facilities, or permit a
decompression or reassignment of space through renovation of existing
buildings. Renovations would occur within the Quad and Building 13 to
correct shared support, office, and storage deficiencies.

*Parking*

Parking at the south perimeter and within the historic core would be
retained and improved, and new surface parking would be provided along
the north perimeter within an expanded site created through private
property acquisitions. Under either the Proposed Action or the Capacity
Growth Alternative, RML would maintain adequate parking on site to meet
employee and visitor needs and to avoid parking shortages, which
encourage employees to park in residential neighborhoods. Parking is
planned (**Table S-2**) on the basis of one space per staff member, plus
new spaces at the visitor center, and the Interpretive Center.

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Table S- 2\                                     
  Summary of Parking                              
  Spaces by Alternative                           
  at Full Implementation                          
  in 20 Years                                     

  No Action Alternative   Proposed Action         Capacity Growth
                          Alternative             Alternative

  400 (376 employee, 24   461 (427 employee, 34   594 (560 employee, 34
  visitor)                visitor)                visitor)
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

*Access*

5^th^ Street service entrance would be restricted from further entry to
the site by vehicle barriers. All supplies are broken out and inspected
at the Shipping and Receiving Building and internally delivered by RML
staff. A new long term storage facility would be located within the
restricted service access area across from the Shipping and Receiving
Building.

Service access would be consolidated and simplified on the RML campus to
avoid conflicts with passenger vehicles, minimize the negative visual
impacts of multiple service areas, and enhance site security.

*Utilities*

A Master Utility Plan for RML is currently being prepared and will be
completed once the Master Plan and EIS are complete. In general, new
projects would be planned to minimize the interruption of utility
services to existing campus buildings. Additional attention would be
given to potential utility conflicts as noted below.

Principal steam lines run beneath the service drive between the Quad and
Buildings 13/13B, in the planned Central Pedestrian Concourse adjacent
to Buildings 13, 26, and 31, and to the west of Building 25. Many of
these lines are at their limit in terms of slope and would be retained
in their current location.

A critical chilled water line runs under the service drive between the
Quad and Buildings 13/13B and under the planned Pedestrian Concourse.

A six-inch gas main enters the site and runs under the proposed loop
road from the vicinity of the proposed Long Term Storage Facility to
Building 26. This is a critical utility that future construction would
avoid disturbing.

Critical underground power lines run under the proposed Pedestrian
Concourse, between Buildings 30 and 31, between the Quad and Buildings
13/13B, north of Building 28, between Buildings 28 and 25, west of
Buildings 28 and 25, south of the ARMCO (American Rolling Mill Company)
buildings, and in the western portion of the campus roughly on axis with
the central Pedestrian Concourse. Construction projects that would
affect these lines will retain service to existing buildings throughout
construction.

Critical water mains run around the Quad, under the Central Pedestrian
Concourse and around the east, north and west sides of Building 28. The
Proposed Action Alternative or Capacity Growth Alternative would not
adversely affect these lines. The water supply has sufficient capacity
to meet campus fire flow requirements. Additional booster pumps are to
be installed at individual buildings where needed.

Critical sanitary sewer lines run under the parking area east of the
Quad, between the Quad and Buildings 13/13B, beneath the proposed
Pedestrian Concourse, south of Building 25, west of Buildings 25 and 28,
west of Building 29 and from Building 13B to the middle of the campus'
current northern boundary. No construction that would adversely affect
these lines is anticipated.

The West Power Plant (Building 27) would be expanded, and increased fuel
oil storage capacity provided in multiple, above-ground storage tanks.
These elements must remain inside the campus perimeter security
standoff. Additional security measures for these elements may also be
required at the direction of the NIH Division of Physical Security
Management.

The entire campus telephone and network system is fed from one Main
Distribution Frame located on the first floor of Building 6. At this
location is the main telephone PBX switch. All telephone service comes
from this location and switch. From this room, telephone tie cables are
provided to dedicated rooms for Intermediate Distribution Frames and
Building Distribution Frames located in other buildings. According to
Qwest Federal Services, the Qwest Hamilton central office is currently
unable to directly provide ISDN PRI or BRI circuits. These types of
circuits must be pulled from the Missoula office, which result in
Missoula numbers being assigned. If available, these services would
allow caller ID information to pass to RML telephone equipment to
digital display voice terminals. Features such as this may not be
mandatory, but would provide more efficient communications. Limited
services from the local Qwest office may affect some future
telecommunications functions at RML. However, RML's demand could prompt
upgrades of the local Qwest facilities.

*Security*

A new expanded perimeter fence with staffed and monitored entrance gates
and/or turnstiles to provide control of access to the campus would be
part of the security system. Additional openings in the perimeter
beyond, those planned, potentially tax personnel resources and physical
security. All new construction must comply with the *NIH Physical
Security Design Guidelines* to ensure the safety of persons and
research. Visitors would continue to be screened in the Visitor Center
and deliveries would be screened in the Shipping and Receiving Building.

*Circulation*

A pedestrian core would be created at the center of the campus. This
zone is enclosed within a loop road with campus entries for visitors and
staff at the current 4^th^ Street entrance; a service entrance at the
northeast corner near 5^th^ and Baker Streets; and an strictly emergency
egress from the new parking lot entrance established on 6^th^ Street at
the north side of the site. In the interior of the campus, a Central
Pedestrian Concourse is proposed that provides connections to the Quad
and administrative support center and Buildings 13, 25, and 28. This
concept is well suited for creating a "campus" atmosphere with spaces
and opportunities for random encounters and interaction. The vehicular
circulation concept for the campus perimeter is the loop road at the
building perimeter, outside the central pedestrian area, with access to
surface parking located outside the loop and primary building entrances
on the interior side of the road. The two existing entries to the
campus, the existing staff and visitor and service entrances from 4^th^
Street and 5^th^ and Baker Streets, respectively, would be retained. Two
new emergency exits would be provided; one from the north parking lot to
6^th^ Street and the other from the south parking lot to 4^th^ Street,
south of campus.

All major campus pedestrian pathways (such as the Central Pedestrian
Concourse) would be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles, and
landscape and path design would allow for a clear path of 16 feet
minimum width and 14 feet minimum height.

*Open Space and Land Use*

Construction would not occur within floodplains and/or wetlands within
the site. A 100-foot wide standoff and buffer setback area extends
around the site perimeter interrupted only along the southeast boundary
by existing surface parking, at the east side by existing Buildings 1,
6, 8, 9, and 11 in the Historic Core and to the north by the Shipping
and Receiving Building and new surface parking for staff. The open space
buffer zone would be maintained along the site perimeter, serving as a
visual buffer and a standoff distance to mitigate effects of any blast
originating on the border of the site. Open space and campus area
landscaping would incorporate native vegetation where applicable, to
provide an attractive setting while preserving needed views for
surveillance. Buffers would primarily be native landscaped open space.
Existing screen landscaping would remain and be enhanced with additional
native plantings designed to frame attractive views into the campus.
Surface parking is proposed at the north perimeter but no new structures
would be placed within this buffer zone.

Both the Proposed Action Alternative or Capacity Growth Alternative are
based on a combination of renovations of existing structures and
construction of new facilities. The increases in building space
represent only new construction to expand capacity, to replace obsolete
facilities or permit a decompression or reassignment of space through
renovation of existing buildings. The space totals do not identify
renovation that would be needed in buildings, such as the Quad and
Building 13, to correct existing deficiencies.

## Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative .Style-Heading-2-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\"}

The Capacity Growth Alternative assumes a higher level of employment and
space growth on the RML campus over the 20-year planning period than the
two other options. It is similar to the Proposed Action Alternative in
that it provides for the expansion of the campus boundaries to the north
and northeast, and the proposed functions are similar to those contained
in the Proposed Action. As in the Proposed Action, it assumes expansions
to utilities, improved open spaces, more support activities, new
employee amenities, and increased research and animal holding space. The
major difference between this option and the other two alternatives is
the intensity of development on the interior of the campus. It provides
for more employment and space growth than under either the Proposed
Action or No Action options. For example, parcels that are shown to
remain undeveloped under the Proposed Action are used for research
activities in the Capacity Growth Alternative.

## No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative .Style-Heading-2-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\"}

The No Action Alternative maintains the present course of action on the
campus; ongoing management and research functions would continue; and
those projects that have received approval or funding would proceed to
completion.

Ongoing activities anticipated under the No Action Alternative include:

-   Operation of Building 28;

-   Continued research, and operations and maintenance;

-   Operation of Building 31;

-   Consolidation of generators. Generators located on the east side of
    the campus would be moved to the west side and placed in series
    within an expanded Building 27.

-   Road improvements including a loop road; and,

-   Sidewalk and landscape improvements.

## Summary of Impacts {#summary-of-impacts .Style-Heading-2-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\"}

Analysis of potential impacts and mitigation measures associated with
the Proposed Action Alternative, the Capacity Growth Alternative, and No
Action Alternative is presented in Chapter 3 -- *Affected Environment
and Environmental Consequences.* The following is a summary of potential
impacts resulting from the Proposed Action Alternative, the Capacity
Growth Alternative, and No Action Alternative.

Master Planning began in 2005. The Master Plan refers to the baseline as
conditions in 2005. The DEIS uses the most recent available data for the
existing or current conditions. These are generally 2006 or 2008
conditions, and a reference year is provided.

Social Resources

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-1 .unnumbered}

The Proposed Action Alternative includes a 22 percent increase in the
number of RML staff from the 2008 level over 20 years and would not
affect the overall social environment in Hamilton. The additional 77
employees represent only a small portion of the Hamilton area
population. This population increase represents less than 1 percent of
the total projected increase in county residents, having little effect
on population trends in the area.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-1 .unnumbered}

The Capacity Growth Alternative includes a 62.5 percent increase in the
number of staff over 20 years (from 350 in 2008 to 560 in 2028), which
would not affect the overall social environment in Hamilton. The
additional 210 employees represent only a small portion of the Hamilton
area population. This population increase in Ravalli County would be 521
(assuming an average household size of 2.48 per new employee), which
represents less than 1 percent of the total projected increase in county
residents, having little effect on population trends in the area.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-1 .unnumbered}

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would increase staffing to
376, once fully staffed, although this increase would have no impact on
demographic trends in Hamilton or Ravalli County. Housing starts would
continue at the same pace as under the Proposed Action. Housing prices
or property values would be expected to remain at current levels and to
increase or decrease in accordance with general real estate market
trends in Hamilton.

Economic Resources

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-2 .unnumbered}

If the Proposed Action Alternative is fully implemented, up to 77 new
employees over the current (2008) 350 employees would be hired. The work
force would probably be recruited predominately at the national level
and from colleges and universities in Montana.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-2 .unnumbered}

If the Capacity Growth Alternative is fully implemented, up to 210 new
employees over the current (2008) 350 employees would be hired. It is
anticipated that the work force would be recruited predominately at the
national level and from colleges and universities in Montana.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-2 .unnumbered}

The No Action Alternative would result in direct, long-term economic
impacts that would be very similar to those described under the Proposed
Action Alternative. RML expansion associated with Buildings 28 and 31
would occur and thus the recruitment of new employees would occur at a
level similar to the Proposed Action Alternative.

Water and Wastewater

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-3 .unnumbered}

Based on the Proposed Action Alternative's estimated growth, water
consumption and wastewater discharge rates and volumes are expected to
increase.

####### Water Supply

Water use data from metered inflows and discharge flows from campus
buildings in 2006 through 2008 provides a general idea of future water
use for similar activities. Using historical data for different types of
buildings, water consumption can be estimated for the proposed future
facilities. Wastewater generation is assumed to follow similar
consumptive use trends as water supply.

Monthly average per gross square foot (gsf) water usage rates for each
building type at RML were multiplied by the gross square footage in the
implementation projection to estimate future water usage. Based on these
projections, water use would increase 89 percent from the 37.4 millions
gallons/year measured inflow to the campus in 2007/2008.

Increased water consumption by RML would contribute to increased
municipal supply demands by the City of Hamilton Department of Public
Works (CHDPW), although the increases are not expected to exceed the
capability of the system.

Campus expansion would be coordinated with the implementation of the RML
Environmental Management System that is in place. In an effort to
minimize waste and conserve resources, RML has formed a Water Management
Group that evaluates campus water consumption and brainstorms ways to
increase water use efficiency.

As Hamilton is a rapidly growing area, the city utility infrastructure
is in the process of being updated and expanded and would not be
negatively impacted by the future RML expansion described in the
Proposed Action Alternative.

####### Sanitary and Wastewater Treatment

The CHDPW Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is operating at or near
capacity. To meet increased solids storage and handling and to increase
throughput, the CHDPW is planning a facilities expansion. Increased
wastewater discharge from RML campus growth plans would compound the
CHDPW shortcomings with respect to increased throughput (and possible
solid storage) until the facility expansion is realized; however, the
WWTP upgrades are scheduled prior to major additions. No campus
expansion plans are contingent upon action by CHDPW.

The indirect consequences of wastewater discharge from the RML facility
to the CHDPW is that it will contribute to an increased total maximum
daily load from the WWTP; however, campus growth at RML is not expected
to result in any decrease in effluent water quality.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-3 .unnumbered}

The Capacity Growth Alternative would increase key campus facility
resources such as laboratory space, animal space, and central storage in
addition to consolidation of emergency generators and above ground fuel
storage. Campus researchers would increase to 321 personnel. Water use
would increase an estimated 127 percent over 2007/2008 conditions under
this development alternative.

It is likely that wastewater generation would follow similar growth
trends as consumptive use.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-3 .unnumbered}

The increases in water demand and wastewater discharge due to the No
Action Alternative (construction of Buildings 28 and 31, full complement
of staff and function, and correction of existing facility deficiencies)
will increase an estimated 30 percent over 2007/2008 water use.

The impacts and effects of RML development on local utilities would be
similar under the No Action Alternative as would under the Proposed
Action Alternative or Capacity Growth Alternative. Coordination with
utility service providers and development of the Utility Master Plan
would occur under the No Action Alternative in the similar manner as
described with the Proposed Action.

**Cumulative Effects**

The cumulative effects of the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action
Alternative and the Capacity Growth Alternative projections are similar;
increases in water consumption and wastewater disposal would increase
demand on limited water resources and increase water pollution loading.

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (Montana DEQ) is using a
watershed approach to facilitate development of water quality
restoration plans. Montana DEQ has divided the state into 91 watershed
planning areas and adopted a schedule for completing restoration plans
for all areas by December 2012. This watershed approach would be based
off total maximum daily load (TMDL). TMDL nutrient loading allocations
regulated through the Montana DEQ permitting process may force point
source contributors to develop best treatment practices to meet their
quota (Starr 2007).

Sustainable Building Development

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-4 .unnumbered}

All newly constructed and renovated buildings would have to be planned,
designed, and constructed in a way that ensures that environmental,
transportation, and energy related activities conform with the policies,
requirements, objectives and goals defined by Executive Order (EO)
13423, and the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA).

These requirements could be achieved by implementing sustainable
building practices allowing HHS to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
through energy efficiency, utilize at least 50 percent of its energy
from renewable sources, reduce water consumption, and lower consumption
of toxic and hazardous chemicals and materials.

Renovation projects in existing facilities would incorporate the primary
elements of the EISA and EO 13423 to the maximum extent feasible, if
they have a total project cost equal to or greater than one million
dollars; new projects with a total project cost of three million dollars
or more would also be required to incorporate the elements.

In addition, to comply with EISA and the EO 13423, improvements and
repair projects that have a total project cost equal to or greater than
three million dollars would obtain certification from the U.S. Green
Building Councils' Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
or through the Green Buildings Initiative's Green Globes green building
rating system.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-4 .unnumbered}

The Capacity Growth Alternative would include the same design and
construction practices that would incorporate elements of the EISA and
EO 13423 and therefore, the effects would be the same as the Proposed
Action.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-4 .unnumbered}

Under the No Action Alternative, the overall sustainability and
efficiency of the RML campus would be reduced since many of the older
buildings that lack LEED certification would not be replaced. This would
reduce efficiency and conservation in comparison to the Proposed Action.
Development and construction standards under the No Action Alternative
would not differ from the Proposed Action Alternative as the EISA, EO
13423 and HHS Real Property Asset Management Plan would be complied with
under both the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action
Alternative.

The established EO 13423 objectives and goals would be followed in new
construction or major renovation projects.

Exterior Lighting

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-5 .unnumbered}

The Proposed Action Alternative provides for increased roadway, parking,
facility, and grounds lighting. This alternative's Light Control Zone
would shield homes in the adjacent neighborhood from potential trespass
light from roadways, parking lots, and buildings.

Minimal trespass light would be emitted from the RML campus. To mitigate
NIH light trespass on the surrounding neighborhood, light fixtures with
good "house side shields" or good "cut-off" optics (i.e., full shield
fixture which blocks light from emitting past a designated horizontal
plane) would be used. These shields would eliminate the majority of the
potential trespass light emitted from campus lighting. Similar to
roadway lighting, the maximum height of light poles would be 26 feet,
and no higher than necessary to provide good visibility and enhance
safety. Poles would be protected by placing them on a poured concrete
base, either in the planting strip along roadways or in planter beds in
parking lots, with the intent of hiding the concrete base. These
measures would apply International Dark Sky Association (IDA) lighting
principles and would result in minor impacts on the surrounding
community.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-5 .unnumbered}

Impacts from exterior lighting would be the same as the Proposed Action
Alternative. The same lighting principles would be used. The Light
Control Zone would be implemented in the Capacity Growth Alternative and
would shield homes in the adjacent neighborhood from potential trespass
light from roadways, parking lots, and buildings. RML would implement
the same mitigation measures to minimize the impacts of trespass
lighting on the surrounding neighborhood.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-5 .unnumbered}

Under the No Action Alternative, RML campus would continue to add
facilities to the campus resulting in increased roadway, parking,
facility, and grounds lighting; however, development of some structures
and the security expansion would not occur. This would result in less
building and parking lighting in the areas proposed to be added to the
campus to the north and northeast edges of the site. Newly installed
lighting would conform to guidelines established by NIH.

RML would implement the same mitigation measures under No Action
Alternative, the Proposed Action Alternative and the Capacity Growth
Alternative to minimize the impacts of trespass lighting on the
surrounding neighborhood.

Noise

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-6 .unnumbered}

For the Proposed Action, RML would continue to upgrade and expand its
facilities, and each upgrade and expansion could introduce new noise
sources on campus, such as air-handing units, exhaust fans, chillers,
cooling towers, emergency generators, etc. However, these upgrades would
be designed to avoid noise issues. RML has established self imposed
Noise Criteria to limit the amount of noise at the campus boundaries.
RML also has a program specifically focused on reducing noise and
ensuring that the campus is in compliance with the Noise Criteria. Each
new project has a noise analysis as part of the design to show that the
new project would keep the campus in compliance with noise standards.
After each project is complete, the noise levels are measured to ensure
that the requirements have been met. As a new project progresses, RML
would identify potential noise problems in the design phase, and
determine what, if any, noise control measures would be implemented to
meet the RML Campus Noise Criteria (BSA 2003).

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-6 .unnumbered}

RML would continue to upgrade and expand its facilities under the
Capacity Growth Alternative, and each upgrade and expansion could
introduce new noise sources on campus, such as air-handing units,
exhaust fans, chillers, cooling towers, emergency generators, etc.
However, as in the Proposed Action Alternative and No Action, these
upgrades would be designed to avoid noise issues. RML's Noise Criteria
would apply to limit the amount of noise at the campus boundaries.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-6 .unnumbered}

Since the RML Campus Noise Criteria was adopted in 2003, the noise
associated with new building projects and mechanical system upgrades
have been analyzed to determine what noise mitigation measures, such as
quieter equipment, barriers, enclosures, exhaust mufflers, duct
attenuators, acoustical louvers, etc., were required to meet the
criteria. In addition, a 2006-2007 design project to identify and reduce
the noise at Buildings 3, 5, 12 and 13, and the ARMCO 2 building was
completed. The noise sources associated with these buildings are
currently causing the Criteria to be exceeded along the southern
property line, but when the building modifications to reduce noise are
implemented, the noise from the entire campus will be reduced to meet or
be below the daytime and nighttime Criteria at all the RML property
lines (BSA 2007).

Historical Resources

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-7 .unnumbered}

Potential effects on the RML Historic District caused by the
implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative include possible
visual intrusions to the district's setting if new construction and
demolition is visible from the district. The construction of additional
buildings also represents a potential visual intrusion to the district.
The analysis of visual impacts on the Historic District requires an
Assessment on Adverse Effect (36CFR 800.5). The two possible outcomes
from the assessment where there are historic properties are either no
adverse effects or adverse effects. No adverse effect occurs when there
could be an effect, but it would not harm characteristics that qualify
the property for the National Register. Adverse effect occurs when the
integrity of those characteristics that qualify the property for the
National Register could be diminished. The actions proposed by the
Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on the RML
Historic District.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-7 .unnumbered}

As in the Proposed Action, the implementation of the Capacity Growth
Alternative would result in minor visual intrusions into the RML
Historic District. Similar to the Proposed Action Alternative, NIH would
conduct evaluations and planning to ensure that any new construction or
changes to potentially eligible existing properties were accomplished in
keeping with the significance of the Historic District. The effects of
the Capacity Growth Alternative would be the same as those described for
the Proposed Action Alternative.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-7 .unnumbered}

Under the No Action Alternative, changes in visual character would occur
to a similar extent as under the Proposed Action Alternative as
development within the RML campus would occur. There would be minimal
change in the visual character of the campus and therefore, impacts on
the RML Historic District would be minimal. There would be no effect on
individual buildings evaluated as contributing elements to the RML
Historic District.

Air Quality

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-8 .unnumbered}

Gaseous and particulate emissions are generated during normal operations
at RML. The new lab and animal space and additional waste produced by
campus activities under the Proposed Action Alternative result in
increased direct impacts. Research personnel generate medical waste;
therefore, to estimate medical waste generation throughout the proposed
action, a per-capita medical waste generation rate was calculated. For
purposes of this analysis, it was assumed each additional researcher
would contribute 0.5044 tons of medical waste for incineration annually.
Under the Proposed Action Alternative, 39 researchers would be added to
the campus which would increase the total research population to 241;
this corresponds to 122 tons of medical waste on an annual basis. As a
result, incinerator use is estimated to increase from approximately four
days a week to five or more days a week. Increases in incinerator,
boiler, and generator emissions would be monitored under conditions of
the RML air quality permits: Montana Air Quality Permit 2991-04 and EPA
Title V Operating Permit #OP2991-00. Based on 2007 data, RML would not
exceed pollutant limits under the proposed new source performance
standards. Therefore, air quality would be within Montana DEQ and EPA
acceptable limits.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-8 .unnumbered}

The Capacity Growth Alternative would increase key campus facility
resources such as laboratory space, veterinary branch, central storage,
and consolidation of emergency generators and above ground fuel storage.
Campus researchers would increase to 321 personnel.

Analysis based on Medical Waste Disposal Alternatives Study indicated
researchers would contribute approximately 0.5044 tons of medical waste
for annual incineration. Based on these estimates approximately 162
ton/year of medical waste would be incinerated following completion of
the Capacity Growth Alternative.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-8 .unnumbered}

Under the No Action Alternative, the RML campus would continue to grow,
as would the number of employees although at a much lower rate.
Increases in incineration and boiler and emergency generator use would
occur regardless of the reduced level of development resulting in air
quality impacts similar to the Proposed Action Alternative or Capacity
Growth Alternative. RML incinerated 86 tons of medical waste in 2006.
The Medical Waste Disposal Alternatives Study estimated incinerated
medical waste would increase 32 percent over 2006 levels (CRB 2007) with
the inclusion of the IRF. This increase would result in 114 tons/year of
incinerated waste for the RML campus under the No Action Alternative
(fully staffed and functional).

Waste

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-9 .unnumbered}

The Proposed Action Alternative would increase total waste generation on
the RML campus by 27 percent over 2006 levels. Due to the difficulty in
quantifying the amount of hazardous waste and special wastes derived
from building demolitions specified in the Proposed Action Alternative,
hazardous waste generation from demolition was not considered in the
analysis. The amount of infectious medical waste generated from campus
research that is incinerated on campus would increase approximately 41
percent. In 2007, RML recycled about 32-35% of the waste generated on
campus.  The total amount recycled was approximately 65 tons. Some of
the recycled materials include: white paper, cardboard, toner
cartridges, aluminum cans and foil. RML is also responsible in the
formation of a plastics recycling company locally.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-9 .unnumbered}

The Capacity Growth Alternative would increase key campus facility
resources such as laboratory space, veterinary branch, central storage,
and consolidation of emergency generators and above ground fuel storage.
The total campus staff would increase to 560 personnel and campus
researchers would increase to 321 personnel. The direct impacts from the
Capacity Growth Alternative would be an increase in the total waste
generation up to 311 tons, an increase of approximately 67 percent over
2006 data.

Analysis based on Medical Waste Disposal Alternatives Study indicated
researchers would contribute approximately 0.5044 tons of medical waste
for annual incineration. Based on these estimates approximately 162
ton/year of medical waste would be incinerated following completion of
the Capacity Growth Alternative, an increase of approximately 88 percent
from 2006 data.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-9 .unnumbered}

Based on the projected growth from 2006 conditions to a fully staffed
campus under the No Action Alternative, the total waste generation would
increase up to 209 tons, an increase of approximately 12 percent.

The increase in campus researchers under the No Action Alternative
development would result in an increase in medical waste generated of
114 tons, an increase of 33 percent over 2006 data.

Storm Water

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-10 .unnumbered}

Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would lead to areas of
disturbed soil, which are highly susceptible to erosion in the
short-term. Appropriate best management practices (BMPs) for sediment
control during construction activities would be provided including
practices such as installing silt fencing, or creating sediment traps.
Stormwater runoff resulting from construction activities would be minor
and comply with all state and federal regulations governing stormwater
discharge and sediment control on construction sites. This would include
applying for a general construction stormwater discharge permit (Montana
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES)) through the Montana DEQ
when soil disturbance would be equal to or greater than one acre. Proper
implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) strategies and BMPs would
be adequate to control and filter stormwater runoff from site
construction.

Runoff estimates indicate the potential for 1,808 cubic feet/acre of
runoff after full development of the Proposed Action Alternative during
a 2-year storm event, an increase of approximately 60 percent over 2008
runoff estimates. Implementation of BMPs and Class V drainage wells
would be monitored closely to ensure that nearby waterways and
underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) would not be affected. RML
would comply with Underground Injection Control (UIC) stormwater well
discharge program guidelines.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-10 .unnumbered}

Stormwater runoff potential would increase up to 1,928 cubic feet/acre,
an increase 71 percent from 2008 conditions. Surface conversion from
pervious to impervious surface would result from expansion of buildings
G and B, construction of Building L, and the addition of 133 parking
spaces. The current stormwater system would be updated to accommodate
additional stormwater generated as a result of surface type conversion.

Impacts to local waterways from RML stormwater runoff associated with
short-term construction projects would be minor and fall within the
levels permitted by the MPDES.

RML would continue to install and maintain stormwater BMPs such as sumps
as needed. Similarly, RML may incorporate LID techniques under guidance
of the NIH Design Policy and Guidelines (2003). RML would comply with
Underground Injection Control (UIC) stormwater well discharge program
guidelines.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-10 .unnumbered}

Under the No Action Alternative, personnel would continue to increase at
RML to support research in Building 28. Some limited new facilities are
planned as well as additional paved parking areas. This will result in
the conversion of existing pervious areas to impervious surfaces. The
current stormwater system would be updated to accommodate additional
stormwater generated as a result of surface type conversion.

Impacts to local waterways from RML stormwater runoff associated with
short-term construction projects would be minor and fall within the
levels permitted by the MPDES. RML would continue to install and
maintain stormwater BMPs such as sumps as needed. Similarly, RML may
incorporate LID techniques under guidance of the NIH Design Policy and
Guidelines (2003). RML would comply with UIC stormwater well discharge
program guidelines.

Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-11 .unnumbered}

Riparian areas, floodplains, and wetlands would not be affected by the
Proposed Action Alternative since no new development is planned to occur
in riparian areas or wetlands.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-11 .unnumbered}

Floodplains, riparian areas, and wetlands would not be affected because
there would be no development in any of these areas.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-11 .unnumbered}

Floodplains, riparian areas, and wetlands would not be affected because
there would be no development in any of these areas.

Wildlife and Fish

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-12 .unnumbered}

###### Fish {#fish .unnumbered}

Fish species would not be impacted under the Proposed Action Alternative
as fish habitat would not be impacted and water quality would not be
degraded.

###### Wildlife {#wildlife .unnumbered}

The Proposed Action Alternative would not adversely affect wildlife
because of the small area of disturbance and the fact that habitat would
not be lost.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-12 .unnumbered}

###### Fish {#fish-1 .unnumbered}

Because the campus expansion would be the same under Capacity Growth as
the Proposed Action, the effects would be the same.

###### Wildlife {#wildlife-1 .unnumbered}

Under the Capacity Growth Alternative, wildlife would not be adversely
affected because of the small area of disturbance and the fact that
habitat would not be lost

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-12 .unnumbered}

###### Fish {#fish-2 .unnumbered}

Under the No Action Alternative, current operations and development
within the RML campus would continue and development would not impact
fish or their habitat.

###### Wildlife {#wildlife-2 .unnumbered}

Wildlife would not be affected under the No Action Alternative because
of the small area of disturbance and the fact that habitat would not be
lost.

Threatened and Endangered Species

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-13 .unnumbered}

The only threatened or endangered species with the potential to occur
near the Project Area would be bull trout. The Proposed Action
Alternative would not affect threatened or endangered species as the
physical expansion of the facilities would have no effect on bull trout
habitat or water quality within the Bitterroot River.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-13 .unnumbered}

Effects would be the same as described for the Proposed Action
Alternative.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-13 .unnumbered}

The No Action Alternative would have impacts similar to the Proposed
Action Alternative.

Transportation

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-14 .unnumbered}

The development of the RML campus would produce increased traffic
volumes on the area's roadways, with a total of 252 weekday trips. This
increase in weekday trips is still relatively small in comparison with
the increase in background traffic as stated in the *Hamilton
Transportation Plan 2002* for the collector routes in Hamilton.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-14 .unnumbered}

The development of the RML campus under the Capacity Growth Alternative
would produce increased traffic volumes on the area's roadways, with a
total of 518 weekday trips at full implementation. This increase in
weekday trips is still relatively small in comparison with the increase
in background traffic as stated in the *Hamilton Transportation Plan
2002* for the collector routes in Hamilton.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-14 .unnumbered}

The routing of the traffic on the area roadway network would remain the
same.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects on the socioeconomic setting resulting from past,
present and reasonably foreseeable actions (NIH, other organizations,
growth), would include an increase in area traffic, increased demand on
community services and programs, increased water use and demand on CHDPW
water and sewage treatment systems, and population growth in the
Bitterroot Valley. Increased payroll would benefit the local economy and
tax revenue from income and property assessments would benefit local and
state government. These effects may be compounded by the expansion of
GSK Biologicals Hamilton, Inc. and projected local growth.

Cumulative effects on the environment resulting from past, present and
reasonably foreseeable actions would include increases in emissions,
waste generation, and stormwater generation. These increases would be
minor and within permitted levels regulated by state and federal
agencies.

## PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE {#preferred-alternative .Style-Heading-2-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\"}

The NIH has identified the Proposed Action Alternative as the preferred
alternative.

Table of Contents

Page

[**Summary 1**](#summary)

[1 Purpose and Need 1-1](#purpose-and-need)

[1.1 Introduction 1-1](#introduction)

[1.2 Need for A Master Plan 1-1](#need-for-a-master-plan)

[1.3 Background 1-4](#__RefHeading___Toc210030756)

[1.4 Purpose of the Master Plan 1-4](#purpose-of-the-master-plan)

[1.5 Alternatives 1-4](#alternatives)

[1.6 Scope 1-4](#scope-1)

[1.6.1 Impacts 1-4](#impacts)

[1.6.2 Alternatives 1-5](#alternatives-1)

[1.6.3 Connected, Cumulative, and Similar Actions
1-5](#connected-cumulative-and-similar-actions)

[1.6.4 Decision to Be Made 1-5](#decision-to-be-made-1)

[1.7 Public Scoping 1-5](#public-scoping)

[1.7.1 Public Meeting 1-5](#public-meeting)

[1.7.2 Written Comments 1-5](#written-comments)

[1.7.3 Community Liaison Group Meetings
1-6](#community-liaison-group-meetings)

[1.8 Identification of Issues 1-6](#identification-of-issues)

[1.8.1 Alternative Development Comments
1-6](#alternative-development-comments)

[1.8.2 Mitigation Measures 1-6](#mitigation-measures)

[1.9 Effects Analysis Comments 1-7](#effects-analysis-comments)

[1.9.1 Issues or Concerns Outside the Scope of the DEIS
1-7](#issues-or-concerns-outside-the-scope-of-the-deis)

[2 Alternatives 2-1](#alternatives-2)

[2.1 The Master Plan 2-1](#the-master-plan)

[2.1.1 The Master Plan Goals and Objectives
2-1](#the-master-plan-goals-and-objectives)

[2.1.2 Planning Premises 2-3](#planning-premises)

[2.1.3 Planning Principles 2-4](#planning-principles)

[2.1.4 Proposed Action and Capacity Growth Alternative Component
Concepts
2-5](#proposed-action-and-capacity-growth-alternative-component-concepts)

[2.2 No Action Alternative 2-15](#no-action-alternative-15)

[3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3-1](#affected-environment-and-environmental-consequences)

[3.1 Introduction 3-1](#introduction-1)

[3.1.1 Site Overview 3-1](#site-overview)

[3.2 Social Resources 3-3](#social-resources)

[3.2.1 Affected Environment 3-3](#affected-environment)

[3.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 3-6](#direct-and-indirect-effects)

[3.2.3 Cumulative Effects 3-7](#cumulative-effects)

[3.3 Economic Resources 3-8](#economic-resources)

[3.3.1 Affected Environment 3-8](#affected-environment-1)

[3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 3-10](#direct-and-indirect-effects-1)

[3.3.3 Cumulative Effects 3-10](#cumulative-effects-1)

[3.4 Water and Wastewater 3-10](#water-and-wastewater)

[3.4.1 Affected Environment 3-10](#affected-environment-2)

[3.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 3-12](#direct-and-indirect-effects-2)

[3.4.3 Cumulative Effects 3-13](#cumulative-effects-2)

[3.5 Sustainable Building Development
3-14](#sustainable-building-development)

[3.5.1 Affected Environment 3-14](#affected-environment-3)

[3.5.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 3-15](#direct-and-indirect-effects-3)

[3.5.3 Cumulative Effects 3-16](#cumulative-effects-3)

[3.6 Exterior Lighting 3-16](#exterior-lighting)

[3.6.1 Affected Environment 3-16](#affected-environment-4)

[3.6.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 3-16](#direct-and-indirect-effects-4)

[3.6.3 Cumulative Effects 3-17](#cumulative-effects-4)

[3.7 Noise 3-17](#noise)

[3.7.1 Affected Environment 3-17](#affected-environment-5)

[3.7.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 3-20](#direct-and-indirect-effects-5)

[3.7.3 Cumulative Impacts 3-21](#cumulative-impacts)

[3.8 Historical Resources 3-21](#historical-resources)

[3.8.1 Affected Environment 3-21](#affected-environment-6)

[3.8.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts 3-23](#direct-and-indirect-impacts)

[3.8.3 Cumulative Effects 3-24](#cumulative-effects-5)

[3.9 Air Quality 3-24](#air-quality)

[3.9.1 Affected Environment 3-24](#affected-environment-7)

[3.9.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 3-29](#direct-and-indirect-effects-6)

[3.9.3 Cumulative Effects 3-32](#cumulative-effects-6)

[3.10 Waste 3-32](#waste)

[3.10.1 Affected Environment 3-32](#affected-environment-8)

[3.10.2 Direct and Indirect Effects
3-34](#direct-and-indirect-effects-7)

[3.10.3 Cumulative Effects 3-35](#cumulative-effects-7)

[3.11 Stormwater 3-35](#stormwater)

[3.11.1 Affected Environment 3-35](#affected-environment-9)

[3.11.2 Direct and Indirect Effects
3-37](#direct-and-indirect-effects-8)

[3.11.3 Cumulative Impacts 3-39](#cumulative-impacts-1)

[3.12 Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian Areas
3-40](#wetlands-floodplains-and-riparian-areas)

[3.12.1 Affected Environment 3-40](#affected-environment-10)

[3.12.2 Direct and Indirect Effects
3-40](#direct-and-indirect-effects-9)

[3.12.3 Cumulative Effects 3-40](#cumulative-effects-8)

[3.13 Wildlife and Fish 3-42](#wildlife-and-fish)

[3.13.1 Affected Environment 3-42](#affected-environment-11)

[3.13.2 Direct and Indirect Effects
3-42](#direct-and-indirect-effects-10)

[3.14 Threatened and Endangered Species
3-43](#threatened-and-endangered-species)

[3.14.1 Affected Environment 3-43](#affected-environment-12)

[3.14.2 Direct and Indirect Effects
3-44](#direct-and-indirect-effects-11)

[3.14.3 Cumulative Effects 3-44](#cumulative-effects-10)

[3.15 Transportation 3-44](#transportation)

[3.15.1 Affected Environment 3-44](#affected-environment-13)

[3.15.2 Direct and Indirect Effects
3-45](#direct-and-indirect-effects-12)

[3.15.3 Cumulative Effects 3-46](#cumulative-effects-11)

[Literature Cited 1](#literature-cited)

[List of Preparers 1](#list-of-preparers)

[List To Whom the DEIS Was Sent 1](#list-to-whom-the-deis-was-sent)

List of Tables

[Table 2‑1 Comparison of the Projected Campus Growth
2-5](#__RefHeading___Toc210030841)

[Table 2‑2 Comparison of Land Area Requirements
2-5](#__RefHeading___Toc210030842)

[Table 2‑3 RML Buildings Proposed for Demolition
2-6](#__RefHeading___Toc210030843)

[Table 2‑4 RML Buildings Proposed for Construction
2-6](#__RefHeading___Toc210030844)

[Table 3‑1 2008 RML Buildings and Their Functions
3-3](#__RefHeading___Toc210030845)

[Table 3‑2 Population Estimates 3-4](#__RefHeading___Toc210030846)

[Table 3‑3 Demographic Characteristics, 2000
3-5](#__RefHeading___Toc210030847)

[Table 3‑4 Population Projections 3-6](#__RefHeading___Toc210030848)

[Table 3‑5 Ravalli County Employment by Industry - 2005
3-9](#__RefHeading___Toc210030849)

[Table 3‑6 Ravalli County Annual Average Labor Force
3-9](#__RefHeading___Toc210030850)

[Table 3‑7 Comparison of Per Capita Personal Income, 1970-2005
3-10](#__RefHeading___Toc210030851)

[Table 3‑8 Gallons per Month of Water Usage
3-13](#__RefHeading___Toc210030852)

[Table 3‑9 RML Campus Noise Level Criteria
3-18](#__RefHeading___Toc210030853)

[Table 3‑10 2006 Ambient Noise Levels
3-18](#__RefHeading___Toc210030854)

[Table 3‑11 Perception of Noise 3-20](#__RefHeading___Toc210030855)

[Table 3‑12 RML Buildings Proposed for Demolition
3-23](#__RefHeading___Toc210030856)

[Table 3‑13 State of Montana and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
3-24](#__RefHeading___Toc210030857)

[Table 3‑14 RML Estimated Annual Emissions for 2006 and 2007
3-26](#__RefHeading___Toc210030858)

[Table 3‑15 EPA Tier 1-3 Nonroad and Stationary Diesel Engine Emission
Standards^1^ 3-27](#__RefHeading___Toc210030859)

[Table 3‑16 Monitoring Data -- PM~10~ and PM~2.5~
3-28](#__RefHeading___Toc210030860)

[Table 3‑17 2006 RML Waste Summary 3-33](#__RefHeading___Toc210030861)

[Table 3‑18 Medical Waste Characterization - 2007
3-33](#__RefHeading___Toc210030862)

[Table 3‑19 Estimated stormwater runoff based on a 2 year-24 hour storm
event. 3-38](#__RefHeading___Toc210030863)

[Table 3‑20 Daily Trips Generated by RML under Proposed Action
Alternative and Capacity Growth Alternative
3-46](#__RefHeading___Toc210030864)

List of Figures

[Figure 1. Location Map **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc208142078)

[Figure 2. Illustrative 20 Year Master Plan under the Proposed Action
Alternative **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc208142079)

[Figure 3. Illustrative 20 Year Master Plan under the Capacity Growth
Alternative **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc208142080)

[Figure 4. Lighting Concept Plan **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc208142081)

[Figure 5. 2005 Baseline Building Use **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc208142082)

[Figure 6. Noise Measurement Locations **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc208142083)

[Figure 7. Current Stormwater System **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc208142084)

[Figure 8. Natural Features **Error! Bookmark not
defined.**](#__RefHeading___Toc208142085)

Appendices

[Appendix A Medical Waste Disposal
Alternatives](#medical-waste-disposal-alternatives)

# Purpose and Need

## Introduction

The Rocky Mountain Laboratories (RML) campus is a 33-acre facility
located in Hamilton, Montana, in Ravalli County, approximately 46 miles
south of Missoula. It is occupied by the National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), one of the 27 Institutes or Centers of
the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Hamilton has a population of approximately 4,200 and is located in the
center of western Montana's Bitterroot Valley. RML is located east of
the Bitterroot River in the southwest portion of Hamilton (Error:
Reference source not found).

The RML Master Plan seeks to create and maintain a campus environment
conducive to accomplishing the NIH, NIAID and RML missions while
providing a physical framework for the changing character, nature and
urgency of RML's biomedical research programs. It provides a long-range
planning envelope for the RML campus, and outlines a strategy for
accommodating potential campus development subject to future NIH
priorities and the availability of resources. It identifies the physical
opportunities and limitations of the campus and projects future staff
population and associated facilities for planning purposes. It
recognizes, however, that actual program realization at any given time
will depend on NIH and HHS priorities, congressional and presidential
policy decisions and federal budgetary realities. Although the proposed
projects may not be required or carried out to the extent shown in this
plan, the Master Plan will help ensure orderly future development of the
campus if and as it occurs.

Furthermore, while the Master Plan is a reasonable guideline for future
development it does not represent the pre-approval of any individual
facilities project nor the particular needs of specific programs to be
accommodated on the campus since the financing of such projects and
programs must be addressed within the annual HHS budget processes and
the HHS Capital Investment Review Board mechanisms.

## Need for A Master Plan

No previous Master Plan was developed for the RML campus of the NIH, but
recent construction of the new Integrated Research Facility (IRF) and
recent physical security requirements have made clear the need for
coordinated development of the campus in the future.

In order to accomplish the NIH mission, it is imperative that NIH update
its long range facilities plan to continue to address the issues of
facility requirements, prudent land use and orderly future development.
This need has become even more critical in light of key projects and
programs, planned, underway, or soon-to-be-completed including the IRF,
physical security improvements to the campus perimeter, including
perimeter site barriers, a visitors' center, shipping/receiving center
and a proposed replacement building for occupancies now too close to the
perimeter to provide adequate protection.

The objective of the Master Plan for the RML is to provide a format for
the reasoned and orderly development of the Hamilton, MT campus that
values and builds on existing resources, corrects existing deficiencies
and meets changing needs through new construction that renews
obsolescent facilities through renovation, and attempts to set forth
implementation priorities and a logical sequencing of planned
development.

It is not intended to be a specific design and construction program, but
rather a framework within which design and construction can occur for
actual projects in the next twenty years as the programmatic needs upon
which the plan is based arise. Nor does it attempt to anticipate
unpredictable budgets or congressional and presidential priorities and
mandates. The objective has been to base the Master Plan solely on the
NIH's best estimate of where the science is going on the premise that
the more inclusive the plan, the more receptive it will be to a variety
of future development possibilities.

Campus Master Planning is a coordinated planning effort to integrate
future NIH programs and best utilize the main NIH Bethesda, Maryland
campus and other NIH installations, including research activities at
installations such as the NIAID RML at Hamilton, MT; National Cancer
Institute (NCI) Frederick facility at Fort Detrick, Maryland; and the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) facility at
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

This Master Plan for the RML has been developed for a 20-year planning
period, beginning in 2005, and personnel and space estimates have been
based on five, ten, fifteen and twenty year increments. The NIH intends
to continue to update its master plans, as required, in approximately
five-year intervals.

![](media/image2.png){width="6.86875in" height="9.003472222222221in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc210030756 .anchor}Background

RML is one of multiple intramural laboratories operated by the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is one of 27
Institutes and Centers of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The
NIH is one of eight health agencies in the U.S. Public Health Service
(USPHS), which, in turn, is a component of the HHS.

## Purpose of the Master Plan

The mission of NIH, as delineated in the original and amended federal
legislation directing agency activities, is to conduct biomedical
research, educate and train researchers, assist in the transfer of
technology, and disseminate information in the biomedical and associated
sciences in the interest of health and welfare.

The RML Master Plan seeks to create and maintain a campus environment
conducive to accomplishing the NIH, NIAID, and RML missions while
providing a physical framework for the changing character, nature, and
urgency of RML's biomedical research programs. While the Master Plan is
a reasonable guideline for future development, it does not represent the
pre-approval of any individual facilities or the particular needs of
specific programs to be accommodated on the campus.

The objectives of the Master Plan are to:

-   Provide an attractive campus whose setting and composition promote
    collegial interaction and opportunities for informal collaboration.

-   Provide a flexible framework for development of the campus, one that
    can adapt to the potential needs of current and future RML and NIAID
    programs over time.

-   Provide a secure, supportive, and convenient work environment for
    RML personnel, with amenities that enhance the quality of life for
    staff.

-   Enhance the appearance of the RML campus to complement the
    surrounding residential community.

-   Protect and enhance RML's natural, historic, and scenic resources.

-   Use the Master Plan to foster communication about NIH goals and
    policies.

## Alternatives

The Proposed Action Alternative and the Capacity Growth Alternative are
the two alternatives analyzed in this DEIS. This Master Plan covers a
20-year planning period, but would be reviewed every 5 years to ensure
that the plan continues to remain current and relevant to the key issues
affecting the campus. These alternatives address the future development
of the RML site, including placement of future construction; vehicular
and pedestrian circulation on and off-campus; parking within the
property boundaries; open space in and around the campus; required
setbacks; historic properties; natural and scenic resources; noise; and
lighting. They account for potential growth in RML personnel, possible
land acquisitions, and consequent construction of space over the
planning period. Future construction on the site could include such
facilities as new animal holding, research laboratories, and support
facilities.

## Scope

The scope of the DEIS is determined by the purpose and need and by HHS
procedures and authority. The scope (40 CFR 1508.25) consists of the
range of actions, alternatives, environmental issues, and impacts to be
considered and discussed in the DEIS.

### Impacts

Regulations contained in 40 CFR 1508.25\[c\] require federal agencies to
analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of their
undertakings. Direct impacts are caused by the action and occur at the
same time and place. Indirect impacts are caused by the action and occur
later in time or farther removed in distance, but they are still
reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative impacts result from incremental
impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions.

### Alternatives

In determining the scope of analysis, NIH must consider three
alternatives (40 CFR 1508.25\[b\]): No Action, other reasonable courses
of action, and mitigation measures. Other reasonable courses of action
include alternatives that meet the stated purpose and need. Chapter 2
includes the discussion of the alternatives considered. Impacts of the
No Action Alternative, which would maintain the current operations with
limited new development, are also considered.

### Connected, Cumulative, and Similar Actions

The Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1508.25) addresses the scope of
analysis and elements to be considered. The regulations recognize that
separate activities can combine and interact to create impacts that *may
be significantly beyond* the effects of individual actions. These
actions are considered *cumulative*, and their additive effects must be
addressed in the analysis.

Federal regulations also require a combined analysis of *connected*
actions. Connected actions are closely related and 1) automatically
trigger other actions, 2) could not or would not proceed unless other
actions are taken previously or simultaneously, and 3) are
interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action
for their justification. The effects of connected actions should be
analyzed together. *Similar* actions are those that share a common
timing or geography and are evaluated together.

### Decision to Be Made 

Based on the environmental analysis, public comments on this DEIS, and
consideration of other factors, NIH will decide whether to proceed with
the Proposed Action Alternative or one of the other alternatives..

The scope of this DEIS is confined to issues and potential environmental
consequences relevant to the above decision.

In their regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) required consideration
of environmental effects and prescribe mitigation where practical to
limit those effects. Reconsideration of previous NIH/RML decisions or
programmatically prescribing mitigation or standards for future NIH/RML
activities is beyond the scope of this document.

## Public Scoping

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an DEIS was published in the Federal
Register on March 3, 2006. Publication of this notice initiated a 45-day
public scoping period that provided for acceptance of comments through
April 18, 2006.

### Public Meeting

To facilitate public involvement, a scoping meeting was held at 7 p.m.
on March 23, 2006 in the Hamilton High School. Notification for the
public meetings was published on March 10, 14, 15, 16, 20 and 22, 2006
in the *Ravalli Republic* and the *Missoulian*, which have circulation
in Ravalli and Missoula counties, Posters advertising the public meeting
were also placed at over 55 locations throughout Ravalli and Missoula
counties. Thirty-five residents and a representative of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attended the scoping meeting.
Posters identifying RML campus current conditions and planning issues
were displayed for public discussion. In addition, a short presentation
about the master planning process and public comment opportunities was
given by NIH personnel. Oral statements were taken from six citizens at
the forum and three written comments were submitted.

### Written Comments

Thirteen people submitted written comments on the RML Master Plan by the
April 18, 2006 deadline. The scoping record contains eighteen documents;
five residents submitted multiple comments including oral statements,
emails, and comments recorded at the scoping meeting. In addition to the
three comments received at the March 23, 2006 public meeting, eight
comments were received electronically and two were received by mail.
Oral statements from six residents were taken by a court reporter at the
March public meeting and submitted into the written scoping record.

### Community Liaison Group Meetings

Regular Community Liaison Group meetings are held at off-campus
locations near the RML campus to provide a forum for discussion of
public issues and concerns about RML. The Community Liaison Group
consists of 25 key community stakeholders, including, but not limited
to, representatives from local government (Mayor of Hamilton and Ravalli
County commissioners), advocacy groups, natural resource agencies, local
residents, realtors and emergency response agencies. Members of the
Community Liaison Group are encouraged to bring questions and concerns
to the meetings for open discussion. Presentations were given to the
community, City of Hamilton, County Commissioners, neighbors and the
Community Liaison Group several times since 2005.

## Identification of Issues

One hundred and five public comments were received during scoping in 18
separate documents (letters, e-mails, phone calls, comment forms, and
the public meeting transcript).

Issues or concerns identified in the comments were assigned to the
following four categories:

-   Those that could develop an alternative;

-   Those that could result in a mitigation measure;

-   Those that could be addressed by effects analysis; and

-   Those outside the scope of the DEIS.

A list of issues raised by the public with respect to alternatives,
mitigation measures, and the analyses to be completed in the DEIS is
provided below. No issues identified indicated a need to consider other
alternatives.

### Alternative Development Comments

Key public scoping comments that could result in the development of an
alternative included:

-   Request to expand RML campus to the north.

-   Comment that RML should not expand at the current location with
    possible expansion elsewhere in the valley.

-   Request to eliminate incineration of waste on campus and replace it
    with one of three pressurized autoclave technologies, an alkaline
    hydrolysis process, or other appropriate technologies.

### Mitigation Measures

Potential mitigation measures identified in the scoping process include:

-   Comment that the 20-year timeframe is inadequate if significant
    changes occur in the next 5 to 8 years.

-   Request a longer scoping period to respond with creativity and view
    planning alternatives.

-   Request that overall building height and size be limited to fit
    within the historic character of the neighborhood.

-   Request that RML beautify the neighborhood and gateway to campus
    with landscaped medians, pedestrian areas, ornamental street
    lighting, a roundabout and better pedestrian access.

-   Request that the campus follow "Dark Sky" lighting recommendations.

-   Request that campus lights are directed downward and away from
    neighborhood housing.

-   Request energy efficient technologies be adopted where ever
    possible.

-   Request the campus reduce noise from construction.

-   Request the campus reduce noise from generators, incinerators,
    boilers and "scrubbers."

-   Request that RML use native plant species in all future landscaping.

-   Comment that RML needs to provide offsite open space if campus open
    space is developed.

-   Request public access and trails along the banks of the Bitterroot
    River on RML property.

-   Request RML look at aesthetics of the campus from the river because
    of the high amount of tourism along the river corridor.

-   Expand and screen the medical waste holding area next to Building
    23.

-   Comment that RML should make a long-term commitment to a
    mercury-free campus.

-   Request RML use non-toxic alternatives (when they exist) to toxic
    chemicals currently used.

-   Request lab animals are treated humanely and secured so they do not
    escape.

-   Comment that a park-and-ride system needs to be developed to reduce
    commuter traffic to RML.

-   Include pedestrian and bicycle gates in the perimeter fence to
    reduce traffic volumes.

-   Identify other parking solutions than just paving larger areas for
    parking.

-   Create wider entrance point for personnel and visitors at north end
    of campus allowing vehicles to "pool" in this area rather than
    neighborhood streets.

-   Comment that a shipping and receiving warehouse is needed in
    Hamilton which could deliver once or twice a day to RML thereby
    eliminating multiple deliveries throughout the day.

-   Request that RML identify safety measures to reduce traffic speed
    through the neighborhood.

-   Request a more up-to-date incineration system to improve community
    safety.

-   Request that the Master Plan address safety issues of both the
    campus and surrounding community.

-   Request a quarantine area be established to protect against
    infectious agents in case of an accident.

-   Move the maintenance and storage facility (Building E) away from the
    perimeter fence for security reasons.

-   Request an open Community Liaison Group where anyone from the
    community can attend the meetings and use a web site to inform
    citizens of upcoming issues and schedules.

-   Comment that the current Community Liaison Group is not working
    well.

-   Need to find ways the community can gain economically such as:
    commit to buying food, landscaping materials, building materials and
    all appropriate services locally.

-   RML should consider impacts on City infrastructure and voluntarily
    give impact grants or fair compensation to cover needed
    improvements.

## Effects Analysis Comments

Comments that relate to potential effects analysis include:

-   Concern about the impacts of increased traffic in the historic
    neighborhood.

-   Diesel exhaust fills the neighborhood from construction equipment
    and lab generators.

-   Concern about toxic emissions from waste incineration.

-   Concern about toxic chemical use on campus.

-   Request RML use water conservation practices.

### Issues or Concerns Outside the Scope of the DEIS

The following comments made during the scoping period were determined to
be outside the scope of the Master Plan because the suggestion was
beyond the scope of the proposed action, was not capable of being dealt
with through the master planning process, was not within the analysis
area; or has already been decided by the law or policy.:

-   Train and hire locals for all clerical and wage grade positions.

-   Outsource appropriate work locally.

-   Contract with local entities to have seminars about how to get work
    with RML.

-   Establish partnerships with county school districts to promote
    science internships with middle and high school science students.

-   Provide a housing rental service as part of a community website.

-   RML needs to promote their recycling program throughout the
    community to encourage others to establish their own programs and a
    comprehensive community program.

-   City law enforcement can not adequately monitor the RML campus and
    surrounding neighborhood so RML should help improve security in the
    surrounding area.

# Alternatives

This chapter discusses three alternatives. The Proposed Action
Alternative, the Capacity Growth Alternative, and the No Action
Alternative. The two action alternatives considered, the Proposed Action
Alternative and the Capacity Growth Alternative, have the same Goals and
Objectives, Planning Premises, Planning Principles, and Component
Concepts.

The Capacity Growth Alternative is a variation of the Proposed Action
Alternative and would develop the campus at a higher density than in the
Proposed Action Alternative, as seen in Table 2-1 to Table 2-4.

## The Master Plan

A Master Plan is intended to be a strategic tool for the efficient
allocation of campus resources, the orderly accommodation of future
growth, and the creation of an environment, which is both functionally
and aesthetically conducive to accomplishing the RML mission. Two action
alternatives are considered for the Master Plan, the Proposed Action
Alternative and the Capacity Growth Alternative. The goals, objectives,
and most of the features are the same for both alternatives.

The objective of the Master Plan is to provide a guide for the reasoned
and orderly development of the RML campus, one that values and builds on
existing resources, corrects current deficiencies and meets changing
needs through new construction or renovation. The plan sets forth
implementation priorities and a logical sequencing of planned
development.

### The Master Plan Goals and Objectives

The NIH, with the NIAID and RML, seeks to accomplish its mission by:

-   Fostering fundamental discoveries, innovative research, and their
    applications in order to advance the Nation\'s capacity to protect
    and improve health;

-   Developing, maintaining, and renewing the human and physical
    resources that are vital to ensure the Nation\'s capability to
    prevent disease, improve health, and enhance quality of life;

-   Expanding the knowledge base in biomedical and associated sciences
    in order to enhance America\'s economic well-being and ensure a
    continued high return on the public investment in research; and

-   Exemplifying and promoting the highest level of scientific
    integrity, public accountability, and social responsibility in the
    conduct of science.

The Master Plan supports these mission implementation strategies to
provide a framework for development with the following planning goals
and objectives:

###### GOAL 1 - An attractive campus whose setting and composition promote collegial interaction and opportunities for informal collaboration and conversation. {#goal-1---an-attractive-campus-whose-setting-and-composition-promote-collegial-interaction-and-opportunities-for-informal-collaboration-and-conversation. .unnumbered}

-   Develop a comprehensive program and Master Plan that supports the
    long term goals and missions of NIAID, RML, and the NIH as a whole.

-   Stimulate interaction and communications among scientists and staff
    to enhance quality of research and opportunities for
    interdisciplinary collaboration through adjacency of uses and
    creation of formal and informal meeting and gathering spaces on
    campus.

-   Create a flexible development plan that will allow for changing
    program needs in the future.

###### GOAL 2 - A flexible framework for development of the campus, one that can adapt to the potential needs of current and future RML and NIAID programs over time. {#goal-2---a-flexible-framework-for-development-of-the-campus-one-that-can-adapt-to-the-potential-needs-of-current-and-future-rml-and-niaid-programs-over-time. .unnumbered}

-   Establish a comprehensive and coordinated approach to physical
    development and orderly growth of NIH facilities.

-   Develop building sites, open space, and circulation systems that
    will ensure appropriate campus facility utilization, functional land
    use and efficient accommodation of future program requirements.

-   Enhance campus function, efficiency and character through better
    definition of land use and functional relationships.

-   Identify patterns of existing development and factors which
    potentially limit future development.

-   Define an achievable development strategy.

###### GOAL 3 - A campus that affords a secure, supportive, and convenient work environment for RML personnel, with amenities that enhance the quality of life for staff. {#goal-3---a-campus-that-affords-a-secure-supportive-and-convenient-work-environment-for-rml-personnel-with-amenities-that-enhance-the-quality-of-life-for-staff. .unnumbered}

The majority of people on the RML campus fall into the following
categories: scientific staff, technical staff, animal care staff,
administrative and support staff and visitors.

-   Facilitate the security, safety and well-being of those who work, or
    visit RML by constructing site perimeter barriers, effectively
    screening for contraband and mitigating vulnerabilities through
    campus and building design.

-   Enhance the quality of the research and work environment and overall
    campus quality.

    -   Preserve the integrity and build upon the desirable qualities of
        the RML campus.

    -   Provide guidelines for use of native landscapes and improving
        the quality of landscaping

    -   Provide accessibility to campus facilities for persons with
        disabilities.

    -   Improve and enhance the pedestrian environment and linkages, and
        create a pedestrian scale within the larger site.

    -   Preserve and enhance structures with established historic and
        cultural value.

    -   Develop a recognizable landscape system that enhances the
        quality and character of the campus.

    -   Increase the ease of orientation and direction-finding around
        the campus.

    -   Improve pedestrian and bicycle movement on campus.

    -   Define and communicate building character and scale to achieve a
        perceivable and attractive identity.

    -   Provide for the convenience and safety of employees and the
        neighborhood through sensitively designed site lighting and
        security measures.

######  {#section .unnumbered}

###### GOAL 4 - Enhanced appearance of the RML campus to complement the surrounding residential community. {#goal-4---enhanced-appearance-of-the-rml-campus-to-complement-the-surrounding-residential-community. .unnumbered}

-   Conserve and enhance the campus perimeter zones, especially
    bordering residential areas.

-   Coordinate with and respond to various regulatory and review
    agencies that have responsibility for or interest in activities on
    the campus.

-   Engage the RML, local agencies, and the community in an active
    dialogue concerning Master Plan premises and concepts.

-   Establish the scale and height of future RML facilities to limit
    adverse impact on adjoining neighborhoods or cultural resources.

-   Minimize future construction near adjacent residential
    neighborhoods.

-   Protect adjoining neighborhoods from excessive impacts of RML
    traffic, parking, noise, and lighting.

-   Endeavor to ensure that the RML and its activities do not contribute
    to security or safety issues in adjoining neighborhoods.

-   Incorporate native landscape techniques.

###### GOAL 5 - Protected and enhanced natural, historic, and scenic resources at RML. {#goal-5---protected-and-enhanced-natural-historic-and-scenic-resources-at-rml. .unnumbered}

-   Identify and build upon the unique environmental qualities of the
    campus and enhance existing and native landscaping and vegetation.

-   Enhance campus design to encourage greater RML employee use of
    bicycles and walking as alternate commuting modes.

-   Improve bicycle circulation on the campus.

-   Promote efficient use of all natural resources.

-   Improve management of storm water runoff and lessen water quantity
    impacts and water quality impacts with the objective of raising
    conditions above the minimal state requirements, where possible.

-   Reduce noise in adjacent off-site residential areas caused by campus
    sources including but not limited to mechanical equipment, vehicular
    traffic, and construction activities.

-   Improve facilities for storage and handling of hazardous materials.

-   Encourage sustainable and environmentally-sound development that is
    sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods and adjacent natural areas.

###### GOAL 6 - Enhanced communication about NIH goals and policies. {#goal-6---enhanced-communication-about-nih-goals-and-policies. .unnumbered}

-   Encourage active dialogue among NIH management, the scientific
    community and the NIH staff, to foster a better understanding of the
    ramifications of proposed development policies and plans.

-   Encourage continuing active dialogue among NIH and the surrounding
    community as well as local, state, and federal agencies to resolve
    campus land use and development issues that affect the community and
    region.

### Planning Premises

Planning objectives have been established for proposed conceptual
designs, and represent\
broad physical design features applied to the concepts developed for the
site. These objectives include:

###### *Building and Land Use* {#building-and-land-use .unnumbered}

-   Similar building uses should be grouped together geographically.

-   Employee amenities and services should be increased and
    appropriately distributed on\
    campus.

####### Open Space

-   A perceivable and hierarchical system of open spaces should be
    developed.

-   The buffer zone at the site perimeter should be enhanced and
    respected where possible.

-   Landscaping elements should be improved and increased.

####### Architectural Guidelines

-   Policies and criteria should be developed and used as guidelines for
    future development.

-   Development should respect historic patterns, and should convey a
    sense of order, quality, and unity throughout the campus.

-   Buildings should be designed with maximum flexibility to facilitate
    change as state-of-the art needs dictate.

####### Transportation/Circulation

-   A well-defined road system should be established to increase
    efficiency, and protect open space.

-   Parking should be located outside the loop road separated from the
    pedestrian core of the campus.

-   The character of the campus as one that encourages pedestrian use
    should be promoted.

-   Accessibility for those with disabilities must be ensured.

####### Infrastructure

-   Major utility infrastructure and service uses should be
    geographically concentrated.

-   The development of the Master Utilities Plan should be coordinated
    with the Master Plan.

####### Laboratory Research Programs

-   Planning should group research laboratories in proximity to central
    animal facilities.

-   Functionally related laboratories should be grouped together.

-   The historic Quad (Buildings 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and A) should be
    retained for research laboratory use but renovated to permit
    decompression of current occupancy and reallocations to correct
    space deficiencies.

####### Animal Programs

-   Planning for animal programs should provide for current needs while
    anticipating the eventual need to replace Building 13.

####### Community Relations

-   A "good neighbor" relationship should be maintained with the
    surrounding community.

-   RML should continue to provide means for citizen involvement.

####### Amenities and Site Program

-   The Master Plan should provide for amenities in accordance with the
    approved *Guidelines for Amenities and Services Within NIH
    Facilities, December 2004.*

-   Amenities not specifically programmed, but that may be absorbed
    within the gross area allocated to space programs of major buildings
    should be distributed according to the amenities guidelines.

-   The Master Plan should provide for outdoor spaces planned for
    recreation including bicycle and hiking paths.

### Planning Principles

Specific planning actions, based upon these objectives, have been
grouped into four categories:

###### Campus Structure and Landscaping {#campus-structure-and-landscaping .unnumbered}

-   Respect the existing campus orthogonal grid in developing a new
    campus structure.

-   Retain the historic core as a major campus organizational feature.

-   Create a better-defined sense of hierarchy among campus buildings
    and open spaces.

-   Create or enhance defined open space within the interior of the
    campus.

-   Locate and utilize interior campus open spaces to link buildings and
    create a pedestrian friendly environment.

-   Preserve the perimeter of the campus as open space with an informal
    landscaped screen buffer.

-   Preserve and enhance the relationship of the campus to its broader
    environment.

###### Development Height Zones {#development-height-zones .unnumbered}

-   Establish maximum building height (52') at the campus core
    surrounded by buildings of medium height (40') and with lowest
    construction density (0'-20', except for the two, existing, 2 ½
    story houses in the historic core) at the campus perimeter.

###### Access and Parking  {#access-and-parking .unnumbered}

-   Maintain and enhance the current 4^th^ Street main entrance and the
    5^th^ and Baker Street service entrance.

-   Reinforce campus organization and facilitate vehicular access to all
    areas of the campus through the creation of a loop road.

-   Provide all parking in surface lots.

-   To the greatest possible extent, locate new parking along the north
    perimeter of the campus.

-   Retain and improve parking to the east and south of the Quad both to
    achieve required surface parking spaces and for staff convenience.

-   Create a walking path within the occupied portion of the site, and
    extend a hiking trail through the west side of the site.

###### Functional Relationships {#functional-relationships .unnumbered}

-   Relate existing and planned building groupings to an overall campus
    structure.

-   Reinforce the laboratory and animal buildings as the functional
    heart of the campus.

-   Cluster administrative and support functions central to areas
    supported.

### Proposed Action and Capacity Growth Alternative Component Concepts 

NIH would continue to develop RML to accommodate NIH's and NIAID's
research needs and required programmatic adjacencies consistent with the
commitment to maintain the "campus" character of the site. The Master
Plan advances this objective by programming and locating future RML
growth so that local services and utilities are available to support
growth, and establishing development guidelines for future changes to
the site that ensure that as the campus grows new development would be
responsive to the context of adjacent neighborhoods or developments.

The planned growth estimates for personnel and gross building footage
are summarized in Table 2-1.

  --------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ------------- ---------- ------------- ----------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc210030841                                                                 
  .anchor}Table 2‑1\                                                                              
  Comparison of the Projected                                                                     
  Campus Growth                                                                                   

  Time Schedule                     No Action              Proposed                 Capacity      
                                                           Action                   Growth        
                                                           Alternative              Alternative   

                                    Personnel   Gross Area Personnel     Gross Area Personnel     Gross Area
                                                Square                   Square                   Square
                                                Feet                     Feet                     Feet

  20 Years                          376         323,805    427           445,713    560           530,494
  --------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ------------- ---------- ------------- ----------

#### Site Development {#site-development-1 .unnumbered}

Under both the Proposed Action Alternative and the Capacity Growth
Alternative, the site size would increase from approximately 33 acres to
36 acres due to future property acquisitions. As planned, developed
areas (buildings, parking, roads, walks, and service access areas) on
campus would increase to 17 acres (47 percent of the site area) under
the proposed action, and 18.3 acres under the Capacity Growth option;
there is approximately 9 acres of developed area currently on the site
(27 percent of the site area) (**Table 2-2**). The open, undisturbed
area would decrease from 24 acres to 19 and 17.7 acres, respectively,
for the two options.

+------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| []{#__Ref              |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Heading___Toc210030842 |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| .anchor}Table 2‑2\     |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Comparison of Land     |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Area Requirements      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                        | 2005 |      | Prop |      | Capa |      |
|                        | Base |      | osed |      | city |      |
|                        | line |      | Ac   |      | Gr   |      |
|                        | Area |      | tion |      | owth |      |
|                        |      |      | Alt  |      | Alt  |      |
|                        |      |      | erna |      | erna |      |
|                        |      |      | tive |      | tive |      |
+------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                        | A    | \%   | A    | \%   | A    | \%   |
|                        | cres | of   | cres | of   | cres | of   |
|                        |      | Site |      | Site |      | Site |
+------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Open Space             |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Landscaped           | 2.7  | 8.2  | 11.1 | 30.8 | 9.8  | 27.2 |
+------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Other                | 21.3 | 64.6 | 7.9  | 22.0 | 7.9  | 22.0 |
+------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Circulation            |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Parking, Roads,      | 4.4  | 13.3 | 11.3 | 31.4 | 11.9 | 33.0 |
| > Walks, Service       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Buildings              | 4.6  | 13.9 | 5.7  | 15.8 | 6.4  | 17.8 |
+------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Total                  | 33   | 100  | 36   | 100  | 36   | 100  |
+------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                        |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

The proposed occupied building area would increase from the 2005
baseline of 309,223 gsf to 445,713 gsf. A total 42,938 gsf of space is
planned to be demolished (Table 2-3) and 179,428 gsf of new construction
is proposed (Table 2-4) under the Proposed Action and 264,209 gsf under
the Capacity Growth Alternative. Under No Action, 27,920 gsf was already
planned for construction, and 13,338 gsf was already planned for
demolition

**Error: Reference source not found** displays the illustrative 20-year
Master Plan under the Proposed Action Alternative and **Figure 3**
displays the Master Plan under the Capacity Growth Alternative.

  --------------------------------- --------------------------------------- -----------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc210030843                                           
  .anchor}Table 2‑3\                                                        
  RML Buildings Proposed for                                                
  Demolition                                                                

  Building Number                   **Proposed Action Alternative /         **No Action
                                    Capacity Growth Alternative (gsf)**     Alternative
                                                                            (gsf)**

  12                                7,690                                   N/A

  14                                4,000                                   4,000

  16                                3,520                                   3,520

  17                                2,975                                   2,975

  21                                2,843                                   2,843

  22                                2,624                                   N/A

  24                                700                                     N/A

  ARM.1                             2,048                                   N/A

  ARM.2                             2,048                                   N/A

  HD1                               3,072                                   N/A

  HD2                               1,120                                   N/A

  HD3                               3,482                                   N/A

  HD4                               512                                     N/A

  HD5                               864                                     N/A

  T23                               4,624                                   N/A

  SS1                               384                                     N/A

  SS2                               216                                     N/A

  SS3                               216                                     N/A

  Total                             42,938                                  13,338
  --------------------------------- --------------------------------------- -----------------

  --------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ -----------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc210030844                                         
  .anchor}Table 2‑4\                                                      
  RML Buildings Proposed for                                              
  Construction                                                            

  Building Number                   Master Plan                           No Action
                                                                          Alternative (gsf)

                                    Proposed Action    Capacity Growth    
                                    Alternative (gsf)  Alternative (gsf)  

  Bldg 31                           25,920             25,920             25,920

  B                                 34,315             44,515             N/A

  C                                 30,316             30,316             N/A

  D                                 4,030              4,030              N/A

  E                                 4,800              4,800              N/A

  F                                 2,000              2,000              2,000

  G                                 59,393             89,393             N/A

  H/J                               15,244             15,244             N/A

  K                                 3,410              3,410              N/A

  L                                 Not Built          44,581             N/A

  Total                             179,428            264,209            27,920
  --------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ -----------------

######  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

###### Campus Upgrades {#campus-upgrades .unnumbered}

Eighteen campus buildings would be demolished under both the Proposed
Action and Capacity growth alternatives. Much of the building area
growth would be accommodated through construction of a central
administrative and storage building to replace obsolete buildings and
those located within the site standoff area; expanded animal facilities
south of Building 25; the new research laboratory building west of
Building 28; and consolidation of maintenance activities in the
southwest corner of the buildable site area. A Long Term Storage
Facility would be constructed just inside the service entrance and
opposite Building 29, the Shipping and Receiving Building. A 100-foot
wide standoff and buffer setback area that extends around the site
perimeter would be interrupted to the north by the Shipping and
Receiving Building and new surface parking for staff and to the east by
Buildings 1, 8, 9 and 11. Central plant expansion and improvements would
include demolition of Building 24 with consolidated and expanded
generator capacity at Building 27 and central plant expansion in the new
research laboratory building.

![](media/image3.png){width="6.9631944444444445in"
height="9.127083333333333in"}

![](media/image4.png){width="6.86875in" height="9.003472222222221in"}

All new development follows the orthogonal grid initially generated by
the Historic Core and subsequent Buildings 13, 25 and 28. This pattern
is continued and built on with the placement of new buildings.
Advantages of developing the campus on a grid system include ease of
integration with existing orthogonally oriented structures, efficiency
of land use, economical integration with, and extension of, the utility
distribution system, and the acknowledgment and further establishment of
a clearly defined pattern to guide future growth.

#### Functional Relationships {#functional-relationships-1 .unnumbered}

The primary concept for building massing on the RML Campus is the
concentration of the tallest structures at the center of the campus,
with a transition in height to lower buildings toward the perimeter. The
Master Plan establishes the Quad and Building 28 as the armature with
buildings and open spaces built around them and all parts of the campus
linked into an orthogonal grid. The core of the campus has a denser
character, while buildings near the perimeter are set at more generous
spacing within the landscape.

The primary concept underlying the functional relationships is the idea
of locating the research laboratories in close proximity to animal
facilities and the animal facilities immediately adjacent to each other.
In turn, these central laboratory/animal facilities are flanked on the
north by administrative and supply support and on the west by the
maintenance complex.

Future buildings on the RML campus would have a minimum clearance of 30
feet from other structures to provide for fire separation and emergency
vehicle access. Primary access is the loop road. Emergency north-south
travel can be accommodated through the Central Pedestrian Concourse and
between the Quad and Building 13.

In addition, planned acquisition of property at the northeast corner of
the site would allow RML to develop a public information facility, to be
called the Interpretive Center, on the newly acquired property. The
Center would consist of new construction and the possible renovation of
an existing log home. It would be outside of the protected site
perimeter and with its own access and parking.

A combination of renovation of existing structures and construction of
new facilities would be required to accommodate RML's future functional
needs. The gross square footage increase would allow for new
construction to expand capacity, to replace obsolete facilities, or
permit a decompression or reassignment of space through renovation of
existing buildings.

###### Access {#access .unnumbered}

All delivery truck traffic would continue to access the RML campus at
the 5^th^ and Baker Street service entrance and be restricted from
further entry to the site by vehicle barriers. All supplies are broken
out and inspected at the Shipping and Receiving Building and internally
delivered by RML staff. A new Long Term Storage Facility would be
located within the restricted service access area across from the
Shipping and Receiving Building.

Service access would be consolidated and simplified on the RML campus to
avoid conflicts with passenger vehicles, minimize the negative visual
impacts of multiple service areas and enhance site security.

###### Utilities {#utilities .unnumbered}

A Master Utility Plan (MUP) for RML is currently being prepared.
Projects developed for the Master Plan would be coordinated with that
document. In general, new projects would be planned to minimize the
interruption of utility services to existing campus buildings.
Additional attention would be given to potential utility conflicts as
noted below.

Principal steam lines run beneath the service drive between the Quad and
Buildings 13/13B, in the planned Central Pedestrian Concourse adjacent
to Buildings 13, 26 and 31, and to the west of Building 25. Many of
these lines are at their limit in terms of slope and would be retained
in their current location.

A critical water mains run around the service drive between the Quad and
Buildings 13/13B and across the planned Pedestrian Concourse. While new
projects that would adversely affect this utility are not anticipated,
construction that would affect this line is discouraged.

A six-inch gas main enters the site and runs under the proposed loop
road from the vicinity of the proposed Long Term Storage Facility to
Building 26. This is a critical utility, which future construction would
avoid disturbing.

Critical underground power lines run under the proposed Pedestrian
Concourse, between Buildings 30 and 31, between the Quad and Buildings
13/13B, north of Building 28, between Buildings 28 and 25, west of
Buildings 28 and 25, south of the ARMCO[^1] buildings, and in the
western portion of the campus roughly on axis with the central
Pedestrian Concourse. Construction projects anticipated that would
affect these lines must retain service to existing buildings throughout
construction.

Critical water routing runs around the Quad, under the central
Pedestrian Concourse and around the east, north and west sides of
Building 29. Planned construction would not adversely affect these
lines. The existing water supply has sufficient capacity to meet
existing and projected campus fire flow requirements. Additional booster
pumps are to be installed at individual buildings where needed.

Critical sanitary sewer lines run under the parking area east of the
Quad, between the Quad and Buildings 13/13B, beneath the proposed
Pedestrian Concourse, south of Building 25, west of Buildings 25 and 28,
west of Building 29 and from Building 13B to the middle of the campus'
current northern boundary. Future construction would not adversely
affect these lines.

A study is underway to increase and consolidate campus emergency
generator capacity and fuel storage. Expansion of the West Power Plant
(Building 27) is included in the Master Plan, as is increased fuel oil
storage capacity in multiple, above-ground storage tanks. These elements
must remain inside the campus perimeter security standoff. Additional
security measures for these elements may also be required at the
direction of the NIH Division of Physical Security Management.

The entire campus telephone and network system is fed from one Main
Distribution Frame located on the first floor of Building 6. At this
location is the main telephone PBX switch. All telephone service comes
from this location and switch. From this room, telephone tie cables are
provided to dedicated rooms for Intermediate Distribution Frames and
Building Distribution Frames located in other buildings. According to
Qwest Federal Services, the Qwest Hamilton central office is currently
unable to directly provide ISDN PRI or BRI circuits. These types of
circuits must be pulled from the Missoula office, which result in
Missoula numbers being assigned. If available, these services would
allow caller ID information to pass to RML telephone equipment to
digital display voice terminals. Features such as this may not be
mandatory, but would provide more efficient communications. Limited
services from the local Qwest office may impact some future
telecommunications functions at RML. However, the demand from a local
federal government agency may prompt or force upgrades of the local
Qwest facilities.

###### Security {#security .unnumbered}

A perimeter fence would continue to be installed at the expanded
northern campus boundary. The new pedestrian portals would have staffed
and monitored entrance gates and/or turnstiles to provide control of
access to the campus. Additional openings in the perimeter beyond those
planned in this Master Plan potentially tax personnel resources and
physical security; therefore, none are planned. All new construction
must comply with the *NIH Physical Security Design Guidelines* to ensure
the safety of persons and research. Visitors would continue to be
screened in the Visitor Center and deliveries would be screened in the
Shipping and Receiving Building.

A 100 foot security standoff area would be created at the site
perimeter. Parking within this standoff area at the south perimeter and
within the historic core would be retained and improved. Along the north
perimeter, an expanded site created through private property
acquisitions would provide increased security and new surface parking, a
portion of which would lie within the standoff area.

Parking is planned on the basis of one space per staff member. Estimated
parking requirements for the 20-year plan based on the Proposed Action
Alternative are 461 spaces, including 427 for estimated personnel, 24
spaces at the visitor center, and 10 spaces at the new Interpretive
Center. The Capacity Growth Alternative includes 560 employee spaces
with comparable spaces set aside for visitors and the Interpretive
Center.

*Circulation*

A pedestrian core would be created at the center of the campus. This
zone is enclosed within a loop road with campus entries for visitors and
staff at the current 4^th^ Street entrance; a service entrance at the
northeast corner near 5^th^ and Baker Streets; and an strictly emergency
egress from the new parking lot entrance established on 6^th^ Street at
the north side of the site. In the interior of the campus, a Central
Pedestrian Concourse is proposed that provides connections to the Quad
and administrative support center and Buildings 13, 25, and 28. This
concept is well suited for creating a "campus" atmosphere with spaces
and opportunities for random encounters and interaction. The vehicular
circulation concept for the campus perimeter is the loop road at the
building perimeter, outside the central pedestrian area, with access to
surface parking located outside the loop and primary building entrances
on the interior side of the road. The two existing entries to the
campus, the existing staff and visitor and service entrances from 4^th^
Street and 5^th^ and Baker Streets, respectively, would be retained. Two
new emergency exits would be provided; one from the north parking lot to
6^th^ Street and the other from the south parking lot to 4^th^ Street,
south of campus.

All major campus pedestrian pathways (such as the Central Pedestrian
Concourse) would be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles, and
landscape and path design would allow for a clear path of 16 feet
minimum width and 14 feet minimum height.

###### Open Space and Land Use {#open-space-and-land-use .unnumbered}

Under both the Proposed Action and the Capacity Growth alternatives,
construction would not occur within floodplains and/or wetlands. A
100-foot wide standoff and buffer setback area extends around the site
perimeter interrupted only along the southeast boundary by existing
surface parking, at the east side of the campus by existing Buildings 1,
6, 8, 9 and 11 in the Historic Core, and to the north by the Shipping
and Receiving Building and new surface parking for staff. The open space
buffer zone would be maintained along the site perimeter, serving as a
visual buffer and a standoff distance to mitigate effects of any blast
originating on the border of the site. Open space and campus area
landscaping would incorporate native vegetation where applicable, to
provide an attractive setting while preserving needed views for
surveillance. Buffers are planned as primarily native landscaped open
space. Existing screen landscaping would remain and be enhanced with
additional native plantings designed to frame attractive views into the
campus. There would be surface parking area proposed at the north
perimeter but no new structures would be placed within this buffer zone.

###### Lighting {#lighting .unnumbered}

A comprehensive lighting scheme would be implemented under both action
alternatives and would separate the campus into four lighting zones
further defined by six lighting categories (Error: Reference source not
found). The four proposed lighting zones are: Road Lighting, Parking
Lighting, Pedestrian Path Lighting, and Light Control Zone. The
following six categories fall within one or more of the four primary
lighting zones: street, pedestrian, building, safety and security,
signage, and special features.

The Road Lighting Zone applies to lighting structures along the proposed
loop road. The NIH Design Policy and Guidelines (2003) specify a
lighting intensity level of 50 lux (similar to the light intensity in a
family living room) for roadways. RML has selected a family of fixtures
that would be used. The lamppost style was selected in part to match the
fixtures used by the City of Hamilton in their downtown renovation
project. The bollard type lights could also be used in some areas.
Street lighting units are generally placed 100 to 115 feet apart.

The Parking Lighting Zone would occur near the northern and southern
perimeters of the RML campus where campus activities could emit trespass
light affecting the surrounding neighborhood. To mitigate NIH light
trespass on the surrounding neighborhood, light fixtures with good
"house side shields" or good "cut-off" optics (i.e., full shield fixture
which blocks light from emitting past a designated horizontal plane)
would be used. These shields would eliminate the majority of the
potential trespass light emitted from campus lighting. Similar to
roadway lighting, the maximum height of light poles would be 26 feet.
Poles would be protected by placing them on poured concrete bases.

Signage lighting would be located at major entry points and elsewhere on
campus for directional and orientation purposes. This lighting would be
designed to cast illumination on the sign at an intensity allowing the
sign to be easily read but without introducing negative effects such as
glare, light pollution or light trespass. Similarly, special areas such
as the flag pole would require focused, efficient lighting appropriate
for the site.

The Pedestrian Lighting Zone would include sidewalks connecting parking
areas with campus facilities and areas between the facilities as well as
a portion of the proposed river park walkway. NIH guidelines recommend
spacing the lighting units 80 to 100 feet apart, which gives a minimum
average maintained lighting level of 10 lux (intensity of candlelight
from a distance of one foot). The Pedestrian Lighting Zone also includes
exterior building lighting, which would be a coordinated lighting scheme
designed to light building entrances and exits, loading docks, and other
access points, to provide illumination in areas for enhanced safety and
security.

#### ![](media/image5.png){width="6.774305555555555in" height="8.871527777777779in"}  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

#### Master Plan Implementation {#master-plan-implementation .unnumbered}

Implementation of the Master Plan includes a combination of renovations
of existing structures and construction of new facilities. The increases
in building space represent only new construction to expand capacity, to
replace obsolete facilities, or permit a decompression or reassignment
of space through renovation of existing buildings. Implementation would
be guided, in part, by the following considerations:

-   *IRF (Building 28) completion*

    -   The research activities anticipated for Building 28 require
        expanded animal facilities, campus maintenance, general storage,
        waste management, and parking. Implementation of these
        facilities is of high priority and they are, accordingly,
        included in the first two implementation phases.

-   *Property Acquisition*

    -   Acquisition of the available properties to the north and
        northeast of campus would be required to enhance campus standoff
        and to meet the anticipated programmatic need for parking and
        the Interpretive Center. In 2003, Congress approved funding for
        the planned acquisition of the north and northeast properties.
        As funding is in place for the purchase, the action alternatives
        include their acquisition as a priority, and recommend
        acquisition in the initial phase. In accordance with the
        National Environmental Policy Act process, this environmental
        document evaluates the potential environmental effects of such
        an action.

-   *Rocky Mountain Veterinary Branch Expansion (RMVB) and the ARMCO
    Buildings*

    -   The RMVB expansion is planned in the area currently occupied by
        the ARMCO buildings. ARMCO 2 contains animal surgery, a critical
        support function that would need to be accommodated in temporary
        facilities during the construction of the RMVB expansion. The
        site immediately west of the planned RMVB expansion is
        recommended for consideration for this temporary facility.

-   *Laboratory Building "G" and the HD Complex*

    -   Laboratory Building G is planned for the location currently
        occupied by the HD Building complex which houses campus
        maintenance activities. Completion of the planned Maintenance
        Facility is necessary to permit the removal of the HD Building
        complex in order to make its site available for the construction
        of Laboratory Building G.

-   *Building L*

    -   The Capacity Growth Alternative includes this new building, with
        36,939 gsf of lab space and 7,642 SF of animal space.

## No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative continues the present course of action on the
campus; ongoing management and research functions would continue; and
those projects that have received approval or funding would proceed to
completion. Ongoing activities anticipated under the No Action
Alternative include:

-   Operation of Building 28;

-   Continued research, and operations and maintenance;

-   Construction of Building 31 (see Table 2-4);

-   Replacement and consolidating generators. Generators located on the
    east side of the campus would be moved to the west side. The
    generators would be placed in series on the west side of the campus;

-   Demolition of Buildings 14,16, 17 and 21 (see Table 2-3);

-   Road improvements including a continuous flow route; and,

-   Sidewalk and landscape improvements.

-   Campus population is anticipated to be 376 employees, and the total
    gross square footage would be 323,805.

# Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

## Introduction

Existing environmental resources are described in this chapter with a
summary of environmental information. In the following sections,
"Project Area" refers to the RML campus, and "study area" refers to land
surrounding RML. The "area of potential effect" as used in the
Historical Resources section refers to the Project Area.

The RML master planning effort began in fall 2005. Consequently, 2005 is
treated as the baseline for purposes of master planning. The DEIS uses
the most recent available data for the existing or current conditions.
These are generally 2006 or 2008 conditions, and a reference year is
provided.

The HHS General Administration Manual Part 30 Environmental Protection
requires HHS Operating Divisions to consider the environmental effects
of their proposed actions and to build environmental considerations into
agency decision-making. This chapter addresses environmental factors
that could be impacted by NIH's decision regarding the RML Master Plan.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will be evaluated for the
Proposed Action Alternative, Capacity Growth Alternative, and the No
Action Alternatives. Direct and indirect effects occur due to
implementation of the action (or no action). Cumulative effects are the
additive impact of the direct and indirect effects, along with the
effects of other activities that occurred in the past, are occurring
now, or are reasonably foreseeable. Past and present effects are
accounted for in the affected environment. Reasonably foreseeable
actions that may affect resources analyzed in this DEIS include already
planned activities on the RML campus, specifically:

-   Occupation of Building 28;

-   Operation of Building 31;

-   Completion of Building 32;

-   Consolidation of generators. Generators located on the east side of
    the campus would be moved to the west side and placed in series
    within an expanded Building 27.

-   Phase 2 of the acoustical improvements would be implemented,
    including the Quad and Buildings 12 and 13;

-   Demolition of Buildings 14, 16 and 17;

-   Construction of a new loop road, sidewalks,expanded and consolidated
    parking; and

-   Construction of site and landscape enhancements.

    These current and planned activities are included in the No Action
    Alternative. There is no planned additional development in the area
    surrounding the RML campus.

### Site Overview

###### Existing Land and Building Use {#existing-land-and-building-use .unnumbered}

Existing building use (Error: Reference source not found**)** includes:

-   Research (primarily laboratories, IRF, researchers' offices and
    support space);

-   Animal Holding and Research;

-   Administration;

-   Service and Support; and

-   Mechanical (including boiler and refrigeration plants, emergency
    power, switchgear, etc.).

These functions occur in different buildings, but laboratory research is
generally conducted in the Quad, Building 28, and portions of the
one-story buildings adjacent to these main research buildings. Animals
are housed primarily in Buildings 13 and 25, and portions of Building
28. Administration is located in portions of the Quad; the two
residences, Buildings 8 and 9; and in the Visitors' Center in Building
30.

![](media/image6.png){width="6.780555555555556in"
height="8.871527777777779in"}

The remaining activities include support buildings and
mechanical/electrical equipment. The existing (2008) campus buildings
and functions are summarized in **Table 3-5**.

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc210030845   
  .anchor}Table 3‑5\                
  2008 RML Buildings and Their      
  Functions                         
  --------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
  Building Number                   Function

  1                                 Research

  2                                 Research

  3                                 Research

  A                                 Support

  5                                 Research Support

  6                                 Research

  7                                 Vacant

  8                                 Administration

  9                                 Administration

  11                                Administration

  12                                Visual Media Arts and Freezer Storage

  13                                Animal Research

  13B                               Research

  15                                Radiological Waste

  16                                Research Support

  17                                Storage

  21                                Equipment Storage

  22                                Central Stockroom

  23                                Incinerator

  24                                East Emergency Generator

  25                                Research

  26                                Central Boiler Plant

  27                                West Emergency Generator

  28                                Research/Animal/Support

  29                                Shipping and Receiving

  30                                Visitors' Center

  31                                Administration and support

  HD1                               Maintenance

  HD2                               Maintenance

  HD3                               Maintenance

  HD4                               Maintenance

  HD5                               Maintenance

  SS1                               Storage

  SS2                               Storage

  SS3                               Storage

  ARMCO1                            Storage

  ARMCO2                            Animal Research

  T23                               Maintenance
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

## Social Resources

### Affected Environment

The City of Hamilton is the largest community in Ravalli County and was
incorporated in 1894. Hamilton was a company town revolving around the
activities of a large lumber mill, owned by the Anaconda Copper Mining
Company and Bitterroot Stock Farm. By 1900, Hamilton was the commercial
center of the Bitterroot Valley and the seat of Ravalli County.

###### Population Trends and Demographic Characteristics {#population-trends-and-demographic-characteristics .unnumbered}

Between 2000 and 2005, Ravalli County was the fifth fastest growing
county in Montana with an estimated population increase of 10.7 percent
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2006a). In comparison, Missoula County, the
region's main population center, grew 21.75 percent between 1990 and
2000, but slowed to 4.5 percent between 2000 and 2005 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2006a). Hamilton has been one of the fastest growing communities
in Montana as well. The population increased from 2,737 in 1990 to 3,705
in 2000, a net increase of 35 percent during the 10-year period.
According to 2005 U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the population of
Hamilton in 2004 was 4,343, suggesting a population increase of
approximately 17.2 percent since 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005a). The
state's population growth was 12.9 percent from 1990 to 2000, but only
3.7 percent from 2000 to 2005 (Table 3-6).

+---------+----------+----------+----------+------------+------------+
| []{     |          |          |          |            |            |
| #__RefH |          |          |          |            |            |
| eading_ |          |          |          |            |            |
| __Toc21 |          |          |          |            |            |
| 0030846 |          |          |          |            |            |
| .ancho  |          |          |          |            |            |
| r}Table |          |          |          |            |            |
| 3‑6\    |          |          |          |            |            |
| Pop     |          |          |          |            |            |
| ulation |          |          |          |            |            |
| Es      |          |          |          |            |            |
| timates |          |          |          |            |            |
+---------+----------+----------+----------+------------+------------+
| Area    | 2006     | 2000     | 1990     | \%         | \%         |
|         | Census   | Census   | Census   | Increase   | Increase   |
|         | E        |          |          |            |            |
|         | stimates |          |          | 1990 -2000 | 2000 -     |
|         |          |          |          |            | 2006       |
+---------+----------+----------+----------+------------+------------+
| Montana | 944,623  | 902,195  | 799,065  | 13%        | 4.7%       |
+---------+----------+----------+----------+------------+------------+
| Ravalli | 40,582   | 36,070   | 25,010   | 44%        | 12.5%      |
| County  |          |          |          |            |            |
+---------+----------+----------+----------+------------+------------+
|         | 2004     |          |          |            | \%         |
|         | Census   |          |          |            | Increase   |
|         | E        |          |          |            |            |
|         | stimates |          |          |            | 2000 -     |
|         |          |          |          |            | 2004       |
+---------+----------+----------+----------+------------+------------+
| H       | 4,644    | 3,705    | 2,737    | 35%        | 17.2%      |
| amilton |          |          |          |            |            |
+---------+----------+----------+----------+------------+------------+
| S       |          |          |          |            |            |
| ources: |          |          |          |            |            |
| US      |          |          |          |            |            |
| Census  |          |          |          |            |            |
| Bureau  |          |          |          |            |            |
| 2007a,  |          |          |          |            |            |
| US      |          |          |          |            |            |
| Census  |          |          |          |            |            |
| Bureau  |          |          |          |            |            |
| 2007b.  |          |          |          |            |            |
| US      |          |          |          |            |            |
| Census  |          |          |          |            |            |
| Bureau  |          |          |          |            |            |
| 2007c,  |          |          |          |            |            |
| Sonoran |          |          |          |            |            |
| In      |          |          |          |            |            |
| stitute |          |          |          |            |            |
| 2006    |          |          |          |            |            |
+---------+----------+----------+----------+------------+------------+

According to the Ravalli County Economic Needs Assessment (Swanson,
2002), "about 95 percent of this recent population growth is the result
of much higher rates of net in-migration to the county (which considers
only new residents who have declared Ravalli County as their permanent
residence)."

Population statistics for the state, county, and city are based on U.S.
Census Bureau estimates and are shown in **Table 3-2**. Demographic
characteristics and distribution are more difficult to update for the
years following the federal census because data for some characteristics
may only be available in certain years for certain geographical areas.
Therefore, Table 3-7 provides demographic data from 2000 to provide a
general idea of age and education distribution known for the area for
that time. These statistics indicate that the Ravalli County population
aged between 1990 and 2000, with large increases in the 45 to 64
year-old age group. The 65 and older group decreased as a percentage of
the total population. Median age of county residents was 41.1 years in
2000, up from 37.8 years in 1990. The median age for the state's
population in 2000 was 37.5 years*.* Aging of the population is expected
to increase and continue to be a demographic factor, producing a lower
birth rate. In 1980, the birth rate was 15.8 per 1,000, falling to 9.8
by 2000. This compares to a statewide average of 13.8 (US Census 2001).

The school population is growing more slowly than the general
population. The Ravalli County Economic Needs Assessment (Swanson 2002)
points out those new in-migrants to Ravalli County are people in their
40s, 50s, and 60s who are not adding to their families. If they have
children still at home, they are likely high-school age and older.
Education levels attained in the county match those of the state and the
City of Hamilton in the percent of high school graduates, but both the
county and the city have lower rates of college and graduate or
professional degree holders than does the state.

###### Housing  {#housing .unnumbered}

####### Ravalli County

According to estimates provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, there were
approximately 16,224 housing units in Ravalli County in 2004 (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2005b). The 2000 federal census of the county indicated
that at that time, almost eight percent of the housing units in the
county were multiple family units, over 75 percent of the housing was
owner-occupied, and there was an average of 2.48 people residing in each
household. It is reasonable to assume that current statistics may be
similar; however, no data are available to confirm earlier estimates.
The Ravalli County Growth Policy (adopted in April 2003 and amended in
August 2004) notes that providing quality affordable housing is a
primary community goal.

  --------------------------------- -------------- ---------------------- -------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc210030847                                         
  .anchor}Table 3‑7\                                                      
  Demographic Characteristics, 2000                                       

  Demographic Characteristic        Montana        Ravalli County         City of Hamilton

  Total Population                  902,195        36,070                 3,705

  Gender                                                                  

  Male                              467,498        17,910                 1,672

  Female                            469,498        18,160                 2,033

  Age Group                                                               

  0-4                               54,869         2,073                  220

  5-19                              202,571        8,002                  600

  20-44                             303,599        10,289                 1,072

  45-64                             220,207        10,117                 764

  65+                               120,949        5,589                  1,049

  Education (population 25 and                                            
  over)                                                                   

  \< High School graduate           75,358         3,095                  482

  High School\                      183,415        7,738                  860
  (or GED)                                                                

  Some college,\                    150,467        6,916                  708
  no degree                                                               

  Associate degree                  34,420         1,284                  82

  Bachelor's degree                 100,758        3,897                  423

  Post Graduate                     42,203         1,631                  175

  Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001                                        
  --------------------------------- -------------- ---------------------- -------------------

According to the policy, a household is described as experiencing
"cost-burden" when their housing costs exceed 30 percent of income. In
1990, the U.S. Census indicated that 16 percent of homeowners and more
than 34 percent of renters were experiencing cost-burden. In 2000, these
figures had increased to almost 29 percent of homeowners and 38 percent
of renters. Particularly during the 1990 to 2000 time period, the rate
of growth in household income did not keep pace with the cost of homes
in Ravalli County. For example, between 1990 and 2000, median household
income increased from \$28,376 (adjusted for inflation to 2000 values)
to \$31,992, or 12.7 percent. In contrast, the median home value was
\$82,923 in 1990 (adjusted for inflation to 2000 values) and increased
to \$133,400 in 2000, an increase of 60.9 percent and about 134 percent
of the Montana median home value of \$99,500. Data available from the
Bitterroot Valley Chamber of Commerce (2005) indicated that in 2003, the
median reported sales price was \$138,000, an increase of 3.4 percent
over 2000, while the median household income in the county was \$34,846
or an 8.9 percent increase over 2000 (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service, 2005). While this may seem like the gap
between housing and income is shrinking, the Bitterroot Valley Board of
Realtors reported that in 2005, the median price of residential
properties sold in the county in 2005 was \$185,000 (Lyons, 2006).

####### Hamilton 

Within the city limits, approximately 75 to 80 percent of the area is
built out, with less than 15 percent vacant land remaining (Cobb, 2006).
The 2000 U.S. Census reports there were 1,915 housing units in the city.
Of the 1,772 occupied housing units, 51 percent were owner-occupied,
with 49 percent renter-occupied. On average, 1.95 people live in each
household, indicating smaller households than in the county, consistent
with the higher median age of city residents. The Bitterroot Valley
Board of Realtors compilation of housing sales statistics for 2005
(which does not necessarily represent all sales activity in the area)
indicate that in-town residential real estate values ranged from
\$56,000 to \$305,000 and that the median price for a residence in 2005
was \$132,750. The approximate average price for homes sold in the area
of town near RML was reported as approximately \$159,900 (Lyons, 2006).

RML is located in a residential area of Hamilton. At the public scoping
meeting (March 2006), some residents voiced concerns regarding noise,
steady traffic, energy and water conservation, and parking conflicts.

The City of Hamilton has zoned the area around RML as Public and
Institutional (PI), which is intended to "accommodate those public and
institutional uses which are related to the health, safety, educational,
cultural, and welfare needs of the city." The zone recognizes
"government owned and operated facilities" and "other similar uses which
the city finds to fall within the intent and purpose of this zone, that
would not be more obnoxious or materially detrimental to the public
welfare or to the property in the vicinity of the uses, and which the
city finds to be of a comparable nature and of the same class as the
uses enumerated" (Section 17.92.010, City of Hamilton Zoning Code). The
Hamilton Growth Policy (2003) confirms uses in the district.

###### Education {#education .unnumbered}

There are 23 public schools in Ravalli County with a total enrollment of
approximately 6,112 pupils. Of the 23, there are six high schools, seven
middle schools, nine elementary schools, and one primary school. In
addition, there are three private schools in the county with an
additional enrollment of approximately 220 students (Montana Office of
Public Instruction, 2005). Higher education in the region includes the
University of Montana and its College of Technology, both in Missoula.

Enrollment in the PK-12 schools in the Hamilton District is
approximately 1,594 (Montana Office of Public Instruction, 2005).

### Direct and Indirect Effects

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-15 .unnumbered}

###### Population and Demographic Trends {#population-and-demographic-trends .unnumbered}

If the Proposed Action Alternative were to be selected, the number of
new residents who would move to Ravalli County and the City of Hamilton
would represent a small portion of the anticipated population increase
that is expected to occur assuming current growth trends continue (Table
3-8). The 2008 population of RML is 350 total, under the Proposed Action
Alternative, this would increase to 427, less than a 7 percent increase.
If all new employees were new residents of the county, chose to live in
Ravalli County, and had household sizes that matched the Ravalli County
average rate of 2.48 persons per household, the Proposed Action
Alternative would add about 191 new residents. These residents would be
added to the projection of approximately 17,000 new people expected in
Ravalli County as the result of net in-migration by 2025. The population
increase from the Proposed Action Alternative represents 1 percent of
the total projected increase in county residents.

+-----------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| [               |                      |                            |
| ]{#__RefHeading |                      |                            |
| ___Toc210030848 |                      |                            |
| .anchor}Table   |                      |                            |
| 3‑8\            |                      |                            |
| Population      |                      |                            |
| Projections     |                      |                            |
+-----------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| Area            | Current Population   | 2025 Population            |
+-----------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| Ravalli         | 40,582               | 17,379 new\                |
| County^1^       |                      | 57,961 total               |
+-----------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| City of         | 4,644                | 8,612 new\                 |
| Hamilton^2^     |                      | 13,256 total               |
+-----------------+----------------------+----------------------------+
| ^1^ 2006        |                      |                            |
| estimate 2%     |                      |                            |
| increase        |                      |                            |
| annually        |                      |                            |
|                 |                      |                            |
| ^2^ 2004        |                      |                            |
| estimate 6%     |                      |                            |
| increase        |                      |                            |
| annually        |                      |                            |
|                 |                      |                            |
| Sources: US     |                      |                            |
| Census Bureau   |                      |                            |
| 2007a, US       |                      |                            |
| Census Bureau   |                      |                            |
| 2007b.          |                      |                            |
+-----------------+----------------------+----------------------------+

The age structure of the county's population changed based on the period
of rapid growth that occurred between1990 and 2000, and newcomers are
expected to more closely match the demographic of the more recent
residents than the historic population. No impact is expected on the
ethnic or gender make-up of the population. Most jobs created by any
expansion directed by the Proposed Action Alternative would require
skilled and experienced workers. Average education levels in Ravalli
County and Hamilton may increase slightly as a result of the additional
staff at RML.

###### Housing {#housing-1 .unnumbered}

Based on population projections and numbers of people per household
unique to Hamilton, between 335 and 900 new housing units would be
needed by 2025 to accommodate the overall projected new growth in the
community. While it is unknown whether all new RML employees would move
to Hamilton, the number of projected new homes is sufficient to house
them.

Housing construction is a thriving industry in Ravalli County. Housing
prices in the county continue to increase faster than wages. The
addition of new homes would result in an increase in business for
homebuilders and real estate developers.

###### Education {#education-1 .unnumbered}

School capacity is adequate for growth, including the projections from
the Proposed Action Alternative, especially since school-aged population
levels are decreasing. This would be true for the No Action Alternative
as well.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-15 .unnumbered}

###### Population and Demographic Trends {#population-and-demographic-trends-1 .unnumbered}

Effects of the Capacity Growth Alternative would be largely the same as
the Proposed Action Alternative and No Action. The Capacity Growth
Alternative would increase the RML population from the 2008 level of 350
to 560 when fully implemented (a 62.5 percent increase in the RML
staffing). As a result, the population of Ravalli County would increase
by 521 if the 2.48 people per household size remains constant. This is a
population increase for Ravalli County of less than 1 percent.

###### Housing {#housing-2 .unnumbered}

The effects of the Capacity Growth Alternative would be the same as the
Proposed Action Alternative.

###### Education {#education-2 .unnumbered}

The effects of the Capacity Growth Alternative would be the same as the
Proposed Action Alternative.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-16 .unnumbered}

###### Population and Demographic Trends {#population-and-demographic-trends-2 .unnumbered}

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would have no impact on
demographic trends in Hamilton or Ravalli County. The No Action
Alternative would include an additional 26 personnel to fully staff
Building 28 over the current (2008) RML population of 350.

###### Housing {#housing-3 .unnumbered}

Under the No Action Alternative, housing starts would continue at the
same pace as under the Proposed Action Alternative. Housing prices or
property values are expected to remain at current levels and to increase
or decrease in accordance with general real estate market trends in
Hamilton.

###### Education {#education-3 .unnumbered}

The effects to the No Action Alternative would be the same as the
Proposed Action Alternative.

### Cumulative Effects

###### Population and Demographic Trends {#population-and-demographic-trends-3 .unnumbered}

Population change results from both migration (the number of people
moving to and from an area) and natural change (the number of area
births and deaths). Because of a decreasing birth rate and a stable
death rate, natural change alone would lead to a decreasing population
in Ravalli County.

Population growth would continue at the current pace under the No Action
Alternative (Table 3-8). At the current 2 percent annual rate of
increase, Ravalli County is expected to grow by 8,887 people by 2017.
Hamilton has been growing at 6 percent annually, and its population is
projected to increase by 3,673 people.

###### Housing {#housing-4 .unnumbered}

According to the Ravalli County Growth Policy (2002), future trends are
difficult to predict, although continued, scattered residential
development is expected. Between 3,200 and 6,855 new homes would be
needed by 2010 to accommodate projected growth. According to the Ravalli
County Economic Development Authority, about 500 homes have been
constructed each year since 2000 at prices ranging from \$150,000 to
\$170,000. Commercial and industrial development is expected near
existing service centers and along U.S. Hwy 93. Missoula would continue
to be the regional economic center.

## Economic Resources

### Affected Environment

Ravalli County has experienced several boom/bust economic cycles and was
economically depressed for much of the 20^th^ century. RML was
established in 1927 to research the cause of Rocky Mountain spotted
fever. Hamilton actually grew during the 1930s when the rest of the
country was experiencing a depression. Ravalli County and Hamilton are
currently experiencing another economic boom because of the rapid
population growth, apparently spurred by urban professionals and
retirees who have moved to the area wanting a rural, outdoor quality of
life.

According to the Ravalli County Economic Needs Assessment (Swanson
2002), the economy is increasingly "growth driven" and "growth
dependent," with most employment and income growth associated with
people moving to the area and the resulting real estate development and
construction activity. Concerns exist that high levels of population
growth cannot be maintained indefinitely because the growth is based on
the attractiveness and desirability of the area, highlighting the
volatility of the current economic situation. The Ravalli County Growth
Policy (2003) lists major goals of encouraging economic growth in order
to provide both good pay and good profit, and supporting the Ravalli
County Economic Development Authority. The City of Hamilton Draft Growth
Policy (2003) lists protecting the rural way of life without neglecting
economic growth as a major community goal. The report specifically
identifies the bioresearch and biotechnology fields.

###### Employment {#employment .unnumbered}

Along with the influx of population over the past 15 years came a
construction boom that has kept many contractors in the Bitterroot
Valley actively engaged in building homes and commercial developments.
In addition to construction activities -- which showed an increase in
number of employed by 32 percent over 2002 -- much of the boost in the
valley's economy has been in services (3,500 employees). According to
the Ravalli County Economic Needs Assessment (Swanson 2002), growth in
the service sector outpaces employee and income growth in any other
sector. Recent data available from the Montana Department of Labor and
Industry (2005) indicate that this is still a trend with a 56 percent
increase in that sector since 2002. Not only are these types of jobs
increasing, but the pay is also getting better, probably due to the
increase in health services jobs. For a number of years, the retail
trade sector was growing (2,086 employees in 2002); however, growth in
this sector has diminished somewhat in the past 3 years (1,476 employees
reported for 2005) (Table 3-9).

The top 10 private employers in Ravalli County (not in order) are
Albertson's, A2Z Personnel and Nolan Temps, GSK Biologicals Hamilton
(formerly Corixa Corporation), Discovery Care Center, Farmers State
Bank, Fox Lumber Sales, Marcus Daly Memorial Hospital, Rocky Mountain
Log Homes, Selway Corporation, and Super 1 Foods (Bitterroot Valley
Chamber of Commerce, 2005).

Government employment is especially important to Ravalli County because
it is a steady source of outside dollars coming into the county, thereby
contributing to the economic base. Each economic base dollar generates
about two dollars to the local economy (Swanson 2002), whereas dollars
earned from inside the community generate only one dollar. Employment at
public schools, RML, and the U.S. Forest Service make up the majority of
government jobs.

The unemployment rate of Ravalli County has been higher than the state
unemployment rate since 1990, ranging from 10.8 percent in 1991 to a low
of 4.6 percent in 2001(Table 3-10).

Current (2008) staff at RML includes approximately 350 personnel.

+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| []{#__RefHeading___Toc210030849  |                 |                 |
| .anchor}Table 3‑9\               |                 |                 |
| Ravalli County Employment by     |                 |                 |
| Industry - 2005                  |                 |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Industry                         | Average Annual  | Annual Wages    |
|                                  | Employed        | Paid            |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Agriculture, Forestry, Fish      | 291             | \$ 6,292,148    |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Mining                           | Unreported      | Unreported      |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Construction                     | 872             | \$ 23,471,876   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Manufacturing                    | 981             | \$ 31,474,601   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Transportation and Warehousing   | 233             | \$ 5,034,924    |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Wholesale Trade                  | 300             | \$ 9,719,727    |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Retail Trade                     | 1,476           | \$ 26,605,600   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Finance, Insurance, and Real     | 485             | \$ 14,438,752   |
| Estate                           |                 |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Services                         | 3,500           | \$ 68,490,951   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Information                      | 97              | \$ 2,291,097    |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Management of Companies and      | 14              | \$ 521,637      |
| Enterprises                      |                 |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Arts, Entertainment, and         | 265             | \$ 4,455,630    |
| Recreation                       |                 |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Government                       | 2,056           | \$ 63,742,875   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Total All Industries**         | 10,621          | \$258,864,390   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Note: Totals may not agree due   |                 |                 |
| to nondisclosure of confidential |                 |                 |
| industry data or to rounding.    |                 |                 |
|                                  |                 |                 |
| Source: Montana Department of    |                 |                 |
| Labor and Industry 2005.         |                 |                 |
+----------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+

Poverty levels indicate the percentage of the population with incomes
below that necessary for basic necessities -- adequate housing, food,
transportation, energy, and health care. The 2003 U.S. Census reports
that an estimated 14 percent of Ravalli County residents were classified
as living in poverty, based on the national poverty threshold. At the
same time, poverty levels were estimated at 14.2 percent of the state's
population.

+-----+--------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| [   |              |              |                |               |
| ]{# |              |              |                |               |
| __R |              |              |                |               |
| efH |              |              |                |               |
| ead |              |              |                |               |
| ing |              |              |                |               |
| ___ |              |              |                |               |
| Toc |              |              |                |               |
| 210 |              |              |                |               |
| 030 |              |              |                |               |
| 850 |              |              |                |               |
| .   |              |              |                |               |
| anc |              |              |                |               |
| hor |              |              |                |               |
| }Ta |              |              |                |               |
| ble |              |              |                |               |
| 3‑  |              |              |                |               |
| 10\ |              |              |                |               |
| R   |              |              |                |               |
| ava |              |              |                |               |
| lli |              |              |                |               |
| Cou |              |              |                |               |
| nty |              |              |                |               |
| Ann |              |              |                |               |
| ual |              |              |                |               |
| A   |              |              |                |               |
| ver |              |              |                |               |
| age |              |              |                |               |
| La  |              |              |                |               |
| bor |              |              |                |               |
| Fo  |              |              |                |               |
| rce |              |              |                |               |
+-----+--------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| Y   | Labor Force  | Unemployed   | Unemployment   |               |
| ear |              |              | Rate           |               |
+-----+--------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
|     |              |              | County (%)     | MT (%)        |
+-----+--------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| 2   | 18,219       | 954          | 5.2            | 4.3           |
| 004 |              |              |                |               |
+-----+--------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| 2   | 17,858       | 957          | 5.4            | 4.4           |
| 003 |              |              |                |               |
+-----+--------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| 2   | 17,489       | 886          | 5.1            | 4.5           |
| 002 |              |              |                |               |
+-----+--------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| 2   | 18,163       | 840          | 4.6            | 4.5           |
| 001 |              |              |                |               |
+-----+--------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| 2   | 18,272       | 950          | 5.2            | 4.8           |
| 000 |              |              |                |               |
+-----+--------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| 1   | 17,730       | 1,072        | 6.0            | NA            |
| 999 |              |              |                |               |
+-----+--------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| 1   | 15,973       | 966          | 6.0            | NA            |
| 995 |              |              |                |               |
+-----+--------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| 1   | 12,251       | 1,328        | 10.8           | NA            |
| 991 |              |              |                |               |
+-----+--------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+
| S   |              |              |                |               |
| our |              |              |                |               |
| ce: |              |              |                |               |
| M   |              |              |                |               |
| ont |              |              |                |               |
| ana |              |              |                |               |
| D   |              |              |                |               |
| epa |              |              |                |               |
| rtm |              |              |                |               |
| ent |              |              |                |               |
| of  |              |              |                |               |
| La  |              |              |                |               |
| bor |              |              |                |               |
| and |              |              |                |               |
| In  |              |              |                |               |
| dus |              |              |                |               |
| try |              |              |                |               |
| 20  |              |              |                |               |
| 06. |              |              |                |               |
| Not |              |              |                |               |
| es: |              |              |                |               |
|     |              |              |                |               |
| D   |              |              |                |               |
| ata |              |              |                |               |
| for |              |              |                |               |
| 2   |              |              |                |               |
| 003 |              |              |                |               |
| --  |              |              |                |               |
| 2   |              |              |                |               |
| 004 |              |              |                |               |
| d   |              |              |                |               |
| eri |              |              |                |               |
| ved |              |              |                |               |
| by  |              |              |                |               |
| M   |              |              |                |               |
| DLI |              |              |                |               |
| f   |              |              |                |               |
| rom |              |              |                |               |
| 2   |              |              |                |               |
| 000 |              |              |                |               |
| -ba |              |              |                |               |
| sed |              |              |                |               |
| g   |              |              |                |               |
| eog |              |              |                |               |
| rap |              |              |                |               |
| hy, |              |              |                |               |
| new |              |              |                |               |
| mo  |              |              |                |               |
| del |              |              |                |               |
| con |              |              |                |               |
| tro |              |              |                |               |
| ls, |              |              |                |               |
| 2   |              |              |                |               |
| 000 |              |              |                |               |
| cen |              |              |                |               |
| sus |              |              |                |               |
| i   |              |              |                |               |
| npu |              |              |                |               |
| ts, |              |              |                |               |
| and |              |              |                |               |
| me  |              |              |                |               |
| tho |              |              |                |               |
| dol |              |              |                |               |
| ogi |              |              |                |               |
| cal |              |              |                |               |
| ch  |              |              |                |               |
| ang |              |              |                |               |
| es. |              |              |                |               |
+-----+--------------+--------------+----------------+---------------+

###### Income {#income .unnumbered}

Personal income is defined as all income received by individuals from
all sources -- income from work (labor income or earnings), income from
savings and investments (investment income), and income from outside
sources such as Social Security or Medicare (transfer payment income).
The Ravalli County economy has undergone an important shift in its
income base as a result of the population and demographic dynamics of
the 1990s. Labor earnings accounted for less than 54 percent of all
personal income in the county in 2002; non-labor income is expected to
increase to over half of the total income by 2010. Labor earnings
account for about 60 percent of personal income in Montana and for about
65 percent of all income in the nation. The Ravalli County Economic
Needs Assessment (Swanson 2002) notes that the greatest deficiency in
the area's economy is the relatively low level of per worker earnings,
both for wage and salaried employees and for proprietors (Table 3-11).

According to the Ravalli County Economic Needs Assessment (Swanson
2002), RML is the fourth most important asset of those current and
potential key economic assets in the county because it "provides area
employment for highly educated and well-trained workers and brings large
infusions of outside money to the area that finance the laboratory's
work." The mere presence of such a laboratory in an expanding field of
bioscience research creates an environment for certain types of business
development that may be associated with the laboratory's work. The
scientific sophistication of this work requires that such businesses
have high quality and highly trained workers. This creates the
opportunity for expansion of higher paying, higher quality jobs.

  --------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc210030851                                                            
  .anchor}Table 3‑11\                                                                        
  Comparison of Per Capita Personal                                                          
  Income, 1970-2005                                                                          

  Year                              U.S.       Montana    Montana\   Ravalli    Ravalli      Ravalli
                                                          % of U.S.  County     County\      County\
                                                                                % of U.S.    % of Montana

  2005                              \$34,471   \$29,015   84%        \$24,758   72%          85%

  2000                              \$29,843   \$22,928   77%        \$20,187   68%          88%

  1995                              \$23,076   \$18,349   80%        \$16,120   70%          88%

  1990                              \$19,477   \$15,448   79%        \$13,514   69%          87%

  1980                              \$10,114   \$9,058    90%        \$7,416    73%          82%

  Source: US Department of Commerce                                                          
  2007                                                                                       
  --------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

### Direct and Indirect Effects

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-16 .unnumbered}

When the Proposed Action Alternative is fully implemented, up to 77 new
employees, over the current (2008) 350 employees would be hired. The
work force would probably be recruited predominately at the national
level and from colleges and universities in Montana.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-16 .unnumbered}

Under the Capacity Growth Alternative, up to 210 new employees, over the
current (2008) 350 employees would be hired. The work force would
probably be recruited predominately at the national level and from
colleges and universities in Montana.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-17 .unnumbered}

The No Action Alternative would result in direct, long-term economic
impacts that would be very similar to those described under the Proposed
Action Alternative. RML expansion associated with Buildings 28 and 31
would occur and thus the recruitment of new employees would occur at a
level similar to the Proposed Action Alternative.

### Cumulative Effects

Under either the Proposed Action Alternative or Capacity Growth
Alternative, new residents would be added to a rapidly growing area,
possibly adding stress to community service providers and
infrastructure. Recently, GSK Biologicals Hamilton curtailed its planned
expansion, reducing any increased demands for housing, schools, and
infrastructure. Impacts from No Action Alternative would be the same.

The Capacity Growth Alternative would increase employment, however, the
relative increased demand for housing, schools, and infrastructure would
not be noticeable, or distinguishable from other growth.

## Water and Wastewater

### Affected Environment

The City of Hamilton completed a series of major improvements to their
water system in 2003 and 2004, bringing on-line three new wells with
disinfection facilities and replacing their 1934-era water storage
reservoir. The city now pumps water from seven groundwater wells spread
throughout the distribution system. The capacity of these wells ranges
from 300 to 700 gallons per minute (gpm), with a theoretical combined
capacity of 4,375 gpm. The water is chlorinated at each well. The City
of Hamilton Department of Public Works (CHDPW) municipal water supply
system is pressurized by a one million gallon, in-ground concrete
storage tank located in the SW ¼ of Section 32, Township 6 North, Range
20 West. This tank supplies water to nearly all of Hamilton via a
gravity fed system. A limited number of homes located at a higher
elevation than the tank are served by a pump station using five pumps.

The City of Hamilton has combined surface and groundwater rights
(claimed and provisional permitted) to 3,835 acre-feet per year (1.25 x
10^9^ gallons). RML annual consumptive water use accounts for
approximately 3% of the appropriated water rights controlled by the City
of Hamilton.

The city can supply more than 2,000 gpm at the corner of 4^th^ and Grove
Streets, where RML connects. In 1996 RML installed a 12 inch water main
down Grove Street from 1^st^ Street to the RML campus, connecting the
City dead-end laterals and resulting in improved distribution system
pressure for the City.

The RML campus uses the City of Hamilton's public drinking water supply
system through a metered 10-inch main. During 2007, RML water
consumption was 2 million gallons per month in winter months and 4.4
million gallons per month in summer months when cooling demands are
highest. The average monthly consumption was 3 million gallons. The
total annual flow through the metered main from July 2007 through July
2008 was 37.4 million gallons (Hudson 2008).

RML currently has four existing water supply wells that are not part of
the potable or industrial supply system; one well is used solely for
irrigation, one well is used for irrigation and backup fire suppression,
one well is used for irrigation and industrial cooling, and the fourth
well is on standby as a backup industrial supply.

#### Sanitary and Wastewater Treatment {#sanitary-and-wastewater-treatment-1 .unnumbered}

Wastewater generated at RML is discharged to the sanitary sewer system
operated by the CHDPW. Current sources of wastewater at RML include
sanitary waste, liquid waste from animal facilities, boiler water, and
cooling water from Building 28.

Wastewater from the following sources is treated before discharge to the
sanitary sewer:

-   Wastewater from cage-wash facilities in Building 13. Temperature and
    pH of this wastewater are measured in the holding tank before
    discharge to the sanitary sewer.

-   Blowdown water from Building 23 incinerator scrubber. The pH and
    temperature of this wastewater are monitored in a settling tank
    before it is discharged to the sanitary sewer.

-   Building 26 boiler blowdown. Temperature of this wastewater is
    monitored before discharge.

-   Water from the cooling tower and incinerator scrubber cooling tower.
    Hardness and pH of this wastewater are monitored before discharge.

-   Excess water from dust suppression during removal of incinerator
    ash. This wastewater is discharged to a settling tank before it is
    discharged to the sewer.

The CHDPW is required to conduct static replacement toxicity tests on
effluent from its water treatment facility. CHDPW collects the samples
and an independent laboratory conducts the tests. Marine organisms
(*Ceriodaphnia sp*. or *Pimephales promelas*) are placed in samples of
the treatment plant effluent and mortality is recorded over two to four
days. Acute toxicity occurs when 50 percent or more mortality is
observed for either species at any effluent concentration. Effluent
samples from CHDPW have not failed a test since testing began in 1996
(NIH 2008). A whole effluent toxicity (WET) test is also done. Two tests
are done per year, one species is used for the acute test and the other
is used for the chronic test.

The CHDPW wastewater treatment plant is an oxidation ditch-activated
sludge facility. CHDPW upgraded the facility in 1997, adding a third
clarifier and an automated sludge return and waste system resulting in
the following designed operating capacities at the plant (CHDPW 2002):

-   Average daily summer flow -- 1.98 mgd

-   Peak daily summer flow -- 2.8 mgd

-   Average daily winter flow -- 0.5 mgd

-   Peak winter flow -- 1.1 mgd

Solids removed from the effluent stream are collected as sludge and
stored. The sludge is then composted during warm-weather months. The
compost is made available for land application but is not allowed for
use on vegetable gardens.

As part of RML's Waste Discharge Program, wastewater discharge effluent
is monitored via two 24-hour semiannual monitoring events using
automated composite sampling equipment to accurately determine flow and
composition of wastewater discharged to the wastewater treatment plant
operated by the CHDPW. Twardoski (2007) indicates that during the
previous three years, wastewater effluent flow has ranged from 90,000 to
135,000 gallons per day.

Chemical analyses consist of total suspended solids (TSS), pH,
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), metals,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), and nutrients (orthophosphate, phosphate, total phosphorous,
inorganic phosphorous, ammonia, nitrate+nitrite, and total kjeldahl
nitrogen (cumulative amount of ammonia, ammonium and nitrogen).

### Direct and Indirect Effects

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-17 .unnumbered}

Based on the Proposed Action's implementation growth, water consumption
and wastewater discharge rates and volumes are expected to increase.

####### Water Supply

Water consumption at RML varies based upon different functions of the
facilities served. Water use data from metered inflows and discharge
flows gives a general idea of predicted water use in the future for
similar uses. Using historical data for different types of buildings,
water consumption can be estimated for the proposed future facilities.
Wastewater generation was assumed follow similar consumptive use trends
as water supply.

Water usage data (metered data) in 2006 through 2007 were categorized
into four building types; animal, laboratory, support, and heating.
Metered data for cooling functions were not available in 2006/2007;
however metered data for incineration and air cooling (cooling) were
provided by RML in 2008. These five building types were then applied to
the expansion schedule provided by the No Action Alternative, Proposed
Action Alternative, and the Capacity Growth Alternative. Monthly average
per gross square foot water usage rates for each building type were
multiplied by the gross square footage in each development alternative
to estimate water usage. Results are summarized in Table 3-12. Based on
these calculations water use would increase 76 percent over the 37.4
million gallons measured in 2007/2008.

Increased water consumption by RML would contribute to increased
municipal supply demands by CHDPW, although the increases are not
expected to exceed the capability of the system.

Campus expansion would be coordinated with the implementation of the RML
Environmental Management System that is in place. In an effort to
minimize waste and conserve resources RML has formed a Water Management
Group that would evaluate campus water consumption and brainstorm ways
to increase water use efficiency. Implementation of a Long-term Water
Efficiency Plan and BMPs shall be coordinated through the Master Utility
Plan.

As Hamilton is a rapidly growing area, the city utility infrastructure
is in the process of being updated and expanded and would not be
negatively impacted by the future RML expansion as described in the
Proposed Action.

####### Sanitary and Wastewater Treatment

The CHDPW wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is operating at or near
capacity. To meet increased solids storage and handling and to increase
throughput, the CHDPW is planning a facilities expansion. Increased
wastewater discharge from RML campus growth plans would compound the
CHDPW shortcomings with respect to increased throughput (and possible
solid storage) until the facility expansion is realized; however, the
WWTP upgrades are scheduled prior to major additions. No campus
expansion plans are contingent upon action by CHDPW.

The indirect consequences of wastewater discharge from the RML facility
to the CHDPW is that it will contribute to an increased total maximum
daily load (TMDL) from the WWTP. Any future TMDL restrictions imposed by
Montana DEQ on the CHDPW WWTP may require load restrictions to the CHDPW
WWTP of its major contributors such as RML (Harmon 2007). Degradation of
water quality through increased load in the CHDPW WWTP effluent stream
(see the Cumulative Effects section). However, in terms of water quality
of effluent testing from CHDPW plant effluent has not failed since
testing began and campus growth at RML is not expected to result in any
decrease in effluent water quality from the CHDPW WWTP.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-17 .unnumbered}

Campus researchers would increase to 321 personnel. Water consumptive
demands from this expanded growth alternative are summarized on Table
3-12. Water use would increase 110 percent over 2007/2008 water use
under this development alternative.

It is likely that waste water generation would follow similar growth
trends as consumptive use.

The impacts and effects of RML development on local utilities would be
similar under the Capacity Growth Alternative as with the Proposed
Action. Coordination with utility service providers and development of
the Utility Master Plan would occur in the similar manner as described
with the Proposed Action.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-18 .unnumbered}

The increases in water demand and wastewater discharge due to the No
Action Alternative (construction of Buildings 28 and 31, fully staffed
and functional, and correction of existing facility deficiencies) are
summarized in Table 3-12. Water use will increase an estimated 20
percent.

The impacts and effects of RML development on local utilities would be
similar under the No Action Alternative as with the Proposed Action
Alternative. Coordination with utility service providers and development
of the Utility Master Plan would occur under the No Action Alternative
in the similar manner as described with the Proposed Action Alternative.

### Cumulative Effects

The Montana DEQ is using a watershed approach to facilitate development
of water quality restoration plans. Montana DEQ has divided the state
into 91 watershed planning areas and adopted a schedule for completing
restoration plans for all areas by December 2012. This watershed
approach would be based off TMDL.

It is unclear at this time how TMDL nutrient loading allocations would
be regulated through the Montana DEQ permitting process; however, it is
likely that they may force point source contributors to develop best
treatment practices to meet their quota (Starr 2007). This would occur
under all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative.

+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| []{#__RefHeadi    |                |                |                |
| ng___Toc210030852 |                |                |                |
| .anchor}Table     |                |                |                |
| 3‑12\             |                |                |                |
| Gallons per Month |                |                |                |
| of Water Usage    |                |                |                |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Building Type     | No Action      | Proposed       | Capacity       |
|                   | Alternative    | Action         | Growth         |
|                   |                |                | Alternative    |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Animal (g/month)  | 2,172,764      | 3,366,969      | 4,027,303      |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Lab (g/month)     | 756,425        | 1,019,900      | 1,304,350      |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Support (g/month) | 58,786         | 77,723         | 79,845         |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Heating (g/month) | 465,164        | 640,291        | 762,084        |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Cooling (g/month) | 1,074,725      | 1,336,343      | 1,518,286      |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Annual Water Use  | 44,863,463     | 65,116,850     | 78,241,995     |
| (g/month)         |                |                |                |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| animal (buildings |                |                |                |
| 13, 25, 28 - L    |                |                |                |
| (partial), ARMCO  |                |                |                |
| 2, and B );       |                |                |                |
| includes          |                |                |                |
| reasonably        |                |                |                |
| foreseeable       |                |                |                |
| Building 32       |                |                |                |
|                   |                |                |                |
| laboratory        |                |                |                |
| (buildings        |                |                |                |
| 1,2,3,5,6, 7      |                |                |                |
| (future), 13B,    |                |                |                |
| 16, 25, 28-G-L    |                |                |                |
| (partial), G)     |                |                |                |
|                   |                |                |                |
| support           |                |                |                |
| (buildings A, 8,  |                |                |                |
| 9,                |                |                |                |
| 11,12,14,1        |                |                |                |
| 7,21,22,29,30,31, |                |                |                |
| HD1-5, SS1-3,     |                |                |                |
| T23, C,D,E,G,H/J, |                |                |                |
| K, G - L          |                |                |                |
| (partial)         |                |                |                |
|                   |                |                |                |
| heating (all      |                |                |                |
| buildings-7       |                |                |                |
| months per year)  |                |                |                |
|                   |                |                |                |
| cooling (air      |                |                |                |
| cooling in all    |                |                |                |
| buildings- 5      |                |                |                |
| months per year + |                |                |                |
| incineration-12   |                |                |                |
| months per year+  |                |                |                |
| limited lawn      |                |                |                |
| irrigation-5      |                |                |                |
| months per year)  |                |                |                |
+-------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

The City of Hamilton may have to adopt load allocations for major point
source contributors, which include RML. According to Mr. Dan Harmon
(HDR), nutrient levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, BOD, and COD are
constituents that may require modification of RML's Waste Management
Plan if new MPDES discharge regulations develop as a result of the
Bitterroot Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study (Harmon 2007).

Current discharges to the CHDPW WWTP are monitored by RML semiannually;
and increases in nutrient and waste by-product loading are expected to
increase by approximately 59 percent based on projected increases to
animal facility, laboratory, and support buildings water use (**Table
3-8**).

## Sustainable Building Development

### Affected Environment

Buildings are major consumers of energy and natural resources.
Sustainable building designs is a strategy that aims to reduce the
impact of development activities on the environment through energy and
resource efficiency. Sustainable building is defined as "the creation
and responsible management of a healthy built environment based on
resource efficiency and ecological principles"*.* Using sustainable
building practices has become a national priority. The HHS, in
compliance with Executive Order (EO) 13423, January 24, 2007, is
required to conduct their environmental, transportation, and energy
related activities in an environmentally, economically and fiscally
sound, integrated, continuously improving, efficient, and sustainable
manner. The main objective of this EO 13423 is to strengthen the
environmental, energy, and transportation management of Federal
agencies.

The EO 13423 establishes a series of goals that the HHS must reach. In
general terms, the goals related to the construction and major
renovations of buildings are:

-   Improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions;

-   Life-cycle cost analysis and planning ensures that at least half of
    the statutorily required renewable energy consumed by the agency in
    a fiscal year comes from new renewable sources;

-   Reduce water consumption intensity;

-   Require the use of sustainable environmental practices in agency
    acquisitions;

-   Reduce the quantity of toxic and hazardous chemicals and materials
    acquired, used, or disposed of by the agency by means of diversion
    of solid waste, prevention and recycling programs;

-   Comply with the Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High
    Performance and Sustainable Buildings;

The EO 13423 also requires implementation within the HHS of sustainable
practices for ensuring that:

-   High performance construction, lease, operation, and maintenance of
    buildings is obtained;

-   Contracts entered into after the date of this order for contractor
    operation of government-owned facilities require the contractor to
    comply with the provisions of this order; and

-   Agreements, permits, leases, licenses, or other legally-binding
    obligations between the agency and a tenant or concessionaire
    entered into after the date of this order require, to the extent the
    head of the agency determines appropriate, that the tenant or
    concessionaire take actions relating to matters within the scope of
    the contract that facilitate the agency's compliance with this
    order.

These requirements and goals would lead the HHS to reach the following
objectives regarding high performance buildings:

-   Reduction in life-cycle cost of facilities' environmental and energy
    attributes;

-   Improvement in energy efficiency, water conservation, and
    utilization of renewable energy;

-   Provision of safe, healthy, and productively built environments; and

-   Promotion of sustainable environmental stewardship.

To accomplish these objectives the NIH intends to locate, design,
construct, maintain, and operate activities on the RML campus in a
resource efficient, sustainable, and economically viable manner, using
the following management strategies (OMB 2007):

-   Environmental management systems for addressing environmental
    aspects of internal agency operations and activities;

-   Environmental compliance programs to verify observance with
    environmental and energy legal and regulatory requirements;

-   Each agency shall consider life-cycle costs analyses in planning and
    making determinations about investments in all capital assets;

-   Performance evaluations in order to ensure accountability;

-   Incentive and award programs;

-   Use of cross-functional teams to expedite implementation of the EO
    13423; and

-   Compliance with OMB guidance.

HHS policy requires that facilities with a total project cost equal to
or greater than three million dollars obtain LEED certification or the
Green Buildings Initiative's Green Globes green building rating system.

The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 also imposes
energy efficiency standards that must be implemented in all federal
buildings. The EISA requires that all general purpose lighting in
federal buildings use Energy Star products or products designated under
the Energy Department's Energy Management Program (EDEMP) by the end of
fiscal year 2013; updates the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)
to set new appliance efficiency standards; and establishes an Office of
High-Performance Green Buildings (OHPGB) in the US General Services
Administration.

### Direct and Indirect Effects

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-18 .unnumbered}

In compliance with the EISA, EO 13423, and the HHS Real Property Asset
Management Plan, all newly constructed buildings would follow the
policies and incorporate the strategies established by the EO 13423 into
planning, design, and construction processes.

Existing facilities would incorporate the primary elements of the EISA
and EO 13423 to the maximum extent feasible in all improvement and
repair projects, if they have a total project cost equal to or greater
than one million dollars, and in all maintenance projects if they have a
total project cost equal to or greater than three million dollars. All
leased facilities must also comply with EISA and the EO 13423
requirements, objectives and goals to the maximum extent feasible as one
criterion for lease evaluation.

In addition, to comply with EISA and the EO 13423, improvements and
repair projects that have a total project cost equal to or greater than
three million dollars would obtain certification from the U.S. Green
Building Councils' LEED or through the Green Buildings Initiative's
Green Globes green building rating system.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-18 .unnumbered}

The direct or indirect effects of the Capacity Growth Alternative would
not vary from those from the Proposed Action Alternative. NIH would have
to comply with the directives provided by EISA and EO 13423 in either
case.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-19 .unnumbered}

Development and construction standards under the No Action Alternative
would not differ from the Proposed Action Alternative as the EISA, EO
13423 and the HHS Real Property Asset Management Plan would be complied
with under any of the alternatives presented.

The established EO 13423 objectives and goals would be followed in new
construction or major renovation projects. However, the overall
sustainability and efficiency of the RML campus would be reduced under
the No Action Alternative as many of the older buildings that lack LEED
certification would not be replaced under the No Action Alternative, and
this would reduce the efficiency and conservation in comparison to the
Proposed Action Alternative.

### Cumulative Effects

Sustainable building development in compliance with the EISA, EO 13432
and the HHS Real Property Asset Management Plan would have positive
cumulative effects as future development would ultimately result in
reductions in the total ownership cost of facilities, improve energy
efficiency and water conservation, provide safe, healthy, and productive
built environments; and promote sustainable environmental stewardship.
These positive cumulative effects would occur under all alternatives as
the EISA and EO 13423 would be complied with and implemented regardless
of alternative.

## Exterior Lighting

### Affected Environment 

Exterior lighting is necessary for pedestrian safety and security, and
can enhance the aesthetics and enjoyment of an area. However, excessive
or improperly located lighting can create light pollution. The
International Dark Sky Association (IDA) has identified the following
five major elements of light pollution:

-   **glare**- intense and blinding light reducing ones ability to see;

-   **light trespass**- intrusive light falling where it is not wanted
    or needed, such as light entering a bedroom window from a
    streetlight;

-   **visual clutter and confusion**- light "noise" in ones field of
    view that is distracting and annoying and can detract from site
    safety;

-   **artificial sky glow**- artificial brightening of the night sky due
    to inefficient lighting fixture that allows light to shine upward;
    and

-   **energy waste**- light not serving the intended purpose or excess
    light intensity produced from inefficient or inappropriate fixtures.

The IDA recommends: (1) selecting the right amount of light, in the
right place, at the right time, (2) using the lowest wattage of lamp
that is feasible or within building design policy and guidelines, and
(3) whenever possible turning lights off or using motion sensor
controlled lighting (IDA 2007). These recommendations would provide for
pedestrian safety and security as well as reduce light pollution and
conserve energy when applied correctly.

The Ravalli County Growth Policy (2004) calls attention to the need for
an exterior lighting ordinance in Countywide Policy 7.5, which states
future plans for residential and commercial developments should
encourage the use of light fixtures that minimize light pollution (RC
2004).

The RML campus lacks a coordinated lighting scheme, and there is no
exterior lighting ordinance in Hamilton. Exterior lighting on campus is
mostly limited to the historic district and site entry points. Building
lighting, while not always present, is generally limited to utility
fixtures.

### Direct and Indirect Effects

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-19 .unnumbered}

Under the Proposed Action, RML would continue to add facilities to the
campus, adding new facilities and parking areas with campus security
being one of the highest priorities. Complete implementation of the
Proposed Action Alternative would result in increased roadway, parking,
facility, and grounds lighting. If not done properly, increased exterior
lighting on campus could contribute to light pollution in the area by
casting trespass light into the adjacent community, increasing glare,
and increasing sky glow.

The Proposed Action Alternative's Light Control would encompass the
north, east, and south perimeters of the RML campus and would minimize
light pollution in the surrounding community. The controls placed on
activities in this zone would be aimed at shielding homes in the
adjacent neighborhood from potential trespass light from roadways,
parking lots, and buildings on the campus. The NIH Design Policy and
Guidelines (NIH 2003) state, "The placement of lighting poles near the
property line shall be avoided; however, security illumination shall be
provided." For pedestrian safety and path marking the NIH Design Policy
and Guidelines specifies a level of 10 lux, or 1-2 foot candles for
pedestrian areas.

To mitigate NIH light trespass on the surrounding neighborhood, light
fixtures with good "house side shields" or good "cut-off" optics (i.e.,
full shield fixture that blocks light from emitting past a designated
horizontal plane) would be used. These shields would eliminate the
majority of the potential trespass light emitted from campus lighting.
Similar to roadway lighting, the maximum height of light poles would be
26 feet. Poles would be protected by placing them on a poured concrete
base. RML has successfully placed lighting on the east perimeter that is
not objectionable to neighbors by working with neighbors and designers.

Exceptions to lighting requirements and recommendations would be made
for safety and security concerns.

Minimal trespass light would be emitted from the RML campus using
measures based on the IDA lighting principles. These mitigating factors
would result in minor impacts on the surrounding community.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-19 .unnumbered}

The Capacity Growth Alternative would have the same effects as the
Proposed Action Alternative because lighting considerations and
standards would be the same.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-20 .unnumbered}

Under the No Action Alternative, RML campus lighting would be installed
to a similar extent as described under the Proposed Action; however,
development of some structures and a portion of the parking expansion
would not occur. This would result in less building and parking lighting
in the areas proposed to be added to the campus on the north and
northeast edges of the current site. Newly installed lighting would
conform to guidelines established by NIH.

### Cumulative Effects

The scale and nature of growth at RML, under either action alternative
would contribute some light pollution in the area. It is anticipated RML
would contribute less light pollution than a large commercial
development given that RML does not advertise its location with highly
visible signage or intense lighting to grab the attention of passersby.
However, due to parking areas and roadway lighting a small portion of
emitted light would contribute to light pollution in the vicinity of the
campus. This pollution would be managed by using the latest methods and
technologies to minimize overall impacts on surrounding areas.

## Noise

### Affected Environment 

Noise levels are quantified using units of decibels (dB). Humans
typically have reduced hearing sensitivity at low frequencies compared
with their response at high frequencies, and the "A-weighting" of noise
levels, or A-weighted decibels (dBA), closely correlates to the
frequency response of normal human hearing. The 90^th^
percentile-exceeded noise level, L~90~, is a metric that indicates the
single noise level that is exceeded during 90 percent of a measurement
period. The L~90~ noise level is typically considered the ambient noise
level, and it typically does not include the influence of discrete
noises of short duration, such as car doors. For example, if a
continuously operating piece of equipment is audible at a measurement
location, typically it is the noise created by the equipment that
determines the L~90~ of a measurement period.

There are no local, state, or federal noise ordinances in effect for the
RML area. RML instituted a noise policy to limit the L~90~ (ambient)
noise levels at the property lines and at neighboring residences due to
its operations (Table 3-13) (BSA 2003).

+-----------------+------------------------+--------------------------+
| [               |                        |                          |
| ]{#__RefHeading |                        |                          |
| ___Toc210030853 |                        |                          |
| .anchor}Table   |                        |                          |
| 3‑13\           |                        |                          |
| RML Campus      |                        |                          |
| Noise Level     |                        |                          |
| Criteria        |                        |                          |
+-----------------+------------------------+--------------------------+
| Noise           | Daytime^1^             | Nighttime^1^             |
+-----------------+------------------------+--------------------------+
| Cumulative      | 55 dBA                 | 50 dBA                   |
| L~90~           |                        |                          |
+-----------------+------------------------+--------------------------+
| Tonal           | 50 dBA                 | 45 dBA                   |
| L~90~**^2^**    |                        |                          |
+-----------------+------------------------+--------------------------+
| Emergency       | 60 dBA                 | NA                       |
| Generator L~90~ |                        |                          |
| **^3^**         |                        |                          |
+-----------------+------------------------+--------------------------+
| 1\. Daytime     |                        |                          |
| 7:00 am to 7:00 |                        |                          |
| pm, nighttime   |                        |                          |
| 7:00 pm to 7:00 |                        |                          |
| am              |                        |                          |
|                 |                        |                          |
| 2\. Audible     |                        |                          |
| discrete tones  |                        |                          |
| shall be        |                        |                          |
| identified when |                        |                          |
| the noise level |                        |                          |
| in one-third    |                        |                          |
| octave-band     |                        |                          |
| frequency       |                        |                          |
| exceeds the     |                        |                          |
| arithmetic      |                        |                          |
| average of the  |                        |                          |
| levels in the   |                        |                          |
| two adjacent    |                        |                          |
| one-third       |                        |                          |
| octave band     |                        |                          |
| frequencies by  |                        |                          |
| 15 dB or more   |                        |                          |
| at frequencies  |                        |                          |
| below 125       |                        |                          |
| Hertz, by 8 dB  |                        |                          |
| or more between |                        |                          |
| 160 and 400     |                        |                          |
| Hertz, and by 5 |                        |                          |
| dB or more at   |                        |                          |
| frequencies     |                        |                          |
| equal to or     |                        |                          |
| greater than    |                        |                          |
| 500 Hertz.      |                        |                          |
|                 |                        |                          |
| 3\. During      |                        |                          |
| weekly testing, |                        |                          |
| the combination |                        |                          |
| of the          |                        |                          |
| generator and   |                        |                          |
| other campus    |                        |                          |
| equipment noise |                        |                          |
| shall not       |                        |                          |
| exceed 60 dBA.  |                        |                          |
| Emergency       |                        |                          |
| generators      |                        |                          |
| would only be   |                        |                          |
| tested during   |                        |                          |
| daytime hours.  |                        |                          |
|                 |                        |                          |
| Source: BSA     |                        |                          |
| 2003.           |                        |                          |
+-----------------+------------------------+--------------------------+

Noise levels at the RML property lines have been measured approximately
once per year since 2001. Daytime and nighttime noise level measurements
were conducted in November 2007 at 15 locations (Error: Reference source
not found), and the 1-minute L~90~ noise levels were recorded (BSA
2007). Results are summarized in Table 3-14.

During the November 2007 measurements, daytime RML noise sources
included: the fans on the Quad at Locations 1 through 3 and 11 through
15; fans at the ARMCO 2 building and general fan noise from the campus
at locations 4 through 8; and, general fan noise from the direction of
the Quad or Building 13 at Location 10 (Error: Reference source not
found). No emergency generators were tested during the measurements.

The noise level measurements indicate that ambient noise levels at the
RML property lines in 2006 and 2007 range between L~90~ 41 and 55 dBA
during the day and between L~90~ 39 and 51 dBA at night (BSA 2007)
(Table 3-14), which are considered faint to moderate noise levels (Table
3-15). Based on the measured ambient noise levels, the RML Campus Noise
Criteria was not being exceeded on November 13, 2007, except at night at
Location 3, where the ambient noise appeared to be dominated by the fans
from the Quad.

In order to achieve the Campus Noise Level Criteria, RML has evaluated
and incorporated noise control measures for some outdoor equipment as
part of new construction or building modifications projects. For
example; a silencer was installed in the incinerator stack; the
incinerator cooling tower was replaced and enclosed; and quiet equipment
was selected for the Building 7 -- Quad chilled water system; the
Building 27 generator load bank; and the Building 12 exhaust fans. In
addition, the new IRF, Visitor Center and Shipping and Receiving
Building, Building 31, Building 13B expansion, and Building 24 have been
designed with noise control measures and quiet equipment. These actions
have controlled the noise emitted from the RML campus. Another project
in the summer of 2008 would reduce noise and bring the campus completely
into compliance with the noise criteria. Per the Proposed Action, RML
would continue to evaluate and modify additional equipment and the need
for noise control measures for current and new building projects (HHS
2007).

![](media/image7.png){width="6.86875in" height="9.003472222222221in"}

  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc210030855                                          
  .anchor}Table 3‑15\                                                      
  Perception of Noise                                                      

  Noise Level (dBA)                 Common Noise Source                    Subjective
                                                                           Evaluation

  70                                Outdoors in a commercial area          Loud

  60                                Average of normal speech 3 feet away   Moderate

  50                                Open office background noise           

  40                                Quiet suburban environment at night    Faint

  30                                Quiet rural environment at night       

  20                                Concert hall background noise          Very faint

  10                                Human breathing                        

  0                                 Threshold of hearing or audibility     Inaudible

  Source: BSA 2003.                                                        
  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------------

### Direct and Indirect Effects

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-20 .unnumbered}

For the Proposed Action Alternative, RML would upgrade and expand its
facilities, and each upgrade and expansion could introduce new noise
sources on campus, such as air-handing units, exhaust fans, chillers,
cooling towers, emergency generators, etc. However, these upgrades would
be designed to avoid noise issues. RML has established self imposed
noise criteria to limit the amount of noise at the campus boundaries.
RML has also had a project specifically focused on reducing noise and
ensuring that the campus is in compliance with the standards. RML
prepares a noise analysis for each new project as part of the design to
show that the new project would keep the campus in compliance with noise
standards. After each project is complete, the noise levels are measured
to ensure that the requirements have been met. As a new project
progresses, RML would identify potential noise problems in the design
phase, and determine what, if any, noise control measures would be
implemented to meet the RML Campus Noise Criteria (BSA 2003).

The noise at the campus property lines associated with a new building
would depend on the air-handling and mechanical requirements of the
building, and the location of outdoor equipment or louvers. The outdoor
noise sources associated with administrative and support buildings
typically include air-handling units and condensing units to heat and
cool the occupants of the buildings. In addition, the outdoor noise
sources of laboratory buildings and animal buildings also include
exhaust fans, chillers, and cooling towers. Therefore, the outdoor noise
associated with administrative buildings and support buildings are
generally quieter than laboratory and animal buildings because of less
equipment.

The Proposed Action Alternative includes new land acquisitions and
additional buildings. Acquisition of private properties would take place
in the vicinity of 6^th^ and Baker Streets and in the area south of
Baker and 4^th^ Streets near the current employee entrance. The effect
of acquiring these lands would be to move the property line further from
the RML noise sources, and therefore decrease the ambient noise levels
along the relocated northern property line. On the east side of campus,
most of the existing buildings would remain, and therefore, little if
any change in ambient noise levels would be expected along the east
property line.

New buildings are proposed along the south and west sides of campus. On
the south side, a new maintenance building and a new animal building are
proposed, and toward the center of campus a new laboratory, a new
administrative building and an expansion of the Building 27 emergency
generator building are proposed. The new buildings could potentially
increase the ambient noise levels in the open space to the west, as well
as in the southwest corner of campus even if the RML Campus Noise
Criteria is met. For example, in the southwest corner of campus, the
daytime ambient noise levels could increase from approximately 45 dBA to
55 dBA (the daytime limit), and the nighttime ambient noise levels could
increase from approximately 44 dBA to 50 dBA (the nighttime limit). The
10 dBA daytime increase would be perceived as twice as loud as the
existing ambient noise, and the 6 dBA nighttime increase would be
clearly noticeable compared to the existing ambient noise levels.
However, the actual noise increases would depend on the air-handling and
mechanical requirements of the new buildings, the shielding provided by
nearby buildings to other noise sources, and the location of outdoor
equipment or louvers in the nearby buildings.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-20 .unnumbered}

RML would upgrade and expand its facilities under the Capacity Growth
Alternative, and each upgrade and expansion could introduce new noise
sources on campus, such as air-handing units, exhaust fans, chillers,
cooling towers, emergency generators, etc. However, as in the Proposed
Action Alternative, these upgrades would be designed to avoid noise
issues. RML's Noise Criteria would apply to limit the amount of noise at
the campus boundaries.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-21 .unnumbered}

Since the RML Campus Noise Criteria was adopted in 2003, the noise
associated with new building projects and mechanical system upgrades has
been analyzed to determine what noise mitigation measures, such as
quieter equipment, barriers, enclosures, exhaust mufflers, duct
attenuators, acoustical louvers, etc., were required to meet the
criteria. In addition, a 2006-2007 design project to identify and reduce
the noise at Buildings 3, 5, 12 and 13, and the ARMCO 2 building was
completed. The noise sources associated with these buildings are
currently causing the Criteria to be exceeded along the southern
property line, but when the building modifications are implemented, the
noise from the entire campus is predicted to be reduced to below the
daytime and nighttime Criteria at all the RML property lines (BSA 2007).

### Cumulative Impacts

The equipment on the RML campus determines the ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the campus, and would continue to do so into the future
since the surrounding residential and open space areas are expected to
remain. The RML Campus Noise Criteria (BSA 2003) would limit the noise
that RML produces to 55 dBA during the day and 50 dBA at night, which
are not to be exceeded at the RML property lines or at nearby
residences.

## Historical Resources

### Affected Environment

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal
agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic
properties. Regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800), guide
federal agencies in complying with the law. Because there are historical
properties within the area covered by the Proposed Action, the NIH must
determine if there would be an adverse effect on the historical
resources in the area.

#### Prehistoric and Historic Resources {#prehistoric-and-historic-resources .unnumbered}

Prehistoric resources are physical properties resulting from human
activities that predate Native American/European contact. Typical site
types in the region include campsites, limited activity areas, stone
rings, cairns, and rock art.

Historic resources consist of physical properties that postdate Native
American/European contact. Site types may include trails/roads, trash
scatters, foundations and architectural structures (buildings, dams, and
bridges).

A Class I record search was conducted for RML in July 2007. No
prehistoric sites were identified. One historic property occurs on the
RML campus, the Rocky Mountain Laboratories (24RA165) was recorded in
1983. The Rocky Mountain Laboratories Historic District (24RA373) was
listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1987. The
RML Historic District is located on the southeast corner of the campus
and includes the Quad and Buildings 8, 9, and 11. The district is
eligible for the National Register under Criterion A because it is
associated with major, pioneering advances in the development of
vaccines for insect-borne diseases; and Criterion C because the
architectural types and quality of construction is significant in the
context of Hamilton, Montana (NRHP 1987). The RML period of significance
is 1927 to 1945.

Building 1, constructed in 1927-1928, is a three-story Collegiate Gothic
structure designed in a tripartite scheme, with a brick base and
concrete belt course below the first floor window sills. Building 1 has
primary significance to the Historic District.

Building 1 is connected to Building 2 by a recessed, enclosed
three-story hallway. Building 2 was constructed in 1932-1934. A similar
hallway links Building 2 and Building 3, which was constructed in 1938.
Buildings 2 and 3 have primary significance to the Historic
District.![](media/image8.jpeg){width="3.295138888888889in"
height="2.4715277777777778in"}

Building 4, constructed in 1936-37, was removed and replaced with
Building A in 1998. Building A has many of the same details as Buildings
1, 2, and 3. Building 4 was a contributing element to the Historic
District.

Buildings 5 and 6 were constructed during a major expansion phase in
1938 and were put into service June 1940. Buildings 6 and 7 are
contributing elements to the Historic District.

A covered walkway connects Buildings 6 and 7. The walkway appears to be
original to the construction of the complex. Building 7, the former
heating plant, was constructed in 1938-40. Building 7 is a contributing
element to the Historic
District.![](media/image9.jpeg){width="3.3055555555555554in"
height="2.49375in"}

Buildings 8 and 9 are two Late Colonial Revival style residences located
across the street from the laboratories. These structures were built in
1936-1937 to house lab workers. Buildings 8 and 9 have primary
significance to the Historic District.

Building 10 was located south of Buildings 3 and 5. This building was
not a contributing element to the Historic District and it was
demolished in 2003.

Building 11 was constructed in 1937 and was originally used as a two-car
garage. Building 11 is a contributing element to the Historic District.

The RML is significant under Criterion A because it is associated with
major, pioneering advances in the development of vaccines for
insect-borne diseases. The lab evolved from a rudimentary laboratory
located in an abandoned schoolhouse in 1921 to a modern research
facility staffed by 116 scientists and support personnel. For twenty
years the RML assumed primary responsibility for applied research of
infectious diseases in the Rocky Mountain region. This research was so
successful the laboratory became one of the leading scientific research
facilities in the country. The RML also played a significant role in the
production of typhus and yellow fever vaccines during World War
II.![](media/image10.png){width="3.303472222222222in"
height="2.4381944444444446in"}

The RML is also significant under Criterion C. The primary laboratory
buildings, the power plant, and the two residences possess architectural
significance in the context of the type and quality of construction
found in Hamilton, Montana. The cohesive facades, massing, and detailing
of the understated Collegiate Gothic buildings creates a strong visual
impression. The Colonial Revival style residences located across the
street from the laboratories are architecturally compatible and are
important examples of the late 1930s residential design. All of the
buildings exhibit higher than average design sophistication,
craftsmanship, and use of materials. Attention to landscaping and
setbacks affords a sense of continuity with the residential character of
the surrounding neighborhood.

### Direct and Indirect Impacts

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-21 .unnumbered}

The analysis of visual impacts on the Historic District requires an
Assessment of Adverse Effect (as provided for in 36CFR 800.5). The
Criteria of Adverse Effect are listed in Section 800.5 (a) and state, in
part, that an undertaking has an effect on a historic property when the
"undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the
characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for
inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the
integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, or association."

The assessment of an undertaking's impact on historic resources results
in a determination of either "no adverse effect" or "adverse effect". No
adverse effect occurs when there could be an effect, but it would not
harm characteristics that qualify the property for the National
Register. Adverse effect occurs when the integrity of those
characteristics that qualify the property for the National Register
could be diminished.

The Proposed Action Alternative proposes to demolish buildings outside
the RML Historic District over the next twenty years. Table 3-16 lists
the buildings that are slated for demolition and their construction
dates. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as
amended) requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their
actions on historic properties. If the buildings scheduled to be
demolished are 50 years old, they are considered historic and must be
evaluated to determine if they are a contributing element to the RML
Historic District. Buildings 16 and 17 are over 50 years in age as of
2008. Depending on when demolition occurs, the buildings constructed
after 1960 may be 50 years old when demolished and an evaluation would
occur once they turn 50, as the timeframe for the Master Plan will
extend beyond their "birthday".

Potential adverse effects to the RML Historic District include visual
intrusions to the district's setting. The construction of additional
buildings represents such an intrusion.

Diagonal parking currently exists in the RML Historic District along
4^th^ Street and along the south perimeter of the district. With 50 and
45 spaces respectively, these parking lots are the largest within the
RML. The proposed parking lot in the northern part of the campus would
contain 332 spaces and an emergency egress from this lot onto 6^th^
Street.

Increased traffic and the construction of additional buildings in the
viewshed of the RML Historic District would cause some minor impacts,
but these impacts would not harm the qualities of the laboratory that
make it significant for listing in the National Register. Therefore, the
Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on the RML
Historic District.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-21 .unnumbered}

As in the Proposed Action Alternative, the Capacity Growth Alternative
would result in minor visual intrusions into the RML Historic District.
Like the Proposed Action, evaluations and planning would be done to
ensure the historical integrity of any new construction and
consideration on any building over 50 years old for historical
significance. Similar to the Proposed Action Alternative, NIH would
conduct evaluations and planning to ensure that any new construction or
changes to potentially eligible existing properties were accomplished in
keeping with the significance of the Historic District.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-22 .unnumbered}

Under the No Action Alternative, changes in visual character would occur
to a similar extent as under the Proposed Action Alternative given that
some new development on the campus is anticipated. Under the No Action
Alternative, there would be negligible change in the visual character of
the campus and therefore, impacts on the RML Historic District would be
minimal. Adverse effects would not occur as there would be no harm to
the characteristics that qualify the property for the National Register.
There would be no effect on individual buildings evaluated as
contributing elements to the RML Historic District.

### Cumulative Effects

Planning principles have been established to protect the property's
integrity. Reasonable foreseeable actions could have an effect on the
historical resources of the RML. Buildings that are 50 years in age and
slated for demolition would be evaluated to determine if they are
contributing elements to the RML Historic District. Increased traffic
associated with additional employees would be minimal and not cause an
adverse effect on the RML Historic District. New construction would not
likely be visible from the RML Historic District. One of the basic goals
of the Proposed Action Alternative concerns the protection of historic
resources at the RML.

## Air Quality

### Affected Environment

The State of Montana and the federal government have established ambient
air quality standards for criteria air pollutants. The criteria
pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), sulfur dioxide (SO~2~),
particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM~10~), ozone, and nitrogen
dioxide (NO~2~). In 1997, the U.S. EPA revised the federal primary and
secondary particulate matter standards by establishing annual and
24-hour standards for particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter
(PM~2.5~). The particle matter standards were again revised in 2006 and
are presented in **Table 3-13.**

+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
| [          |                  |                |                    |
| ]{#__RefHe |                  |                |                    |
| ading___To |                  |                |                    |
| c210030857 |                  |                |                    |
| .an        |                  |                |                    |
| chor}Table |                  |                |                    |
| 3‑17\      |                  |                |                    |
| State of   |                  |                |                    |
| Montana    |                  |                |                    |
| and        |                  |                |                    |
| National   |                  |                |                    |
| Ambient    |                  |                |                    |
| Air        |                  |                |                    |
| Quality    |                  |                |                    |
| Standards  |                  |                |                    |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Pollutant  | Averaging Time   | Air Quality    |                    |
|            |                  | Standard       |                    |
|            |                  | Concentration  |                    |
|            |                  | ^(a)^          |                    |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
|            |                  | Montana        | National           |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Ozone      | 1 hour           | 0.10 ppm       | 0.12 ppm           |
| (O~3~)     |                  |                |                    |
|            |                  |                | (applies in        |
|            |                  |                | limited areas)     |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
|            | 8 hours          | NA             | 0.075 ppm          |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Carbon     | 1 hour           | 23.0 ppm       | 35.0 ppm           |
| Monoxide   |                  |                |                    |
| (CO)       |                  |                |                    |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
|            | 8 hour           | 9.0 ppm        | 9.0 ppm            |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Nitrogen   | Annual           | 0.050 ppm      | 0.053 ppm          |
| Oxides     | Arithmetic Mean  |                |                    |
| (NO~x~)    |                  |                |                    |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Sulfur     | Annual           | 0.02 ppm       | 0.03 ppm           |
| Dioxide    | Arithmetic Mean  |                |                    |
| (SO~2~)    |                  |                |                    |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
|            | 24 hours         | 0.10 ppm       | 0.14 ppm           |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
|            | 3 hours          | NA             | 0.50 ppm (b)       |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
|            | 1 hour           | 0.50 ppm       | NA                 |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
| P          | Annual           | 50 μg/m^3^     | NA                 |
| articulate | Arithmetic Mean  |                |                    |
| Matter     |                  |                |                    |
| (PM) as    |                  |                |                    |
| PM~10~     |                  |                |                    |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
|            | 24 hours         | 150 μg/m^3^    | 150 μg/m^3^        |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
| P          | Annual           | NA             | 15 μg/m^3^         |
| articulate | Arithmetic Mean  |                |                    |
| Matter as  |                  |                |                    |
| PM~2.5~    |                  |                |                    |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
|            | 24 hours         | NA             | 35 μg/m^3^         |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Lead (Pb)  | Quarterly        | 1.5 μg/m^3^    | 1.5 μg/m^3^        |
|            | Arithmetic Mean  |                |                    |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+
| Note: ppm  |                  |                |                    |
| = parts    |                  |                |                    |
| per        |                  |                |                    |
| million;   |                  |                |                    |
| μg/m^3^ =  |                  |                |                    |
| micrograms |                  |                |                    |
| per cubic  |                  |                |                    |
| meter;     |                  |                |                    |
| PM~10~ =   |                  |                |                    |
| p          |                  |                |                    |
| articulate |                  |                |                    |
| matter     |                  |                |                    |
| smaller    |                  |                |                    |
| than 10    |                  |                |                    |
| microns;   |                  |                |                    |
| PM~2.5~ =  |                  |                |                    |
| p          |                  |                |                    |
| articulate |                  |                |                    |
| matter     |                  |                |                    |
| smaller    |                  |                |                    |
| than 2.5   |                  |                |                    |
| microns.   |                  |                |                    |
|            |                  |                |                    |
| Sources:   |                  |                |                    |
| Admi       |                  |                |                    |
| nistrative |                  |                |                    |
| Rules of   |                  |                |                    |
| Montana    |                  |                |                    |
| (ARM) 17.8 |                  |                |                    |
| and Code   |                  |                |                    |
| of Federal |                  |                |                    |
| Re         |                  |                |                    |
| gulations, |                  |                |                    |
| 40 CFR     |                  |                |                    |
| Part 50,   |                  |                |                    |
| National   |                  |                |                    |
| Primary    |                  |                |                    |
| and        |                  |                |                    |
| Secondary  |                  |                |                    |
| Ambient    |                  |                |                    |
| Air        |                  |                |                    |
| Quality    |                  |                |                    |
| Standards. |                  |                |                    |
|            |                  |                |                    |
| \(a\)      |                  |                |                    |
| Primary    |                  |                |                    |
| standard   |                  |                |                    |
| unless     |                  |                |                    |
| otherwise  |                  |                |                    |
| noted.     |                  |                |                    |
|            |                  |                |                    |
| \(b\)      |                  |                |                    |
| Secondary  |                  |                |                    |
| standard.  |                  |                |                    |
+------------+------------------+----------------+--------------------+

Ambient air quality standards must not be exceeded in areas where the
general public has access. National primary standards are levels of air
quality necessary to protect public health. National secondary standards
are levels necessary to protect public welfare from known or anticipated
adverse effects of a regulated air pollutant.

The attainment status for pollutants is determined by monitoring levels
of criteria pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards (MAAQS) exist. In
2007, Ravalli County's air quality exceeded the EPA's 24-hour air
quality standard for particulate matter (PM~2.5~). Ravalli County
recorded a three year (2004-2006) average of 37.7 micrograms per cubic
meter (μg/m^3^). The EPA 24-hour PM~2.5~ standard is 35.0 μg/m^3^.
Ravalli County was submitted to the EPA for review as a non-attainment
area.

In 2008, the Montana DEQ reported Ravalli County's three year average
24-hour PM~2.5~ air quality data, which includes 2007 values, was 32.1
μg/m^3^. The EPA will consider 2007 data in their determination of
Ravalli County's non-attainment status.

Potential emissions from RML were analyzed in 1999 using the EPA's
Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST3) air model. In the analysis
(Doucet and Mainka 1999), emissions from RML were used to predict their
effect on ambient air quality. Meteorological data used in the emission
modeling for RML included 10 years of data from Missoula and Kalispell,
Montana (Douchet and Mainka 1999). The ISCST3 model uses source data
(emissions), terrain information, and meteorological information to
predict emission concentrations at distance. Results of the modeling,
using meteorological data from several locations, including Missoula,
Montana; a site that experiences atmospheric inversions, predicted that
RML source emissions would not result in a total facility impact above
Montana and federal air quality standards.

Modeling was completed in response to an air quality permit modification
by RML to incorporate the addition of two new boilers in 1999. Results
of air modeling, which included operation of the existing incinerator,
predicted that emission rates from RML resulted in an ambient air
quality impact of 7 to 22 percent of the federal and Montana primary
standards designed to protect human health (Doucet and Mainka 1999).

######  Particulate Emissions {#particulate-emissions .unnumbered}

Sources of air particulate matter emissions at the RML campus include
incinerators, steam-generating boilers, emergency power generators, and
laboratory vent hoods. Air from the current BSL-3 laboratories is
discharged through high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters as
would the BSL-4 laboratories to reduce particle matter (PM) emissions.

In 2007, RML incinerated 91 tons of waste, all of which was medical
waste. The natural-gas fired incinerator produces off-gas and carbon
smoke emissions. The primary chamber of the incinerator operates at
1400°F in deficient oxygen conditions to reduce NO~x~, SO~2~ and to
virtually eliminate dioxin emissions. The secondary chamber operates at
1800°F in oxygen-rich conditions to combust any remaining materials in
the smoke. Carbon smoke is then processed through a wet scrubber to
remove particulate and hydrogen chloride from combustion gases. The
Anderson 2000 Wet Scrubber reduces the temperature of the flue gas by
more than 1600°F and passes it through three series of eight water
sprayers and venturi that allow particulates to drop into the scrubber
tank. Flue gas is filtered before exiting to the exhaust stack. The
boiler is fired by natural gas with diesel as a secondary fuel supply.
Boiler combustion gases exit through vertical discharge stacks. RML
emission levels are below EPA limits and permitted Potential to Emit
levels (Table 3-18) (NIH 2007b).

The RML campus is fully backed up with emergency generators with the
exception of Building 21. The backup power system currently relies on
seven fixed diesel generators and one portable generator. In 2007,
generators ran for a total of 157 hours.

Diesel generators are subject to Tier 1-4 EPA emission standards (Table
3-19). Diesel-fired emergency power generator PM emissions primarily
result from testing the units weekly. Units run for short periods to
test system function and comply with EPA standards. Annual emergency
power generator PM emissions comply with permitted emission values
(Table 3-18).

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 17%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="11" rowspan="2"><span id="__RefHeading___Toc210030858"
class="anchor"></span>Table 3‑18<br />
RML Estimated Annual Emissions for 2006 and 2007</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">Source</td>
<td colspan="2"><p>NOx</p>
<p>(tons/yr)</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>SOx</p>
<p>(tons/yr)</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>CO</p>
<p>(tons/yr)</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>PM<sub>10</sub></p>
<p>(tons/yr)</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p>VOCs</p>
<p>(tons/yr)</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2006</td>
<td>2007</td>
<td>2006</td>
<td>2007</td>
<td>2006</td>
<td>2007</td>
<td>2006</td>
<td>2007</td>
<td>2006</td>
<td>2007</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="11"><strong>Estimated Annual
Emissions<sup>(a)</sup></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Incinerator</td>
<td>0.2915</td>
<td>0.3465</td>
<td>0.0006</td>
<td>0.0009</td>
<td>0.184</td>
<td>0.1867</td>
<td>0.302</td>
<td>0.2739</td>
<td>0.5078</td>
<td>0.4592</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Steam Generating</p>
<p>Boilers</p></td>
<td>6.524</td>
<td>7.086</td>
<td>0.182</td>
<td>0.2568</td>
<td>5.465</td>
<td>5.9295</td>
<td>0.1246</td>
<td>0.1355</td>
<td>0.3578</td>
<td>0.3881</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Emergency Power</p>
<p>Generators</p></td>
<td>1.3634</td>
<td>3.0409</td>
<td>0.3762</td>
<td>0.9905</td>
<td>0.3088</td>
<td>0.6961</td>
<td>0.0541</td>
<td>0.0948</td>
<td>0.0721</td>
<td>0.1032</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Totals</td>
<td>8.1789</td>
<td>10.473</td>
<td>0.5588</td>
<td>1.2482</td>
<td>5.9578</td>
<td>6.8123</td>
<td>0.4807</td>
<td>0.5042</td>
<td>0.9377</td>
<td>0.9505</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="11"><strong>Potential to Emit (Maximum Permitted)
Emissions</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Incinerators (b,c)</td>
<td colspan="2">3.3</td>
<td colspan="2">3.1</td>
<td colspan="2">3.2</td>
<td colspan="2">6.5</td>
<td colspan="2">11.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Steam Generating</p>
<p>Boilers (b)</p></td>
<td colspan="2">42.4</td>
<td colspan="2">0.3</td>
<td colspan="2">35.6</td>
<td colspan="2">3.2</td>
<td colspan="2">2.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Emergency Power</p>
<p>Generators (d)</p></td>
<td colspan="2">60.4</td>
<td colspan="2">18.4</td>
<td colspan="2">13.7</td>
<td colspan="2">2.1</td>
<td colspan="2">2.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Total</td>
<td colspan="2">106.1</td>
<td colspan="2">21.8</td>
<td colspan="2">52.5</td>
<td colspan="2">11.8</td>
<td colspan="2">15.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="11"><p>Note: NOx = nitrogen oxides; SOx = sulphur dioxides;
CO = carbon monoxide; PM<sub>10</sub> = particulate matter &lt; 10
microns;</p>
<p>VOCs = volatile organic compounds; tons/yr = tons per year; na = not
applicable</p>
<p>(a) Based on actual facility natural gas usage and tons of waste
incinerated for calendar years 2006 and 2007 (does not include IRF
emissions).</p>
<p>(b) Permit conditional limit of 847 million cubic feet/yr of natural
gas</p>
<p>(c) Permit conditional limit of 3504 tons/yr</p>
<p>(d) Permit conditional limit of 500 hours/yr</p>
<p>Source: Montana DEQ Air Resources Management Bureau estimated
emissions for 2006 and 2007 and Montana DEQ 2003 (Potential to
Emit)</p></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

###### Gaseous Emissions  {#gaseous-emissions .unnumbered}

Gaseous emissions from RML include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from
incinerators, steam-generating boilers, emergency power generators, and
laboratory vent hoods. Gaseous emissions result from waste and fuel
combustion, filling and dispensing fuel from above-ground fuel tanks,
and from vent hoods (operations within the laboratories).

The incinerator at RML strictly controls released emissions and effluent
to minimize environmental effects. The primary chamber of the unit
significantly reduces NO~x~, SO~2~ and virtually eliminates dioxin
emissions. Gaseous incinerator emissions from RML are within EPA
standards for Hospital/ Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI).
Total campus emissions are well within Montana DEQ established Potential
to Emit values and EPA standards (Table 3-18). Similarly, gaseous
emissions from RML backup generators comply with EPA standards for
diesel engines (Table 3-19).

###### Air Quality Permit {#air-quality-permit .unnumbered}

Industrial air quality permitting is part of the Montana State
Implementation Plan process. The Montana Department of Environmental
Quality uses air quality permit conditions to help ensure compliance
with applicable Montana and National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration increments. Primary emitting
sources at RML include the boilers for process and facility steam and
the incinerator for refuse disposal. Boilers are subject to 40 CFR Part
60, Subpart Dc, Standards of Performance for Small Industrial-Commercial
Steam Generating Units. The incinerator is subject to 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart Ce, Standards of Performance for HMIWI.

RML is currently operating under Montana Air Quality Permit 2991-04
which was finalized in April 2003. Through the permit, Montana DEQ has
set conditions that ensure provisions of ARM Title 17.8 are met
(Administrative Rules for Montana, Control of Air Pollution in Montana).

+---------------+------+------+------+------+---------+------+------+
| []{#_         |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| _RefHeading__ |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| _Toc210030859 |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| .anchor}Table |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| 3‑19\         |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| EPA Tier 1-3  |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| Nonroad and   |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| Stationary    |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| Diesel Engine |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| Emission      |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| Standards^1^  |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+---------+------+------+
| Engine Power  | Tier | Year | CO   | HC   | N       | NOx  | PM   |
|               |      |      |      |      | MHC+NOx |      |      |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+---------+------+------+
| 225 ≤ kW \<   | Ti   | 1996 | 11.4 | 1.3  | \--     | 9.2  | 0.54 |
| 450           | er 1 |      |      |      |         |      |      |
|               |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| (300 ≤ hp \<  |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| 600)          |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+---------+------+------+
|               | Ti   | 2001 | 3.5  | \--  | 6.4     | \--  | 0.2  |
|               | er 2 |      |      |      |         |      |      |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+---------+------+------+
|               | Ti   | 2006 | 3.5  | \--  | 4.0     | \--  | \-   |
|               | er 3 |      |      |      |         |      | -^2^ |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+---------+------+------+
| 450 ≤ kW \<   | Ti   | 1996 | 11.4 | 1.3  | \--     | 9.2  | 0.54 |
| 560           | er 1 |      |      |      |         |      |      |
|               |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| (600 ≤ hp \<  |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| 750)          |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+---------+------+------+
|               | Ti   | 2002 | 3.5  | \--  | 6.4     | \--  | 0.2  |
|               | er 2 |      |      |      |         |      |      |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+---------+------+------+
|               | Ti   | 2006 | 3.5  | \--  | 4.0     | \--  | \-   |
|               | er 3 |      |      |      |         |      | -^2^ |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+---------+------+------+
| kW ≥ 560      | Ti   | 2000 | 11.4 | 1.3  | \--     | 9.2  | 0.54 |
|               | er 1 |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| (hp ≥ 750)    |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+---------+------+------+
|               | Ti   | 2006 | 3.5  | \--  | 6.4     | \--  | 0.2  |
|               | er 2 |      |      |      |         |      |      |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+---------+------+------+
| ^1^ All       |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| values        |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| presented in  |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| grams per     |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| kilowatt hour |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| (g/kWh).      |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
|               |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| ^2^ Not       |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| adopted,      |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| engines must  |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| meet Tier 2   |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| PM standard.  |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
|               |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| Source:       |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| Dieselnet     |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
| 2007.         |      |      |      |      |         |      |      |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+---------+------+------+

RML also operates under EPA Title V Operating Permit #OP2991-00 issued
in October 2004. Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments requires
all major, and some minor, sources of air pollution obtain an operating
permit. A Title V permit grants a potential source permission to
operate. Emission units regulated at RML under the Title V permit
include: natural gas and fuel oil consumption, natural gas boilers,
incinerator, and emergency generators.

###### Air Quality Monitoring Data  {#air-quality-monitoring-data .unnumbered}

Ambient air quality data have been collected at monitoring stations in
Hamilton and at U.S. Forest Service ranger stations at Stevensville and
West Fork (Table 3-20). All three stations are within Ravalli County.
PM~10~ data have been collected at all three sites and PM~2.5~ data at
one of the sites.

+-------------+-------+-----------------+-------------+---------------+
| []{#__Ref   |       |                 |             |               |
| Heading___T |       |                 |             |               |
| oc210030860 |       |                 |             |               |
| .a          |       |                 |             |               |
| nchor}Table |       |                 |             |               |
| 3‑20\       |       |                 |             |               |
| Monitoring  |       |                 |             |               |
| Data --     |       |                 |             |               |
| PM~10~ and  |       |                 |             |               |
| PM~2.5~     |       |                 |             |               |
+-------------+-------+-----------------+-------------+---------------+
| Site        | Year  | Annual          | 24-Hour     | 24-Hour 2nd   |
|             |       | Geometric Mean  | High        | High          |
|             |       | (µg/m^3^)       | (µg/m^3^)   | (µg/m^3^)     |
+-------------+-------+-----------------+-------------+---------------+
| #0001       | 1999  | 13.9            | 38          | 37            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
| Ravalli     | 2000  | 17.8            | 66          | 60            |
| County      |       |                 |             |               |
| Courthouse  | 2001  | 19.0            | 74          | 55            |
| Hamilton    |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 2002  | 18.0            | 85          | 78            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 2003  | 17.0            | 97          | 58            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 2004  | 19.0            | 103         | 79            |
+-------------+-------+-----------------+-------------+---------------+
| #0002       | 1994  | 31.9            | 92          | 81            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
| 111 S. Hwy  | 1995  | 26.1            | 78          | 74            |
| 93          |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 1996  | 26.2            | 96          | 69            |
| Hamilton    |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 1997  | 25.6            | 61          | 53            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 1998  | 23.1            | 98          | 57            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 1999  | 21.6            | 77          | 67            |
+-------------+-------+-----------------+-------------+---------------+
| #0003       | 1994  | 23.3            | 60          | 52            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
| S           | 1995  | 20.7            | 61          | 47            |
| tevensville |       |                 |             |               |
| Ranger      | 1996  | 21.0            | 56          | 54            |
| Station     |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 1997  | 23.6            | 54          | 47            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 1998  | 22.3            | 96          | 75            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 1999  | 18.6            | 47          | 44            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 2000  | 16.0            | 33          | 31            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 2001  | 17.0            | 41          | 37            |
+-------------+-------+-----------------+-------------+---------------+
| #0004       | 1994  | 8.6             | 54          | 50            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
| W. Fork     | 1995  | 6.4             | 58          | 50            |
| Ranger      |       |                 |             |               |
| Station     | 1996  | 9.3             | 48          | 47            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 1997  | 7.9             | 93          | 67            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 1998  | 9.3             | \-\--       | \-\--         |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 1999  | 6.3             | 48          | 41            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 2000  | 6.7             | 93          | 51            |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 2001  | 18.3            | 52          | 45            |
+-------------+-------+-----------------+-------------+---------------+
| PM~2.5~     |       |                 |             |               |
| Data        |       |                 |             |               |
+-------------+-------+-----------------+-------------+---------------+
| #0001       | 2000  | 15.9            | 200         | 116           |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
| Ravalli     | 2001  | 9.1             | 42          | 34            |
| County      |       |                 |             |               |
| Courthouse  | 2002  | 7.0             | 28          | 26            |
| Hamilton    |       |                 |             |               |
|             | 2003  | 7.3             | 34          | 29            |
+-------------+-------+-----------------+-------------+---------------+
| Note:       |       |                 |             |               |
| PM~10~ =    |       |                 |             |               |
| particulate |       |                 |             |               |
| matter \<   |       |                 |             |               |
| 10 microns; |       |                 |             |               |
| PM~2.5~ =   |       |                 |             |               |
| particulate |       |                 |             |               |
| matter \<   |       |                 |             |               |
| 2.5         |       |                 |             |               |
| microns;    |       |                 |             |               |
| µg/m^3^ =   |       |                 |             |               |
| micrograms  |       |                 |             |               |
| per cubic   |       |                 |             |               |
| meter.      |       |                 |             |               |
|             |       |                 |             |               |
| Source:     |       |                 |             |               |
| USEPA 2007. |       |                 |             |               |
+-------------+-------+-----------------+-------------+---------------+

###### Emission Sources {#emission-sources .unnumbered}

Fifteen known permitted air emission sources occur in Ravalli County as
of 2007. Of them, three are fixed location sources, while the remainders
are portable. The fixed location sources in Hamilton are the Rocky
Mountain Laboratories, Bitterroot Pet Crematorium, and Specialty
Surgical Products (Merkel 2006). Twelve businesses (some with more than
one permit) exist, including gravel crushers, associated processing
equipment, and asphalt plants.

The other permitted, emission sources within Ravalli County include:
Ravalli County Road Department (1)[^2], Rocky Mountain Aggregate (1),
Donaldson Brothers (2), Spaulding (1), Stewart Excavating (1), John
Schlecht Excavation (2), RBC Enterprises (2), and Blahnik Construction
(3), Harris (1), Ron Lewis (1), J and J Excavating(1), and Sperry Gravel
(1) (Merkel 2006). These facilities emit combustion products including
CO, NOx, SO~2~, and hydrocarbons from boilers, pathological furnaces,
engines, kilns, or other processes. Other potential fugitive dust and
smoke sources include farming, field and forest burning, wood burning
stoves, and dust from gravel roads.

###### PSD Classification {#psd-classification .unnumbered}

The area surrounding RML is designated a Class II area, as defined by
the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Air Quality
program. The PSD Class II designation allows for moderate growth or
degradation of air quality within certain limits above "PSD baseline"
air quality. The PSD baseline was established with the designation of
the PSD. Industrial emission sources proposing construction or
modifications must demonstrate that proposed emissions would not exceed
ambient air quality standards. Emission modeling and subsequent
regulatory analysis (Montana DEQ 2003) demonstrate that emissions from
the RML facility comply with air quality standards.

Class I areas are areas of special national or regional natural, scenic,
recreational, or historic value for which the PSD regulations provide
special protection. The nearest Class 1 area is the Selway Bitterroot
Wilderness, located approximately six miles west of RML.

### Direct and Indirect Effects

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-22 .unnumbered}

Gaseous and particulate emissions are generated during normal operation
at RML. Direct impacts from the proposed growth in new lab space, animal
facilities, and campus waste generation would increase.

RML incinerated 86 tons of medical waste in 2006. The Medical Waste
Disposal Alternatives Study (see **Appendix A**) estimated incinerated
medical waste would increase 32 percent over 2006 levels (CRB 2007) with
the addition of Building 28. This increase would result in 114 tons/year
of incinerated waste from a fully staffed Building 28 (226 researchers).

Research personnel generate medical waste; therefore, to estimate
medical waste generation for the proposed action, a per-capita medical
waste generation rate was calculated. For the purpose of this analysis,
it was assumed each additional researcher would contribute 0.50 tons of
medical waste for incineration annually. Following completion of the
Proposed Action, 15 additional scientists would be added bringing the
total researchers to an estimate of 241 , and resulting in 122 tons of
incinerated medical waste annually.

As a result, incinerator use was estimated to increase from
approximately four days a week to five or more days a week.

###### Emissions {#emissions .unnumbered}

Direct effects on air quality from the Proposed Action Alternative would
result in increased emissions from medical waste incineration, increased
boiler use and/or the addition of a boiler for heating, and testing and
running backup diesel generators in the event of a power outage.
Increases in incinerator, boiler, and generator emissions would be
monitored under conditions of the RML air quality permits: Montana Air
Quality Permit 2991-04 and EPA Title V Operating Permit #OP2991-00.

In 2006 and 2007, RML was operating within Montana DEQ Potential to Emit
values (Table 3-18). Incineration of medical waste does not result in
proportional increases in air emissions due to the highly efficient
design of the wet scrubber system and flue gas filtration that greatly
reduces incinerator emissions. Planned increases in incinerated medical
waste would not exceed permit values for NO~x~, SO~x~, CO, PM~10~, and
VOC. (Table 3-18). It is possible new technologies would be identified
in the next 15 years that would replace incineration of medical wastes
at RML and decrease air emissions from projected values. Furthermore,
the majority of air emissions result from operation of the natural gas
fired boilers (Table 3-18).

A new boiler was added in June 2007 and operated for the remainder of
the year. The new boiler is equal in size to the existing boilers,
increasing steam production capabilities by approximately 33 percent.
Reported emissions from the new boiler for 2007 were:

-   NO~x~ = 2.112

-   SO~x~ = 0.0841

-   CO = 1.7665

-   PM~10~ = 0.0404

-   VOC = 0.1156

Assuming boiler emissions remain constant, emission values would likely
double when operated for a 12 month period. This increase in emissions
would not exceed permit values. Space exists to install a fourth boiler.
Assuming emissions from a fourth boiler were comparable to the recently
installed boiler, permitted emissions for natural gas boiler on RML
would not be exceeded (Table 3-18).

If Ravalli County's is determined to be in non-attainment status for
PM~2.5~, the County would be required to take action regarding fine
particulates. It is unlikely non-attainment status would affect current
permitted emission values at RML. RML's Title V permit expires in 2009;
thus, more stringent particulate limits may be imposed. Implementation
of EPA's proposed new source performance standards, which includes
reducing limits for some pollutants by 75 percent, would not effect
RML's Title V permit as 2007 emission values currently meet the proposed
standards.

Emission points associated with the Proposed Action at RML would not be
any closer to population centers or critical air quality receptors since
all development would be within the perimeter of the RML campus and the
incinerator would be used and upgraded as necessary.

The State of Montana recognizes the use of incineration as a legitimate
means of handling infectious or pathological waste. MCA 75-10-1005(4)(a)
states, \"Treatment and disposal of infectious waste must be
accomplished through the following methods: (i) incineration with
complete combustion\...(ii) steam sterilization\...or (iii)
sterilization of standard chemical techniques\...\" Furthermore, when
compared to currently available biomedical waste treatment and disposal
technologies incineration is preferable in terms of its applicability to
RML, public and personnel safety, site constraints, and environmental
welfare (see **Appendix A**).

A study is underway to increase and consolidate campus emergency
generator capacity and fuel storage. Emissions from the weekly testing
or use of diesel generators in the event of a power outage would
increase as two new generators are added to campus. Additional
generators may be added with completion of the Proposed Action. Impacts
on air quality would be minor as the newly installed generators take
advantage of new diesel technology for low emission stationary generator
sets that comply with EPA Tier 2 standards. Emissions from the new
larger generators may be lower than existing older generator sets. All
generators would meet EPA standards for emissions (Table 3-19).

Construction activities associated with the Proposed Action would be
concentrated over the next 10 years with limited growth occurring the
following 10 years, generating short-term air quality impacts. Impacts
would result from fugitive dust and gaseous emissions associated with
construction equipment. Fugitive dust would be controlled through dust
control measures. Gaseous emissions would be controlled through
management of construction work hours. Overall, fugitive dust emission
resulting from current exposed ground areas would decrease due to site
improvements such as vegetation/landscaping and improved asphalt parking
areas.

Air quality impacts resulting from additional natural gas usage at RML
are anticipated to be minor (Montana DEQ 2003). Impacts on air quality
would not result from emissions due to increased use of natural gas
since sufficient capacity is available from the utility. Additional
exploration for natural gas would not be needed to supply additional
campus development. Furthermore, no air quality impacts would result
from increased demand of renewable energy sources such as electricity
supplied by Kerr Dam, located near Polson, Montana.

###### Air Quality Permit {#air-quality-permit-1 .unnumbered}

The air quality permit specifies limits for incinerator charging rate,
natural gas usage (for boilers and incinerator), and emergency generator
run hours. The permit also specifies reporting requirements to document
status of compliance with permit conditions. Additional activities that
ensure facility compliance include emission testing and inspections by
Montana DEQ. If the permit conditions are not met (e.g., emission limits
exceeded), Montana DEQ may issue a notice of violation.

The air quality permit technical analysis conducted by Montana DEQ for
permit 2991-04 and EPA Title V Operating Permit #OP2991-00 includes the
proposed boiler, emergency power generators, and increased incinerator
use for the Integrated Research Facility. Based on review of the
application and state and federal rules and regulations, Montana DEQ has
determined that Building 28 would comply with all applicable ambient
standards and meet the provisions of ARM Title 17. Montana DEQ would
continue to monitor activities at RML to ensure compliance with
applicable air quality regulations.

###### Class I Areas {#class-i-areas .unnumbered}

The air modeling analysis conducted for RML predicted air emission would
be within Montana and federal air quality standards. These emissions are
not expected to visibly affect or modify air quality in the Class I
designated Selway Bitterroot Wilderness, approximately six miles west of
RML.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-22 .unnumbered}

The Capacity Growth Alternative would increase key campus facility
resources such as laboratory space, veterinary branch, central storage,
and consolidation of emergency generators and above ground fuel storage.
Campus researchers would increase to 321 personnel.

Analysis based on Medical Waste Disposal Alternatives Study indicated
researchers would contribute approximately 0.50 tons of medical waste
for annual incineration. Based on these estimates approximately 162
tons/year of medical waste would be incinerated following completion of
the Capacity Growth Alternative.

###### Emissions {#emissions-1 .unnumbered}

Direct and indirect impacts on emissions under the Capacity Growth
Alternative would be greater than those described under the Proposed
Action. Emissions from medical waste incineration are not linearly
related to amount of material incinerated, rather they are dependent on
the types of material incinerated and the quality and type of scrubbing
and emission control systems on the incinerator (see description above).
RML would continue to monitor campus emissions in compliance with state
and federal air quality permits and implement new technologies to reduce
emissions when appropriate.

Additional emergency power generators may be necessary to accommodate
increases in campus facilities. New generators would comply with EPA
Tier 2 standards and meet EPA standards for emissions (Table 3-19).
Impacts on air quality would be similar to the Proposed Action.

Short-term air impacts associated with construction would be similar to
the Proposed Action, occurring as need arises.

###### Air Quality Permit {#air-quality-permit-2 .unnumbered}

RML would continue to operate under Montana DEQ permit 2991-04 and EPA
Title V Operating Permit #OP2991-00, and would comply with all
applicable ambient standards and meet the provisions of ARM Title 17.
Montana DEQ would continue to monitor activities at RML to ensure
compliance with applicable air quality regulations.

###### Class I Areas {#class-i-areas-1 .unnumbered}

Effects of the Capacity Growth Alternative on Class I areas would be
similar to those described under the Proposed Action. Emissions would
continue to increase but would not adversely affect the Selway
Bitterroot Wilderness west of RML.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-23 .unnumbered}

Under the No Action Alternative RML campus would continue to grow, as
would the number of employees. The increase in the number of researchers
under the fully developed No Action Alternative would increase the
amount of incinerated waste up to 114 tons per year, resulting in air
quality impacts similar to the proposed action.

###### Emissions  {#emissions-2 .unnumbered}

Direct and indirect impacts on emissions under the No Action Alternative
would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action. RML would
continue to monitor campus emissions in compliance with state and
federal air quality permits. New technologies to reduce emissions would
be implemented when appropriate.

Short-term air impacts associated with construction would occur as need
arises.

###### Air Quality Permit {#air-quality-permit-3 .unnumbered}

###### RML would continue to operate under Montana DEQ permit 2991-04 and EPA Title V Operating Permit #OP2991-00, and would comply with all applicable ambient standards and meet the provisions of ARM Title 17. Montana DEQ would continue to monitor activities at RML to ensure compliance with applicable air quality regulations.  {#rml-would-continue-to-operate-under-montana-deq-permit-2991-04-and-epa-title-v-operating-permit-op2991-00-and-would-comply-with-all-applicable-ambient-standards-and-meet-the-provisions-of-arm-title-17.-montana-deq-would-continue-to-monitor-activities-at-rml-to-ensure-compliance-with-applicable-air-quality-regulations. .unnumbered}

###### Class I Areas {#class-i-areas-2 .unnumbered}

Effects of the No Action Alternative on Class I areas would be similar
to those described under the Proposed Action. Emissions would continue
to increase but would not adversely affect the Selway Bitterroot
Wilderness west of RML.

### Cumulative Effects

Under the Proposed Action, the minor increase in emissions would be
added to emissions from the other 14 permitted sources in the county. A
decrease in particulate matter emissions from reasonably foreseeable
actions would occur as undeveloped areas are converted to buildings and
paved for parking, reducing fugitive dust. Particulate matter from
wildland fire is highly variable from year to year, but is expected to
continue for the life of the Proposed Action. Since the Proposed Action
Alternative would comply with ambient air quality standards, cumulative
effects would be minimal.

## Waste

### Affected Environment

RML presently conducts its research on pathogenic organisms at BSL-2 or
BSL-3. RML projects include research with pathogens that have the
potential to cause serious infection in humans. The facility contains
five research laboratories that include bacteria, virus, and prion
research, each of which spans multiple biosafety levels. Integral to the
types of research conducted at RML are the animal care facilities that
provide model organisms for research and test subjects for experiments.
These types of support facilities present their own distinctive waste
management conditions.

Due to the unique nature of the facilities and research at RML, a wide
variety of waste is generated. As expected from this type of research, a
significant percentage of waste is infectious medical waste. The
remaining domestic waste is separated into recyclable and non-recyclable
wastes to minimize landfill waste. The types and quantities generated in
Fiscal Year 2006 are summarized in Table 3-21 (NIH 2007).

RML has dramatically reduced the amount of generated waste over the last
3 years. Historically, RML incinerated most wastes generated at the
facility, including domestic waste but excluding certain hazardous
chemical and radioactive wastes. Following a litigation settlement in
2004, RML began to segregate general refuse from the incinerated waste
stream and implemented an extensive recycling program. Currently, 46
percent of RML waste is incinerated, all of which is infectious medical
waste; 35 percent of waste generated is recycled; and less than 19
percent of total RML waste is sent to landfill. Waste segregation and
recycling are the primary mitigation measures that RML can undertake to
reduce waste generation. On-going monitoring and upgrading of the RML
Waste Management Plan would insure that waste minimization methods and
recycling programs are continually evaluated for optimization
opportunities.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc210030861                                                         
  .anchor}Table 3‑21\                                                                     
  2006 RML Waste Summary                                                                  
  --------------------------------- ---------------- ------------------ --------- ------- --------
  Categories                        Sub-Category     Comments           Pounds    Tons    \% of
                                                                                          Total

  Municipal Solid Waste             Dumpsters        Allied Waste       69,240    34.6    18.55

  Medical/Pathological/ Lab Waste                    Incineration       172,009   86.0    46.08

  Hazardous Chemical Waste                           Shipped Offsite    634       0.3     0.17

                                                     LBP Cleanup        570       0.3     0.15

  Radioactive Waste                 Solid Waste      Stored for Decay   80        0.0     0.02

  Mixed Waste                                        None               0         0.0     0.00

  Recycled Materials                                                                       

                                    Aluminum         Ravalli Services   130       0.1     0.03

                                    Batteries                           152       0.1     0.04
                                    (non-lead acid)                                       

                                    Cardboard        Est. 4 yd^3^/wk @  70,000    35.0    18.75
                                                     350 lbs/yd^3^                        

                                    Fluorescent      145 U-bulbs, 3225                     
                                    Bulbs            linear feet                          

                                    Glass                               250       0.1     0.07

                                    Lead             UPS batteries per  4,519     2.3     1.21
                                                     certificate                          

                                    Metal Waste      Pacific Recycling  22,220    11.1    5.95

                                    Pallets          275 @ 40 lbs each  11,000    5.5     2.95

                                    Paper            All kinds          18,403    9.2     4.93

                                    Used Oil and     Emerald Recycling  4,060     2.0     1.09
                                    Antifreeze       580 gal, 7 lbs/gal                   

                                                     Recycled Waste     130,734   65.4    35.02
                                                     Subtotal                             

   **TOTAL WASTE GENERATED**                                            373,267   186.6   100.00
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RML annually updates a facility Waste Management Plan that describes the
technical and administrative controls used to segregate wastes and
prevent listed or characteristically hazardous chemical and radioactive
wastes from being placed in the incinerator. As RML prepares for the
operation of Building 28 with a BSL 4 laboratory, additional waste
management guidelines must be developed. Table 3-22 summarizes current
facility waste characterization.

  -------------------------------------------------- --------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc210030862 .anchor}Table      
  3‑22\                                              
  Medical Waste Characterization - 2007              

  Type                                               Amount

  Non-Prion Laboratory Waste excluding               621 lbs/day ^\*^
  carcasses/tissues                                  

  Non-Prion Carcass/Tissue Waste                     3 lbs/day

  Prion-Contaminated Waste excluding                 176 lbs/day
  carcasses/tissues                                  

  Prion-Contaminated Carcass/Tissue Waste            1 lbs/day

  Carcasses/Tissue Waste - IRF                       110 lbs/day

  Other Animal-Related Waste - IRF                   142 lbs/day

  Lab Wastes - IRF excluding animal-related waste    130 lbs/day

  \* Of this amount, 382 lbs/day is animal bedding.  
  -------------------------------------------------- --------------------

A waste disposal alternatives analysis was conducted by NIH in 2007 to
review current disposal practices and waste management guidelines as
well as other available disposal alternatives for Building 28 and
planned campus expansion. The objective of this study was to provide a
comparative analysis of currently available biomedical waste treatment
and disposal technologies that are applicable to existing and planned
operations at the RML campus. This study analyzed and compared the
methods presently used, which is based on incineration, with other
methods currently available. The advantages and disadvantages of each
option were evaluated with respect to their applicability to RML public
and personnel safety, site constraints, and environmental welfare. The
results of the study would be used by the NIH to determine the disposal
technologies best suited for the RML medical pathological waste stream
and ensure that they are provided for. The comparative analysis
determined that incineration continues to be the best disposal
alternative for RML. A copy of the Medical Waste Disposal Alternatives
report is included as **Appendix A**.

### Direct and Indirect Effects

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-23 .unnumbered}

The Proposed Action Alternative calls for slow growth after the initial
construction period (10 years) with projected growth in personnel and
building space of approximately 1 percent per year for the remaining 10
years. The total projected growth of personnel and facilities is 27
percent and 44 percent as compared to 2006 data, respectively.

Disposal methodology and space requirements for waste management were
estimated by RML based on a study, *Medical Waste Disposal Alternatives
at Rocky Mountain Laboratories*, *September 2007*, (**Appendix A**)
which addressed municipal solid wastes, medical/pathological/lab wastes,
hazardous chemical waste, radioactive waste, and recycled materials.

Based on current available information and maturity of technology the
study determined that, at this time, incineration of all medical type
wastes is the technology best suited for RML, and the Proposed Action
Alternative retains the current incinerator. The NIH and the RML would
continue to consider alternative waste disposal technologies as these
evolve and as campus operations and needs change in the future. The
study also identified waste streams from generation points to disposal,
and circulation provisions in the Proposed Action Alternative
incorporate these waste movement requirements.

Analysis from Medical Waste Disposal Alternatives Study indicated
researchers would contribute approximately 0.5044 tons per person of
medical waste for annual incineration (estimated from a fully functional
and staffed IRF). Based on this per capita estimate and the projected
total number of campus researchers under the Proposed Action Alternative
(241), approximately 122 tons/year of medical waste would be incinerated
a year, an increase of approximately 41 percent from 2006 data.

Increases in throughput of all types of waste at the RML campus would
generate additional waste disposal by-products such as liquid waste,
solid waste, and air emissions. These would incrementally increase
transportation-related waste disposal activities and associated costs,
increase water consumption and wastewater discharge to the CHDPW WWTP,
and increase air emissions from the RML incinerator. These indirect
impacts would increase somewhere in the neighborhood of the project
growth of the campus staffing based on the Proposed Action Alternative
projection of 27 percent.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-23 .unnumbered}

The Capacity Growth Alternative would increase key campus facility
resources such as laboratory space, veterinary branch, central storage,
and consolidation of emergency generators and above ground fuel storage.
The total campus staff would increase to 560 personnel and campus
researchers would increase to 321 personnel. Based on a municipal solid
waste (total waste) generation rate of 0.56 tons/year as a per capita of
the total campus staff; the direct impacts from the Capacity Growth
Alternative would be an increase in the total waste generation up to 311
tons, and increase of approximately 67 percent over 2006 data.

Analysis based on Medical Waste Disposal Alternatives Study indicated
researchers would contribute approximately 0.5044 tons per person of
medical waste for annual incineration. Based on these estimates,
approximately 162 ton/year of medical waste would be incinerated
following completion of the Capacity Growth Alternative, an increase of
approximately 88 percent from 2006 data.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-24 .unnumbered}

Based on the projected growth from 2006 conditions to a fully staffed
campus under the No Action Alternative, the total waste generation would
increase up to 209 tons, an increase of approximately 12 percent.

The increase in campus researchers from 2006 conditions to a fully
staffed buildout under the No Action Alternative would result in an
increase in medical waste generated of 114 tons, an increase of 33
percent.

### Cumulative Effects

Increases in solid waste generation would result in a decrease in
municipal waste disposal capacity. The consequences of this point-source
pollution would lead to degradation of air and water quality. One
measure of the degradation of water quality resulting from point source
and non-point source pollution is a basin-wide watershed analysis
currently being undertaken by the Montana DEQ. This program is called
the TMDL Program, a program based on water quality standards in the
Bitterroot River. The TMDL for the Bitterroot Basin is due out in 2009.
The TMDL study would be used by Montana DEQ to set allowable limits of
nutrient and other water quality parameters from point source
contributors through the MPDES (Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System) permitting. RML currently discharges its wastewater to the
municipal sanitary sewer and as such falls under the CHDPW discharge
permit. With more stringent regulations with regard to nutrient loads,
BOD and COD, the CHDPW may require industrial pretreatment of wastewater
discharge from its larger contributors such as RML (HDR 2007). This
industrial pretreatment program would likely require dischargers to meet
average nutrient load in the city's system. The implications of the TMDL
study and the cumulative effects of all point and non-point pollutants
in the watershed may require RML to modify its Waste Management Plan. It
is unlikely that any substantial modification of current medical waste
disposal processes such as introduction of tissue digestion would be
allowed without an on-site wastewater treatment facility. RML currently
has no plans for a wastewater treatment facility. Current discharges to
the WWTP are monitored by RML semiannually; and substantial increases in
nutrient and waste by-product loading to the WWTP are expected
commensurate with the No Action Alternative (completion of Building 28,
Building 31, and fix of existing deficiencies), the Preferred
Alternative, or the Capacity Growth Alternative developments.

## Stormwater

### Affected Environment 

Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires
federal facility development projects with a footprint exceeding 5,000
square feet to use site planning, design, construction, and maintenance
strategies to control stormwater runoff.

Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, later referred to
as the Clean Water Act, prohibited the discharge of any pollutant to
waters of the United States unless authorized and permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The State of
Montana DEQ is authorized to administer the NPDES Program through the
Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES). Initially,
efforts to maintain and improve water quality focused on reducing
pollutants from industrial process wastewater and municipal sewage
treatment plant discharges. More recently, diffuse sources of water
pollution such as stormwater runoff from construction sites (disturbing
more than one acre) have been included in the permit process (Montana
DEQ 2007).

The EPA and Montana DEQ are working on the Phase II stormwater discharge
permits for the State of Montana. These new regulations would only
affect communities larger than 10,000 people. The 2006 U.S. census data
indicates the City of Hamilton had a population of 4,644 (US Census
Bureau 2007b). Considering recent growth in the area, it is likely the
City of Hamilton would be subject to Phase II stormwater requirements
within the 20 year time frame of the Proposed Action.

The State does not require a permit for stormwater discharge from
parking lots, landscaped areas, and roof drains, etc., into surface
waters or groundwater. Stormwater on the RML site is disposed of in dry
wells (sumps) (Error: Reference source not found), which percolate the
water into the ground; a common method of stormwater management in the
area. Bitterroot Valley soils have a good drainage characteristic so
sumps are good methods of stormwater disposal. Normally a 4 feet
diameter by 8 feet deep sump is designed to drain a 10,000 square foot
surface area. RML has six roof drain sumps associated with Buildings 26
and 28 (Error: Reference source not found). RML is implementing Best
Management Practices (BMPs), such as these dry wells, to control the
quantity and quality of its stormwater runoff.

In addition, there are two pipes which daylight at the west end of
campus. The southerly pipe which runs just inside RML's south boundary
is an overflow pipe for the irrigation system in the alley between 3^rd^
and 4^th^

![](media/image11.png){width="6.780555555555556in"
height="8.871527777777779in"}

Streets. No water from RML runs in this pipeline. The northerly pipe
carries limited water from area drains inside the RML campus. A small
system is in place south of Building 30, reportedly consisting of two
area drainage sumps piped to a French Drain. Fourteen catch basins are
associated with these piping systems (Error: Reference source not
found). The extent and use of this system would be investigated as part
of the Master Utilities Plan to determine its potential impact on campus
development.

A limited drainage system is comprised of an eight inch pipe from
Building 7, which at one time transferred boiler blow-down water under
Building 13 into a 12-inch diameter drain beginning on the west side of
Building 13. Boiler blow-down is no longer discharged to this drainage
system. The original 12-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) was
replaced by PVC pipe to the section west of Building 25. The drain line
terminates below the irrigation ditch west of the campus. This pipeline
also has four stormwater intakes, two each between Buildings 22 and 25,
and two each south of Building 25 on the easterly section of pipe. The
portion of drain line from the outfall to the first manhole is a 12-inch
diameter CMP, 310 lineal feet, and shows rust on the inside, but
otherwise is in good condition. A service connection is located 256
linear feet from the outfall. An existing connection from a drain from
HD 5 has been removed. The remainder of this drain is 12-inch PVC
installed recently under current construction projects. This pipe is in
good condition with a capacity of 2.9 cfs, and is one of the discharge
points listed in the MPDES permit.

Implementation of the Master Plan could increase stormwater runoff as it
would involve building demolition and construction, construction of
parking lots, and paving roadways. In the short-term, this would lead to
areas of disturbed soil, which are highly susceptible to erosion;
however stormwater runoff impacts resulting from construction activities
are expected to be minor due to adaptation of best management practices
(BMPs) to control sediment runoff and compliance with all state and
federal regulations governing stormwater discharge on construction
sites, including Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007. This would involve developing a stormwater pollution prevention
plan (SWPPP) for construction projects over one acre and acquiring the
proper Montana DEQ permits. Appropriate BMPs for sediment control during
construction activities would include practices such as installing silt
fences, or creating sediment traps.

Long-term build-up of RML as a result of the Master Plan would convert
portions of the campus from pervious surfaces, such as a mixture of
grass to impervious surfaces including parking lots and roadways;
thereby increasing the amount of stormwater runoff. The increased volume
coupled with improper management of changes in stormwater volume, peak
flows, and flow patterns could result in soil erosion and increased
sediment discharge to the local waterway. Pollutant types and
concentrations vary widely from runoff event to runoff event and may
include the following: road salt, fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals,
oils, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and bacteria. Runoff water
is currently captured through a series of dry wells and is infiltrated
into the soil. When managed incorrectly, infiltration through stormwater
drainage wells has the potential to adversely impact underground sources
of drinking water (USDWs) (EPA 2003).

RML dry wells and the French drains are classified as Class V stormwater
discharge wells. These wells are regulated under the Underground
Injection Control (UIC) program and do not require permitting under the
MPDES provided they do not endanger USDWs, and they comply with federal
UIC program requirements (EPA 2003). Additionally, RML's use of a
stormwater drainage system would not be affected by implementation of
Phase II stormwater discharge permitting under the MPDES.

Through the use of BMPs and construction and operation techniques, RML's
stormwater discharge system is designed such that stormwater runoff will
pose minimal to no threat to USDWs. To mitigate the possibility of
sediment or pollutants reaching adjacent waterways, NIH has set a goal
of no net increase in stormwater runoff from the site following full
implementation of the Proposed Action. To achieve this goal, additional
stormwater runoff generated from development of paved roadways, parking
areas, the pedestrian concourse, and buildings would be captured by the
current stormwater system of sumps, additional sumps, or other
applicable BMPs and routed into Class V discharge points throughout the
campus.

###  Direct and Indirect Effects

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-24 .unnumbered}

Changes in impervious surfaces were analyzed using Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) methods (NRCS 1986). Surface types were
classified into two categories: low permeability- buildings, roads, and
parking areas; and high permeability- landscaped areas and native
vegetation. 2006 runoff estimates included Building 28. Infiltration
rates vary for different surfaces types affecting surface runoff.
Estimates were made for a 2-year 24-hour storm event.

Runoff estimates indicate the potential for 1,808 cubic feet/acre of
runoff after full development of the Proposed Action Alternative during
a 2 year storm event, an increase of approximately 60 percent over 2006
runoff estimates (Table 3-23). Implementation of BMPs and Class V
drainage wells would be monitored closely to ensure that nearby
waterways and underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) would not be
affected.

+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| []{#__RefHeadin  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| g___Toc210030863 |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| .anchor}Table    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| 3‑23\            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Estimated        |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| stormwater       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| runoff based on  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| a 2 year-24 hour |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| storm event.     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+==================+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+
|                  | 2008  |       | Pro   |       | Cap   |       |
|                  | Est   |       | posed |       | acity |       |
|                  | imate |       | A     |       | G     |       |
|                  |       |       | ction |       | rowth |       |
|                  |       |       | A     |       | A     |       |
|                  |       |       | ltern |       | ltern |       |
|                  |       |       | ative |       | ative |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                  | Area  | Storm | Area  | Storm | Area  | Storm |
|                  |       | water |       | water |       | water |
|                  | (a    | r     | (a    | r     | (a    | r     |
|                  | cres) | unoff | cres) | unoff | cres) | unoff |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       | (     |       | (     |       | (     |
|                  |       | cubic |       | cubic |       | cubic |
|                  |       | feet) |       | feet) |       | feet) |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Low Permeability | 9     | 3     | 17    | 6     | 18    | 6     |
| Areas -          |       | 1,844 |       | 0,825 |       | 5,433 |
| buildings,       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| roads, parking   |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| areas            |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| High             | 24    | 5,394 | 19    | 4,253 | 18    | 3,964 |
| Permeability     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Areas -          |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| landscaping, and |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| native           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| vegetation       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Totals           | 33    | 3     | 36    | 6     | 36    | 6     |
|                  |       | 7,238 |       | 5,078 |       | 9,397 |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Notes:           |       |       |       |       |       |       |
|                  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| This analysis is |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| based on land    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| use estimates    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| presented in     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| section 4.1.2    |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| and 5.2.3 of the |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Proposed Action  |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Alternative      |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Master Plan.     |       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

Proper implementation of LID techniques and BMPs would be adequate to
control and filter stormwater runoff. These techniques and practices
would be the cornerstone of a comprehensive stormwater management
strategy. LID is an alternative design strategy that uses natural and
engineered infiltration and storage techniques to control stormwater
where it is generated (WBDG 2007). Examples of LID technologies for
stormwater management include (WBDG 2007):

-   Engineered systems that filter stormwater from parking lots and
    impervious surfaces, such as bioretention cells;

-   Engineered systems that retain stormwater to slow infiltration, such
    as infiltration trenches, and sumps;

![](media/image12.png){width="2.8652777777777776in"
height="1.7909722222222222in"}

Bioretention cell schematic (WBDG 2007)

-   Modifications to infrastructure to decrease the amount of impervious
    surfaces such as curbless, gutterless, and reduced-width streets;

-   Vegetated areas that filter, direct, and retain stormwater such as
    rain gardens, and bioswales;

-   Use of innovative materials that help break up impervious surfaces;
    often made of recycled materials such as porous concrete, and
    permeable pavers;

-   Native or site-appropriate vegetation that utilizes excess water and
    protects the soil surface from raindrop impact or excessive overland
    flow.

Furthermore, implementation of LID-based stormwater management systems
typically reduces infrastructure costs for ponds, curbs and gutters,
inlets, and pipes that otherwise would be needed to manage runoff.
Long-term savings are realized as maintenance of pipes and other
components of a drainage system are replaced by routine landscape
maintenance costs (WBDG 2007).

Specifically, the NIH Design Policy and Guidelines (2003) recommend the
use of stormwater retention and filtration techniques, reducing
impervious surfaces, using bioretention for concentrated flow areas, and
replacing curbs and gutters with grassy swales. Additional benefits
include reduced maintenance costs (snow shoveling and desalting) due to
rapid snowmelt on permeable surfaces, and rapid absorption (under
24-hours) to reduce the risk of mosquito breeding (WBDG 2007). These
techniques effectively filter various pollutant types, protecting
groundwater in all but extreme cases such as a fuel spill. Spills and
other industrial accidents where large quantities of pollutants enter
the stormwater system would be cleaned up in compliance with State
regulations and RML's spill prevention, control, and countermeasure
(SPCC) plan.

Specific location, extent, distribution, and design of stormwater runoff
BMPs would be implemented concurrently with the various stages of
proposed construction. BMPs would be engineered to accommodate estimated
storm event precipitation to state and national standards. RML would
ensure the long-term effectiveness of its stormwater runoff BMPs through
regular inspection and maintenance. It is reasonable to conclude that
with continued compliance with the UIC program and implementation of LID
techniques and BMPs, the effects of stormwater runoff on local waterways
would be minimal.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-24 .unnumbered}

The Capacity Growth Alternative would result in a one acre increase in
impervious surfaces following completion of the Capacity Growth
Alternative. Stormwater runoff has the potential to 1,928 cubic
feet/acre, an increase 71 percent from the 2006 Estimate (Table 3-23).
Surface conversion from pervious to impervious surface would result from
expansion of buildings G, B, and L, and the addition of 133 parking
spaces. The current stormwater system would be updated to accommodate
additional stormwater generated as a result of surface type conversion.

Impacts to local waterways from RML stormwater runoff associated with
short-term construction projects would be minor and fall within the
levels permitted by the MPDES.

RML would continue to install and maintain stormwater BMPs such as sumps
as needed. Similarly, RML may incorporate LID techniques under guidance
of the NIH Design Policy and Guidelines (2003). RML would comply with
UIC stormwater well discharge program guidelines.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-25 .unnumbered}

Under the No Action Alternative personnel would continue to grow at RML
to support Building 28. Additional facilities and paved parking may
change. If additional building or parking were constructed areas of
pervious soils would likely be converted to impervious surfaces. These
changes would be quantified in the project specific NEPA requirements.
The current stormwater system would be updated to accommodate additional
stormwater generated as a result of surface type conversion.

Impacts to local waterways from RML stormwater runoff associated with
short-term construction projects would be minor and fall within the
levels permitted by the MPDES. RML would continue to install and
maintain stormwater BMPs such as sumps as needed. Similarly, RML may
incorporate LID techniques under guidance of the NIH Design Policy and
Guidelines (2003). RML would comply with UIC stormwater well discharge
program guidelines.

### Cumulative Impacts

Urbanization would continue in the Hamilton area and stormwater runoff
would continue to increase as pervious soils such as grasslands are
converted to impervious surfaces. In addition, sediment and pollutants
would likely continue to reach area waterways from sources such as soils
eroded from steep slopes following a local forest fire.

RML could contribute minor amounts of stormwater to local waterways as
stormwater would be captured onsite and infiltrated into the soil and
eventually return to the groundwater. BMPs and LID techniques would
filter out pollutants and sediment before the water is returned to the
groundwater system. Furthermore, by capturing the stormwater onsite it
would not be discharged to the Hamilton's water treatment system. The
water treatment system has limited capacity; treating stormwater
generated at RML would further stress this system. Achieving the Master
Plan goal of no net increase in stormwater runoff from the RML campus
would result in possible minor cumulative effects on local waterways.

## Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian Areas

HHS Manual 30-40-00 (Natural Asset Review) defines wetlands as those
areas inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life
that require saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for
growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas.

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 2691 (1977) as
amended by Executive Order 12608, 52 F 34617 (1987), 42 U.S. Code 4321,
directs each federal agency to minimize destruction, loss, or
degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance such wetlands in
carrying out their program responsibilities. Consideration must include
a variety of factors such as water supply, erosion and flood prevention,
maintenance of natural systems, and potential scientific benefits.

### Affected Environment

The west end of the RML property is in the Bitterroot River floodplain,
which lies at approximately 3,563 feet above sea level. Floodplains,
such as the far western end of the RML site, are areas of relatively
flat land bordering a river that are inundated fully and partially when
the river floods. Floodplains are formed by fluvial erosion and
deposition of sediment during floods. The extent of floodplain
inundation depends in part on the magnitude of the flood, defined by the
return period. Due to regular inundation, riparian vegetation easily
establishes within floodplains. Riparian areas occur within the
Bitterroot River floodplain, west of the RML property. No RML facilities
are located within the property's floodplain area.

The west end of the RML property is in the wetlands of the Bitterroot
River, which correspond roughly, but not exclusively, with the
floodplain (Error: Reference source not found). Generally, wetlands are
lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the
nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities
living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin 1979). For regulatory
purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means \"those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.\" \[from the EPA Regulations
listed at 40 CFR 230.3(t)\] Protection of the nation's wetlands is
provided under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

### Direct and Indirect Effects

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-25 .unnumbered}

Riparian areas, floodplains, and wetlands would not be affected by the
Proposed Action Alternative because no development would occur in
riparian areas or wetlands.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-25 .unnumbered}

Riparian areas, floodplains, and wetlands would not be affected by the
Capacity Growth Alternative because no development would occur in
riparian areas or wetlands.

#### **No Action** Alternative {#no-action-alternative-26 .unnumbered}

Floodplains, riparian areas, and wetlands would not be affected because
the development and expansion activities under the No Action Alternative
would not occur in any of these areas.

### Cumulative Effects

Because there would be no direct or indirect effects from either
alternative, there would be no cumulative effects.

![](media/image13.png){width="6.585416666666666in"
height="8.623611111111112in"}

## Wildlife and Fish

### Affected Environment

###### Fish {#fish-3 .unnumbered}

The Bitterroot River is the closest aquatic community to the RML campus;
providing habitat for approximately 12 species of coldwater fish (Holton
1990; MFWP 2007). Six salmonid species are classified as game fish in
the Bitterroot River: bull trout, brook trout, brown trout, rainbow
trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish. Brook, brown,
and rainbow trout are not native to the Bitterroot River. One fish
species of concern, the westslope cutthroat trout (MNHP 2007a), is
listed as common in the Bitterroot River in the vicinity of Hamilton
(MFWP 2007). Bull trout, which are listed under the Endangered Species
Act, are an incidental and rare resident fish species in the Bitterroot
River (MFWP 2007).

###### Wildlife  {#wildlife-3 .unnumbered}

Wildlife within the Bitterroot Valley is representative of the northern
Rocky Mountain region. Approximately 45 species of mammals, five species
of amphibians, and nine species of reptiles may occur in the vicinity of
Hamilton and RML (Foresman 2001; Maxell *et al.* 2003). In addition,
approximately 100 species of birds have breeding habitat documented
within the valley near Hamilton (MTNHP 2007b). Alterations of wildlife
habitat have occurred as a result of agriculture and other human
developments. Highly altered urban environments meet the habitat needs
of fewer species, most of which tend to be generalists, and several of
which are non-native (e.g., European starling, house mouse, eastern fox
squirrel). Species inhabiting urban environments tend to be tolerant of
disturbance.

Mammal species that may occur in or adjacent to Hamilton include
white-tailed deer, mule deer, coyote, red fox, striped skunk, raccoon,
badger, long-tailed weasel, deer mouse, house mouse, meadow vole,
Columbian ground squirrel, yellow-bellied marmot, eastern fox squirrel,
several species of bats (e.g., big brown bat), and shrews (e.g., masked
shrew). Terrestrial garter snakes, common garter snakes, and gopher
snakes may live in Hamilton. Common bird species likely to breed in the
urban habitats of Hamilton include rock dove, mourning dove, great
horned owl, downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, northern flicker,
western wood-pewee, eastern kingbird, tree swallow, barn swallow,
black-billed magpie, black-capped chickadee, house wren, American robin,
European starling, warbling vireo, yellow warbler, western tanager,
American tree sparrow, chipping sparrow, dark-eyed junco, brown-headed
cowbird, house finch, American goldfinch, and house sparrow.

### Direct and Indirect Effects

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-26 .unnumbered}

###### Fish {#fish-4 .unnumbered}

Fish species would not be impacted by the Proposed Action Alternative as
fish habitat would not be impacted and water quality would not be
degraded. The RML campus is located over a quarter-mile from the
Bitterroot River and daily operations on the site do not impact the
river or areas adjacent to the river. For future construction projects,
erosion control measures would be implemented at the RML campus during
construction, consequently, there would be no impacts on fish species in
the Bitterroot River or their habitat as a result of the Proposed
Action. Wastewater from the RML facility would enter the City of
Hamilton's wastewater treatment facility and contaminated water would
not enter the Bitterroot River or associated tributaries. Therefore, no
change in water quality of the Bitterroot River would result from
implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative or associated
projects.

###### Wildlife {#wildlife-4 .unnumbered}

The Proposed Action Alternative would result in expansion of the RML
campus; however, expansion would occur to the north of the current
campus and this area is within an urban area with existing high levels
of disturbance. The expansion area provides little wildlife habitat, as
vegetation consists of native and non-native grasses and weeds.
Consequently, few species would find adequate breeding or foraging
habitat at the RML campus or the potential expansion area. Birds nesting
on buildings near the future construction areas may be temporarily
displaced. Less mobile species of small mammals and reptiles could
potentially be impacted directly. Any impacts would affect few
individuals and not populations. The Proposed Action Alternative would
not affect wildlife because of the small area of disturbance and no loss
of habitat.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-26 .unnumbered}

###### Fish {#fish-5 .unnumbered}

The effects on fish from the Capacity Growth Alternative would be the
same as the Proposed Action Alternative, because erosion control
measures and wastewater treatment would be the same.

###### Wildlife {#wildlife-5 .unnumbered}

The effects on wildlife from the Capacity Growth Alternative would be
the same as the Proposed Action Alternative.

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-27 .unnumbered}

###### Fish {#fish-6 .unnumbered}

Under the No Action Alternative, current operations and development
within the RML campus would continue with no expansion of the campus
boundaries. Fish species would not be impacted as fish habitat or water
quality would not be influenced.

###### Wildlife {#wildlife-6 .unnumbered}

The No Action Alternative would not entail expansion of the RML campus
and current daily operations would generally continue. Wildlife habitat
would not be impacted by the No Action Alternative and activities would
not result in additional disturbances to wildlife.

#### Cumulative Effects {#cumulative-effects-9 .unnumbered}

The implementation of the action alternatives and future expansion of
RML would not have a cumulative effect on fish or wildlife species or
significant habitat. RML is located within a relatively disturbed and
urban area and is not considered significant wildlife habitat. In
addition, RML development and expansion would not occur within or
immediately adjacent to the Bitterroot River, floodplain, or wetlands.
Therefore, cumulative effects on fish habitat or riparian habitat would
not occur. Cumulative effects under the No Action Alternative would be
similar and would not impact fish or wildlife.

## Threatened and Endangered Species

### Affected Environment

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service threatened and endangered species
list for Ravalli County was consulted to identify species of concern
(USFWS 2006). No threatened or endangered plant species appeared on the
list. The following threatened or endangered fish or animal species were
listed:

-   Bull Trout - Threatened

-   Lynx - Threatened

-   Yellow-billed Cuckoo (western population) -- Candidate

-   The Gray Wolf was listed as endangered until February 27, 2008 at
    which time the Final Rule was published for removing the Northern
    Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment from the federal list of
    threatened and endangered wildlife. However, the federal
    government's decision to remove the gray wolf population from the
    list has been challenged in a federal court lawsuit by twelve
    conservation groups.

-   The bald eagle does occur within the region of the Bitterroot River;
    however, the bald eagle has officially been removed from the Federal
    threatened and endangered species list (Final Rule: July 9, 2007).

###### Bull Trout (Threatened) {#bull-trout-threatened .unnumbered}

The major population of bull trout in the Bitterroot drainage today are
residential fish that tend to live in higher elevation streams.
Migratory forms that live in the Bitterroot River are rare. The main
stem of the Bitterroot River contains critical over-wintering areas and
migratory corridors. Historically, bull trout likely used the Bitterroot
River and its tributaries. Currently, however, bull trout are rare in
the main stem Bitterroot River from Blodgett Creek to the East Fork
(Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group 1998).

###### Lynx (Threatened) {#lynx-threatened .unnumbered}

Lynx often inhabit forested benches, plateaus, valleys, and gently
rolling ridgetops in rugged mountain ranges (Koeler and Aubry 1994).
Primary lynx habitat in the Rocky Mountains includes lodgepole pine,
subalpine fir, and Englemann spruce. Lynx prefer to forage in areas that
support their primary prey, the snowshoe hare. In the Bitterroot
Mountains, lynx habitat has been identified at elevations of 6,200 feet
and higher. Dry Douglas fir and ponderosa pine forest that occurs at
lower elevations (such as around RML) is not considered lynx habitat.

###### Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Candidate) {#yellow-billed-cuckoo-candidate .unnumbered}

The yellow-billed cuckoo is a rare transient in western Montana. It
prefers areas of low, dense, shrubby vegetation in cottonwood and willow
riparian corridors, open woodlands, brushy pastures, and along brushy
roadsides (DeGraaf *et al.* 1991; Dobkin 1992). It selects
well-concealed nest sites in shrubs or low trees, generally four to six
feet above ground. Yellow-billed cuckoo have occasionally been reported
(twice in 1988, once in 1997) in the Stevensville area (Montana Natural
Heritage Program) but they are not known to occur near the RML campus.

### Direct and Indirect Effects

###### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-27 .unnumbered}

Adoption and implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would not
impact threatened or endangered species. As discussed above, the only
species to potentially occur within the region of RML would be bull
trout. The Bitterroot River is not critical bull trout habitat and bull
trout are very rare in the river. The proposed expansions of the campus
boundaries would not occur in the direction of the Bitterroot River.
Future construction projects would implement erosion control measures
thereby insuring that water quality within the Bitterroot River would
not be impacted. In addition, wastewater from the RML facility would
enter the City of Hamilton's wastewater treatment facility. Discharges
to the treatment facility from RML would not cause exceedances of
permitted discharge limits for the wastewater treatment facility.
Therefore, no change in water quality of the Bitterroot River is
expected from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative or
associated projects. For these reasons, no effect on threatened or
endangered species or their critical habitat would result from the
Proposed Action. Water and air quality would be maintained, and areas
outside of the potential future construction areas would not be
disturbed.

###### Capacity Growth Alternative {#capacity-growth-alternative-27 .unnumbered}

Effects would be the same as described for the Proposed Action
Alternative.

###### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-28 .unnumbered}

The No Action Alternative would not impact threatened or endangered
species. The only species with the potential to occur near RML is the
bull trout and the No Action Alternative would have no effect on bull
trout habitat or water quality within the Bitterroot River.

### Cumulative Effects

Because there are no direct or indirect effects, there would be no
cumulative effects on threatened or endangered species.

## Transportation

### Affected Environment

The majority of travel in Ravalli County and Hamilton is made by private
vehicles. However, since 1976, the Ravalli County Council on Aging (COA)
has been providing a demand-response service to senior citizens five
days a week using an ADA-accessible 14- passenger van. The service is
headquartered in Hamilton. In addition, Valley Taxi and Mountain Taxi
provide taxi service within Hamilton, and Yellow Cab, Inc. provides taxi
service from Missoula. An airport shuttle is also available from the
Missoula International Airport. Ravalli County has approximately 1,450
miles of public roadways. Approximately 550 miles of these roads are
maintained by the County Road Department. Of the 550 miles,
approximately 300 miles are paved and 250 miles are graveled.

The RML campus located in southwest Hamilton currently is accessed
through two gates. The main employee and visitor entrance is located on
4^th^ Street, between Baker Street and Grove Street.
![](media/image14.jpeg){width="2.975in" height="2.23125in"}

The service entrance is located at the south approach of the 5^th^
Street and Baker Street intersection. Baker Street and Grove Street are
both east-west local roadways that intersect US Highway 93 as tee
intersections to the east of the RML campus. Fourth Street is classified
as a north-south local collector (*Hamilton Transportation Plan 2002*)
roadway down to Desta Street. South of Desta, 4^th^ Street is classified
as a residential roadway. There are no entrances onto the campus from
the south or west sides.

US Highway 93 is a 5-lane principal arterial traveling north-south
through Hamilton. Traffic signals are located along Highway 93 at the
intersections of Ravalli Street and Hope Avenue / Golf Course Road in
the vicinity of the RML campus. Both of these traffic signals operate as
two-phase signals. Both intersections consist of a left/through/right
turn lane for east and west approaches, while the north and south
approaches have a left lane, through lane and a through/right turn lane.

The intersections of Baker Street and Grove Street with Highway 93 are
unsignalized tee intersections with stop control located on both Baker
and Grove streets. The west approaches for these intersections consist
of a left/through/right turn lane while the north and south approaches
consist of a left, through, and through/right turn lanes. The east
approaches to both of these intersections are business driveways.

The commercial traffic enters the RML site from 5^th^ Street via Desta
Street. While there is no signage in place for this route, the location
of the service entrance and the roadway width along Desta provide for an
easier passage.

There were no traffic counts collected for the roadway network in the
vicinity of the RML campus. Observations taken throughout the area
during a typical morning peak hour (7:30 to 9:30 a.m.) did not reveal
any traffic operation problems with the current trips generated by the
site. The main entrance never produced queues in excess of three
vehicles throughout this time period. Observations along Highway 93
during this time interval showed that vehicles traveling to the campus
from the south utilized Grove Street instead of Hope Avenue and the
traffic signal for the left turn movement. Additionally, trips from the
north traveled via 4^th^ Street or Highway 93 turning onto Baker Street.
Observations were taken Thursday, August 29, 2007 with fair weather
conditions. There was a high level of pedestrian and bicycle traffic
observed.

### Direct and Indirect Effects

#### Proposed Action Alternative {#proposed-action-alternative-28 .unnumbered}

The RML campus is proposing the continued use of the existing two
entrances. The Proposed Action Alternative calls for a secondary
emergency vehicle exit where 6^th^ Street terminates at the northern
boundary of the site and one at the south end of 4^th^ Street to
facilitate evacuating vehicles if necessary. None of these entrances are
anticipated to require traffic signals to control traffic flow to and
from the campus. The continued use of the existing entrances would not
impact internal or external traffic flow as there would be no deviation
from the current flow. The development of the additional emergency
vehicle exit would increase the accessibility and safety of the RML
campus and adjacent properties in the event of an emergency.

The Proposed Action Alternative proposes a new two-way campus loop road
around the north, west, and south portions of the campus, where it meets
the existing parking area at the Quad. A one-way northbound exit lane
connects this parking area to the staff and visitor entrance and the
loop road. There are also several two way service lanes to permit access
from the loop road to existing building service entries. The loop road
would positively impact the flow of traffic through the campus by
allowing traffic to continuously flow through the campus.

**Trip Generation:** Trip generation calculations for the future
development used descriptions of land use, employees, and equations for
the *Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7^th^
Edition* informational report. Calculations of average weekday trips, as
well as peak hour trips from the morning and evening were performed for
this study. In addition, the distribution between exiting and entering
traffic during those peak hours was also garnered from the ITE report.
In general, the calculations and analysis made are conservative in
nature. The calculations assume that all new employees to the campus
would be traveling by motorized vehicle, which does not correlate to the
observations made in August 2007.

**Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment:** The trips are distributed
onto the existing roadway system from the campus, based on an evaluation
of existing traffic patterns and the anticipated attractors. The trips
were assigned to the area roadway system for both morning and afternoon
peak hours in accordance with the *ITE Trip Generation, 7^th^ Edition*
workbook.

The development of the RML campus would produce increased traffic
volumes on the area's roadways. Table 3-24 shows the increased weekday
trips generated by the campus.

The first ten years (beginning in 2005) would show the greatest increase
in demand on the neighboring streets in 20 years, there would be a total
increase of 252 weekday trips. For Hamilton, this increase in weekday
trips is still relatively small in comparison with the increase in
background traffic as stated in the *Hamilton Transportation Plan 2002*
for the collector routes in Hamilton.

In looking at the area roadway network, Grove and Desta Streets would
serve as the best east-west routes. Desta Street would be the best route
for a service truck route. The roadway section has sufficient width to
accommodate the traffic along with providing a through movement into the
service entrance of the campus from 5^th^ Street.

#### Capacity Growth Alternative  {#capacity-growth-alternative-28 .unnumbered}

The increase in weekday trips is still relatively small in comparison
with the increase in background traffic as stated in the *Hamilton
Transportation Plan 2002* for the collector routes in Hamilton. Table
3-24 shows the increased weekday trips generated by the campus. The
additional 160 employees added nearer the end of the 20-year
implementation would result in the additional 616 weekday trips over the
2005 level.

  --------------------------------- --------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ---------- ------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc210030864                                                             
  .anchor}Table 3‑24\                                                                         
  Daily Trips Generated by RML                                                                
  under Proposed Action Alternative                                                           
  and Capacity Growth Alternative                                                             

                                    No Action              Proposed                Capacity   
                                                           Action                  Growth     

   Year                             Weekday   Additional   Weekday    Additional   Weekday    Additional
                                    Trips     Trips        Trips      Trips        Trips      Trips

  20 Years                          1041      111          1182       252          1546       616
  --------------------------------- --------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ---------- ------------

#### No Action Alternative {#no-action-alternative-29 .unnumbered}

Previously planned development would result in 178 additional trips. No
additional growth would occur.

Under the No Action Alternative, the RML campus would be accessed by the
existing entrances with no changes being made except the emergency gate
at the south end of 4^th^ Street. The routing of the traffic on the area
roadway network would remain the same. The service truck route
(established by the City) would be used.

Under current conditions on-site parking is insufficient for the 350
employees (2008). The No Action Alternative anticipates that eventually,
there will be enough parking on campus to accommodate all employees and
visitors.

### Cumulative Effects

In evaluating the location of the campus and the surrounding
neighborhoods, availability and zoning; future developments would not
have a negative cumulative effect on the area roadway network. The
campus is surrounded by the Bitterroot River and floodplain to the west
and mature residential development to the south, north, and east. There
would be some increase in localized traffic volumes on the roadways, as
stated in the *Hamilton Transportation Plan 2002*, but the effects on
campus traffic would be negligible. Background traffic would continue to
grow on Highway 93, again as described in the *Hamilton Transportation
Plan 2002*. Development along Highway 93 would be limited to
redevelopment as there is not a plan to rezone the corridor as this
time. This growth in background traffic would stay limited to Highway 93
and would not have adverse impacts on the roadways surrounding the
campus.

This increase in background traffic could cause some of the
intersections on Highway 93 to operate at decreased levels of service.
Consequently, Highway 93 intersections may need improvements in the
future to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service from this
increase in background traffic. The calculated traffic increases due to
the increase of employees at the RML campus would not be a significant
contributor to these decreased levels of service.

# Literature Cited

Big Sky Acoustics, LLC (BSA). 2003. Final Rocky Mountain Laboratories
Campus Noise Level Criteria. April 4, 2003.

Big Sky Acoustics, LLC (BSA). 2006. Memorandum to Frank di Stefano,
Architect at Architects Design Group regarding the RML Global CCAS 2006:
Ambient Nose Level Measurements -- 9/7/06. September 13, 2006.

Big Sky Acoustics, LLC (BSA). 2007a. Memorandum to Smith Carter and
Higgins Development regarding the RML Global CCAS 2007: Ambient Nose
Level Measurements -- 11/13/07. November 21, 2007.

Big Sky Acoustics, LLC (BSA). 2007b. Rocky Mountain Laboratories Campus
Acoustical Study and Mitigation -- Part II, Final Report. February 19,
2007.

City of Hamilton Department of Public Works (CHDPW). 2002. City of
Hamilton Department of Public Works 2001-2002 Annual Report, Water Sewer
Streets. July 16, 2002

Clark, Richardson & Biskup (CRB) Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2007.
Medical waste disposal alternatives at Rocky Mountain Laboratories.
September.

Dieselnet. 2007. Stationary diesel engines. Online. Accessed:
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/stationary.php. September 2007.

Doucet and Mainka, P.C. 1999. Air dispersion modeling for incineration
system upgrading and scrubber replacement at Rocky Mountain
Laboratories, Hamilton, Montana.

EPA, 2003. When are stormwater discharges regulated as class V wells?
(Fact Sheet). Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/uic/class5/pdf/fs_uic-class5_classvstudy_fs_storm.pdf.
May, 2008.Foresman, K. 2001. The wild mammals of Montana. Special
Publication No. 12. American Society of Mammalogists. 278 pp.

Harmon, D. 2007. Personal Communication. HDR, Inc., Consultant for City
of Hamilton Public Works. September 11, 2007.

Holton, G. 1990. A field guide to Montana fishes. Montana Department of
Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1420 E. Sixth Ave. Helena, Montana.

International Dark-Sky Association (IDA). 2007. Simple Guidelines for
Lighting Regulations for Small Communities, Urban Neighborhoods, and
Subdivisions. Accessed at:
http://www.nextrionet.com/mc/page.do?sitePageId=58881. December 20,
2007.

Lowry, L. 2003. Personal Communication. Director of Public Works. City
of Hamilton, Montana. February 11, March 10 and 17, 2003.

Maxell, B., J. Werner, P. Hendricks and D. Flath. 2003. Herpetology in
Montana. Northwest Fauna No. 5. Society for Northwestern Vertebrate
Biology.

Merkel, Julie. 2006. Air Quality Specialist Montana DEQ -- ARMB.
Personal communication with Thad Jones. June 29.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality (Montana DEQ). 2007.
Stormwater construction general information. Available at:
[http://www.deq.state.mt.us/wqinfo/WPBForms/SWCinfo.pdf. January
2008](http://www.deq.state.mt.us/wqinfo/WPBForms/SWCinfo.pdf. January 2008).

Montana Department of Environmental Quality (Montana DEQ). 2003. Air
quality permit 2991-04. Issued to U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, National Institutes of Health, Rocky Mountain Laboratories.
Hamilton, MT.

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). 2007. Montana
fisheries information system. Online data base query,
<http://nris.state.mt.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=MFISH&Cmd=INST>.

Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP). 2007a. Animal species of
concern. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, Montana.
<http://nhp.nris.state.mt.us/animal/index.html>.

Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP). 2007b. Montana Natural
Heritage Program. Montana bird distribution database online:
<http://nhp.nris.state.mt.us/mbd/>.

National Institutes of Health (NIH), 2004. Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) on the Rocky Mountain Laboratories Integrated Research
Facility in Hamilton, Montana, April.

National Institutes of Health (NIH), 2007a. Draft Master Plan 2007,
Rocky Mountain Laboratories Campus -- Hamilton, Montana, August.

National Institutes of Health (NIH), 2007b. Medical Waste Disposal
Alternatives at Rocky Mountain Laboratories -- Hamilton, Montana,
September.

National Institutes of Health (NIH). 2003. Building Design Policy and
Guidelines. Office of Research Facilities. Amended May 2005. 713pp.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1986. Urban hydrology for
small watersheds. Technical Release 55

NRCS. 1989. Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Technical Release 55.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 164 Pg.Ravalli County (RC). 2004.
Ravalli County Growth Policy. As amended by the Board of County
Commissioners August, 2004. 61pp.

Starr, B. 2007. Personal Communication. Montana Department of
Environmental Quality, Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(MPDES), TMDL Program contact for Bitterroot Basin, September 10, 2007.

Twardoski, B. 2007. Personal Communication. Environmental Engineer Rocky
Mountain Laboratories, NIAID, NIH, September 12, 2007.

Hudson, Kelly 2008. Personal Communication. Rocky Mountain Laboratories,
NIAID, NIH, August 29, 2008.

U.S. Census Bureau (Census). 2000. Table DP-1. Profile of general
demographic characteristics: 2000- Hamilton city, Montana. Available at:
[http://censtats.census.gov/data/MT/1603033775.pdf. January
2008](http://censtats.census.gov/data/MT/1603033775.pdf. January 2008)

U.S. Census Bureau 2007e. Historical Income Tables - People . Table P-1.
CPS Population and Per Capita. Money Income, All Races: 1967 to 2005.
Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements

U.S. Department of Commerce 2007. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional
Economic Accounts. Table CA-04 -- Personal income and employment
summary. US, Montana, and Ravalli County.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2007. Draft Master
Plan 2007, Rocky Mountain Laboratories Campus -- Hamilton, Montana.
August 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. Office of air
quality planning and standards. AIRSData Online. Accessed:
http://www.epa.gov/air/data/repsco.html?co\~30081\~Ravalli%20Co%2C%20Montana.
September 2007.

U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). 2007. LEED Project Certification.
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=64.

Urban Design Tools (UDT) website. 2007. Low impact development.
Available at: [http://www.lid-stormwater.net/biotrans_home.htm. January
2008](http://www.lid-stormwater.net/biotrans_home.htm. January 2008).

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. County list of threatened and
endangered species within the Mountain-Prairie Region. Updated in
December 2006:
<http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/CountyLists/MONTANA.htm>

Whole Building Design Group (WBDG). 2007. Low impact development
techniques. Anne Guillette contributing author. Available at:
http://www.wbdg.org/resources/lidtech.php. January 2008.

EO 13432 Executive Order (EO) 13432, "Strengthening Federal
Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management", President George
W. Bush, Provisions of Executive Order, National Archives and Records
Administration, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC, January
24, 2007.

OMB 2007 Office of Management and Budget. "Instructions for Implementing
Executive Order 13432". March 29, 2007 Available at:
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/green/eo13423_instructions.pdf>,
accessed on June 19. 2008.

# List of Preparers

+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| Name              | Duties              | Experience                 |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **Cameo Flood**   | Social and Economic | BS/Forest Resource         |
|                   | Resources, NEPA     | Management                 |
| Project Manager   |                     |                            |
|                   |                     | 23 years experience        |
| Tetra Tech        |                     |                            |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **Stacy Pease**   | Fish and Wildlife,  | MS/Watershed Management,   |
|                   | Threatened and      | BS/Wildlife and Fisheries  |
| Staff Biologist   | Endangered Species, | Science                    |
|                   | Wetlands,           |                            |
| Tetra Tech        | Sustainable         | 8 years experience         |
|                   | Building            |                            |
|                   | Development         |                            |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **Thad Jones**    | Riparian, Waste,    | MS/Forestry, BS/Forestry   |
|                   | Lighting            |                            |
| Biologist         |                     | 6 years experience         |
|                   |                     |                            |
| Tetra Tech        |                     |                            |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **Bill Craig**    | Water, Wastewater,  | MS/Hydrogeology,           |
|                   | Waste               | BS/Geology                 |
| Project Scientist |                     |                            |
|                   |                     | 17 years experience        |
| Tetra Tech        |                     |                            |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **Lynn Peterson** | Historical          | MS/Anthropology,           |
|                   | Resources           | BA/Anthropology,           |
| Anthropologist    |                     |                            |
|                   |                     | 17 years experience        |
| Tetra Tech        |                     |                            |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **C. Ray          | Air Quality         | BS/Petroleum Engineering   |
| Windmueller**     |                     |                            |
|                   |                     | 18 years experience        |
| Project Engineer  |                     |                            |
|                   |                     |                            |
| Tetra Tech        |                     |                            |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **Elizabeth       | Stormwater          | MS/Environmental           |
| Fagen**           |                     | Engineering, BS/Civil      |
|                   |                     | Engineering.               |
| Environmental     |                     |                            |
| Engineer Intern   |                     | 4 years experience         |
|                   |                     |                            |
| Tetra Tech        |                     |                            |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **Patricia        | Preparation of      | BS/Geography               |
| Williams**        | Figures, and Maps   |                            |
|                   |                     | 6 years experience         |
| CADD/GIS Operator |                     |                            |
|                   |                     |                            |
| Tetra Tech        |                     |                            |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **Mitch Paulson** | Visual Quality,     | AD/Commercial Art          |
|                   | Graphics            |                            |
| Graphic Artist    |                     | 31 years experience        |
|                   |                     |                            |
| Tetra Tech        |                     |                            |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **Sean Connelly** | Noise               | MS/Mechanical Engineering, |
|                   |                     | BS/Mechanical Engineering  |
| Professional      |                     |                            |
| Engineer          |                     | 15 years experience        |
|                   |                     |                            |
| Big Sky Acoustics |                     |                            |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **Tom Tabler**    | Transportation      | BS/Civil Engineering       |
|                   |                     |                            |
| Senior Engineer   |                     | 13 year experience         |
|                   |                     |                            |
| Morrison Maierle  |                     |                            |
+-------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+

# List To Whom the DEIS Was Sent

+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 1 | Tara Gallagher and Chris    | 620 S. 3^rd^ Street Hamilton, MT   |
| \ | Clancy                      | 59840                              |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 2 | John F. Wardell             | United States EPA Region 8 Montana |
| \ |                             | Office Federal Building, 10 West   |
| . |                             | 15^th^ Street, Suite 3200 Helena,  |
|   |                             | Montana 59626                      |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 3 | Vicky Bohlig                | 310 Geneva Avenue                  |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 4 | Lorraine Crotty             | 1000 S. 2^nd^ Street Hamilton, MT  |
| \ |                             | 59840                              |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 5 | Ty and Cynthia Capelle      | 714 S. 2^nd^ Street Hamilton, MT   |
| \ |                             | 59840                              |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 6 | Steve Potts                 | United States EPA Region 8 Montana |
| \ |                             | Office Federal Building, 10 West   |
| . |                             | 15^th^ Street, Suite 3200 Helena,  |
|   |                             | Montana 59626                      |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 7 | Troy and Tom Payton         | 409 S. 1^st^ Street 59840          |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 8 | George and Rafael Tilton    | 6 Woodside Cutoff Road, Victor, MT |
| \ |                             | 59875                              |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 9 | Kathie and Chuck Roubik     | 1003 S 3^rd^ Street 59840          |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 1 | Richard L. Wilson           | 651 Hidden Arbor Way, Corvallis,   |
| 0 |                             | MT 59828                           |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 1 | Tonia Bloom                 | 663 Alvista Loop 59840             |
| 1 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 1 | Kristine Komar              | PO Box 2185 59840                  |
| 2 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 1 | Jim Miller                  | PO Box 442 59840                   |
| 3 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 1 | Gene Rebich                 | 121 Dutch Hill Drive 59840         |
| 4 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 1 | Kathleen Reynolds           | 719 N 8^th^ Street 59840           |
| 5 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 1 | Ted Kerstetter              | 921 Ponderosa 59840                |
| 6 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 1 | Dan and Jan Driscoll        | 712 S 6^th^ Street 59840           |
| 7 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 1 | E.M. Prosser                | 1002 S 2^nd^ Street 59840          |
| 8 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 1 | Kathleen Driscoll           | 116 N 9^th^ Street 59840           |
| 9 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 2 | Chris Utzinger              | 1575 Conner Lane Corvallis, MT     |
| 0 |                             | 59828                              |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 2 | Alexandra Gorman            | 217 E Florence Street Missoula, MT |
| 1 |                             | 59808                              |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 2 | Mark Phares                 | 326 Blaine Missoula, MT 59808      |
| 2 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 2 | Mary Wulff                  | PO Box 1645 59840                  |
| 3 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 2 | Dianne Huhtanen             | 2441 Old Darby Road 59840          |
| 4 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 2 | Rick Fuhrman                | 265 Hilltop Drive 59840            |
| 5 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 2 | Gary Christianson           | 553 Old Corvallis Road 59840       |
| 6 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 2 | Barri Twardoski             | 19161 LeoHasen Florence, MT 59833  |
| 7 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 2 | Ralph Maki                  | 505 Adirondac Avenue 59840         |
| 8 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 2 | Mildred Soll                | 801 Canyon View Loop 59840         |
| 9 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 3 | Dave Schultz                | 218 Rose Lane 59840                |
| 0 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 3 | Mary Lyn                    | 814 S 3^rd^ Street 59840           |
| 1 |                             |                                    |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 3 | Nansu Haynes                | 306 State Street. Hamilton, MT     |
| 2 |                             | 59840                              |
| \ | Bittrroot Public Library    |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| # |                             |                                    |
|   |                             |                                    |
| L |                             |                                    |
| i |                             |                                    |
| s |                             |                                    |
| t |                             |                                    |
|   |                             |                                    |
| T |                             |                                    |
| o |                             |                                    |
|   |                             |                                    |
| W |                             |                                    |
| h |                             |                                    |
| o |                             |                                    |
| m |                             |                                    |
|   |                             |                                    |
| t |                             |                                    |
| h |                             |                                    |
| e |                             |                                    |
|   |                             |                                    |
| D |                             |                                    |
| E |                             |                                    |
| I |                             |                                    |
| S |                             |                                    |
|   |                             |                                    |
| W |                             |                                    |
| a |                             |                                    |
| s |                             |                                    |
|   |                             |                                    |
| S |                             |                                    |
| e |                             |                                    |
| n |                             |                                    |
| t |                             |                                    |
|   |                             |                                    |
| ( |                             |                                    |
| c |                             |                                    |
| o |                             |                                    |
| n |                             |                                    |
| t |                             |                                    |
| i |                             |                                    |
| n |                             |                                    |
| u |                             |                                    |
| a |                             |                                    |
| t |                             |                                    |
| i |                             |                                    |
| o |                             |                                    |
| n |                             |                                    |
| ) |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 3 | City of Hamilton Sewer      | 1001 New York Street. Hamilton, MT |
| 3 | Department                  | 59840                              |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 3 | City of Hamilton Water      | 1001 New York Street. Hamilton, MT |
| 4 | Department                  | 59840                              |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 3 | Darby Public Library        | 101 ½ S Marshall Street. Darby MT  |
| 5 |                             | 59829                              |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 3 | Montana Department of       | Lee Metcalf Bld. 1520 E. Sixth Av. |
| 6 | Environmental Quality       |                                    |
| \ |                             | Helena, MT 59620                   |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 3 | Montana Department of       | 2701 Prospect Avenue\              |
| 7 | Transportation              | Helena, MT 59620                   |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 3 | Montana State Historic      | 225 North Roberts, Helena, MT      |
| 8 | Preservation                | 59620                              |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 3 | North Valley Public Library | 208 Main St\                       |
| 9 |                             | Stevensville, MT 59870             |
| \ |                             |                                    |
| . |                             |                                    |
+---+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+

# 

#####  Medical Waste Disposal Alternatives

[^1]:

[^2]: Number of air quality permits per operation.