Draft

Environmental 

Assessment 

Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135 Aircraft to

Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, or

MacDill Air Force Base, Florida

 

 

July

2018
Draft FONSI-1

Addition of 12 KC-135 Aircraft to Fairchild AFB, WA

DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)

Environmental Assessment Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135 Aircraft to

Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, or MacDill Air Force Base, Florida

Proposed Action – Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Air Force (USAF) prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to 

analyze the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts from adding 12 KC-135

Stratotanker (KC-135) aircraft to the existing fleet of KC-135s at Fairchild Air Force Base (AFB), 

Washington, or as an alternative, MacDill AFB, Florida. The addition of these aircraft to the 

selected installation would constitute activation of a new air refueling squadron and would 

include an increase of KC-135 aircraft; associated personnel and dependents; operations and 

maintenance activities; and facility construction, demolition, and renovation. The attached EA 

was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] §§ 1500–1508); and the USAF regulations for implementing NEPA, 

Environmental Impact Analysis Process (32 CFR § 989, as amended).

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION: The purpose of the Proposed 

Action is to continue to provide Air Mobility Command (AMC) continental U.S. active duty 

locations with fully capable air refueling assets to accomplish air refueling and related missions. 

The Proposed Action is needed because USAF must comply with the force adjustments 

enacted through the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 National Defense Authorization Act to redistribute 12 

KC-135s within the continental United States in FY 2020. USAF needs a viable location to 

conduct the operations and maintenance activities associated with these 12 KC-135s. Adding 

12 KC-135s to a location would require the activation of a new air refueling squadron with 

associated personnel, dependents, and facilities.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES:

Proposed Action. USAF would add 12 KC-135s to the existing fleet of 36 KC-135s at Fairchild 

AFB in FY 2020. All 12 additional aircraft would be primary aerospace vehicles authorized for 

performance of the new squadron’s mission under the 92d Air Refueling Wing. The additional 

KC-135s would be accompanied by approximately 370 personnel and 600 dependents, which 

would increase the population of Fairchild AFB by approximately 13 percent. 

A 33.3 percent increase in KC-135 annual operations and a 16.3 percent increase in total 

aircraft operations at Fairchild AFB would occur. The proposed operations would occur within 

existing airspace and training areas currently utilized by KC-135s that operate from Fairchild 

AFB. No change in airspace would occur. There would be a corresponding increase in aircraft 

maintenance activities, and aircraft maintenance practices would not change from those 

currently practiced on the existing fleet of KC-135s at Fairchild AFB.
Draft FONSI-2

Addition of 12 KC-135 Aircraft to Fairchild AFB, WA

Facility construction, demolition, and renovation would occur to support the additional KC-135s. 

Building construction would occur in the form of new buildings and additions onto existing 

buildings and would add approximately 100,000 square feet (ft2

) of new interior space. Building 

demolition would occur to remove outdated buildings and would remove approximately 

22,000 ft2 of existing interior space. Parking lot construction and demolition would accompany 

certain building construction projects and would result in a net reduction of approximately 

23,000 ft2 of paved parking area. Building renovations would be limited to interior updates, and 

all renovations would occur within existing facility footprints. Building renovation would modify 

approximately 128,000 ft2 of existing interior space. Renovations in the form of upgrades to the 

fuel hydrant system and pavement replacement on the aircraft parking ramp and surrounding 

Building 1017 would disturb approximately 410,000 ft2 of existing paved surface. The Proposed 

Action would disturb a maximum of 718,000 ft2

; however, this area could be smaller because 

some construction and demolition projects overlap with one another. The Proposed Action 

would increase the total amount of impervious surfaces on Fairchild AFB by approximately 

35,000 ft2

.

Alternatives Evaluation. USAF evaluated other installations under the command of AMC

against selection standards to identify potential alternatives to Fairchild AFB as described in 

Section 2.2 of the EA. The evaluation identified only MacDill AFB as a reasonable alternative to 

Fairchild AFB; therefore, only Fairchild AFB and MacDill AFB were analyzed in detail in the EA. 

MacDill AFB Alternative. USAF would add 12 KC-135s to the existing fleet of 24 KC-135s at 

MacDill AFB in FY 2020. All 12 additional aircraft would be primary aerospace vehicles 

authorized for performance of the new squadron’s mission under the 6th Air Mobility Wing. The 

additional KC-135s would be accompanied by approximately 400 personnel and 640 

dependents, which would increase the population of MacDill AFB by approximately 3 percent. 

A 50.0 percent increase in KC-135 annual operations and a 29.0 percent increase in total 

aircraft operations at MacDill AFB would occur. The proposed operations would occur within 

existing airspace and training areas currently utilized by KC-135s that operate from MacDill

AFB. No change in airspace would occur. There would be a corresponding increase in aircraft 

maintenance activities, and aircraft maintenance practices would not change from those 

currently practiced on the existing fleet of KC-135s at MacDill AFB.

Facility construction, demolition, and renovation would occur to support the additional KC-135s. 

Building construction would occur in the form of new buildings and additions onto existing 

buildings and would add approximately 121,500 ft2 of new interior space. Building demolition 

would occur to make space for new construction and would remove approximately 4,000 ft2 of 

existing building footprint. Parking lot construction and demolition would accompany certain 

building construction projects and would result in a net reduction of approximately 22,500 ft2 of 

paved parking area. Building renovations would be limited to interior updates, and all 

renovations would occur within existing facility footprints. Building renovation would modify 
Draft FONSI-3

Addition of 12 KC-135 Aircraft to Fairchild AFB, WA

approximately 158,000 ft2 of existing interior space. Renovations in the form of pavement repair 

and upgrades to the fuel hydrant system would occur on the North Ramp and could disturb as 

much as 1,350,000 ft2 of existing paved surface. The MacDill AFB Alternative would disturb a 

maximum of 1,700,000 ft2

; however, this area could be smaller because some construction and 

demolition projects overlap with one another and the proposed renovations to Hangar 2 and the 

North Ramp would likely occur on a small fraction of the total area of these facilities. The 

MacDill AFB Alternative would increase the total amount of impervious surfaces on MacDill AFB 

by approximately 105,000 ft2

. 

No Action Alternative. CEQ regulations recommend consideration of the No Action 

Alternative. The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline against which the impacts of the 

Proposed Action and other potential action alternatives can be evaluated. Under the No Action 

Alternative, USAF would not add 12 KC-135s and activate a new air refueling squadron at 

Fairchild AFB or MacDill AFB. No additional aircraft, personnel and dependents, or operations 

and maintenance activities would be added to either installation. No facility construction, 

demolition, or renovation would occur.

Identification of the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is the alternative that 

USAF believes best satisfies the purpose and need and would fulfill its statutory mission and 

responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical, and other factors. 

USAF has identified the Proposed Action as the Preferred Alternative.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: The analysis of environmental 

impacts focused on the following environmental resources: air quality, biological resources, 

cultural resources, geological resources, hazardous materials and wastes, infrastructure and 

transportation, noise, land use, safety, socioeconomics, environmental justice and sensitive 

receptors, and water resources. A cumulative impacts assessment was also conducted. 

Details of the environmental consequences are provided in the EA and are incorporated by 

reference. The analysis in the EA for each of the environmental resource areas identified 

negligible to moderate adverse impacts under the Proposed Action; therefore, environmental 

impacts would not be significant.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT: Based on the description of the Proposed Action as set 

forth in the EA, all activities were found to comply with the criteria or standards of environmental 

quality and were coordinated with the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies. The 

attached EA and this FONSI will be made available to the public for a 30-day comment period. 

Comments will be incorporated into the analysis of potential environmental impacts performed 

as part of the EA as appropriate.
Draft FONSI-4

Addition of 12 KC-135 Aircraft to Fairchild AFB, WA

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT: Based on the information and analysis presented in 

the EA, which was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the NEPA and CEQ and 

USAF NEPA regulations, and review of the public and agency comments submitted during the 

30-day public comment period, I conclude that the environmental effects of implementing the 

Proposed Action at Fairchild AFB, Washington, are not significant, preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement is unnecessary, and a FONSI is appropriate. 

APPROVED: 

<Unsigned for Draft EA> <Undated for Draft EA>

NAME, Colonel, USAF

Commander, 92d Air Refueling Wing

DATE

Attachment: Environmental Assessment Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135 Aircraft to 

Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, or MacDill Air Force Base, Florida
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

°F degrees Fahrenheit

ACAM Air Conformity Applicability 

Model

ACMs asbestos-containing materials

AFB Air Force Base

AFI Air Force Instruction

AGL above ground level

AICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use 

Zone

AMC Air Mobility Command

AMW Air Mobility Wing

AOZ Airport Overlay Zone

APE Area of Potential Effect

APZ Accident Potential Zone

ARW Air Refueling Wing

AST aboveground storage tank

BASH Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike 

Hazard

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act

bgs below ground surface

BMP best management practice

C&D construction and demolition

CEQ Council on Environmental 

Quality

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO carbon monoxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

CVI commercial vehicle inspection

CWA Clean Water Act

CZ Clear Zone

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

dB decibels

dBA A-weighted decibels

DNL Day-night Sound Level

DoD Department of Defense

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EISA Energy Independence and 

Security Act

EO Executive Order

ERP Environmental Restoration 

Program

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control 

Plan

ESQD explosive safety quantitydistance

FAC Florida Administrative Code

FCMP Florida Coastal Management 

Program

FDEP Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection

FEMA Federal Emergency 

Management Agency

FGUA Florida Government Utility 

Authority

FONPA Finding of No Practicable 

Alternative

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

ft2 square foot/feet

FY fiscal year

GHG greenhouse gas

gpd gallons per day

HABS Historic American Buildings 

Survey

I Interstate

IDP Installation Development Plan

ISWMP Integrated Solid Waste 

Management Plan

JLUS Joint Land Use Study

KC-135 KC-135 Stratotanker

KC-46A KC-46A Pegasus

kV kilovolt

continued on inside of back cover 
¬ continued from inside of front cover

LBP lead-based paint

Leq Equivalent Sound Level

LUC land use control

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

mgd million gallons per day

MMRP Military Munitions Response 

Program

MS4 municipal separate storm sewer 

system

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area

MSGP Multi-Sector General Permit

MSL mean sea level

MW megawatt

MWh megawatt hour

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy 

Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation 

Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries 

Service

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOAA National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

NOx nitrogen oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation

NRHP National Register of Historic 

Places

O3 ozone

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration

PAA primary aerospace vehicles 

authorized

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

pCi/L picocuries per liter

percent g percentage of the force of 

gravity

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid 

PFOS perfluorooctane sulfonate

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 

microns in diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 

microns in diameter

POL petroleum, oil, and lubricant

POV privately owned vehicle

PPE personal protective equipment

ppm parts per million

RCRA Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act

ROI region of influence

SHPO State Historic Preservation 

Officer

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SRCAA Spokane Regional Clean Air 

Agency

STEP Spokane Tribe Economic 

Project

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention 

Plan

TECO Tampa Electric Company

tpy tons per year

UFC Unified Facilities Criteria

USAF U.S. Air Force

USAR U.S. Army Reserve

USC United States Code

USEIA U.S. Energy Information 

Administration

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UXO unexploded ordnance

VOC volatile organic compounds

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WWTP wastewater treatment plant

Cover Sheet

Draft 

Environmental Assessment

Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135 Aircraft to

Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington, or

MacDill Air Force Base, Florida

Responsible Agencies: U.S. Air Force (USAF); Air Mobility Command; Air Force Civil 

Engineering Center; 92d Air Refueling Wing; 6th Air Mobility Wing. 

Affected Location: Fairchild Air Force Base (AFB), Washington, and MacDill AFB, Florida.

Report Designation: Draft Environmental Assessment (EA).

Abstract: USAF and Air Mobility Command propose to add 12 KC-135 Stratotanker (KC-135) 

aircraft to the existing fleet of KC-135s at Fairchild AFB or, as an alternative, MacDill AFB. The 

addition of these aircraft to the selected installation would constitute activation of a new air 

refueling squadron and would include an increase of KC-135 aircraft; associated personnel and 

dependents; operations and maintenance activities; and facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation. This EA analyzes the potential for environmental impacts associated with the 

Proposed Action and alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, and aids in determining 

whether a Finding of No Significant Impact can be prepared or an Environmental Impact 

Statement is required.

Comments and inquiries regarding this document should be directed by mail to Ms. Jean 

Reynolds, AFCEC/CZN, 2261 Hughes Avenue, Suite 155, Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, 

Texas 78236-9853. 

Privacy Notice

Comments on this document are requested. Letters or other written comments provided may 

be published in the EA. Any personal information provided will be used only to identify a desire 

to make a statement during the public comment period or to fulfill requests for copies of the EA 

or associated documents. Private addresses will be compiled to develop a mailing list for those 

requesting copies of the EA. However, only the names of the individuals making comments and 

specific comments will be disclosed; personal home addresses and telephone numbers will not 

be published in the EA.

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ADDRESSING THE

ADDITION OF 12 KC-135 AIRCRAFT TO

FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON, OR

MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA

AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER CENTER

2261 HUGHES AVENUE, SUITE 155

JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-LACKLAND, TEXAS 78236

JULY 2018 

EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

July 2018 | i 

Table of Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms ..................................................Inside Front and Back Covers 

Cover Sheet

1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action............................................................ 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 AMC AND KC-135 PROGRAM BACKGROUND................................................................ 1-1

1.3 PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND....................................................................... 1-1

1.4 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION................................................... 1-2

1.5 NEPA COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS........................................................................... 1-3

1.6 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL COORDINATION AND 

CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.................................................................. 1-3

1.6.1 Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination and Consultation................... 1-3

1.6.2 Government to Government Coordination and Consultation.............................. 1-4

1.6.3 Public Involvement ............................................................................................ 1-4

2. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives................................................. 2-1

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................... 2-5

2.2.1 Selection Criteria for Installation Alternatives..................................................... 2-5

2.2.2 Evaluation and Selection of Installation Alternatives.......................................... 2-7

2.2.3 Selection Criteria for Construction, Demolition, and Renovation 

Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 2-11

2.2.4 Evaluation and Selection of Construction, Demolition, and Renovation 

Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 2-11

2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................................... 2-12

2.4 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE..................................................... 2-13

3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences......................................... 3-1

3.1 AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................. 3-2

3.1.1 Definition of the Resource ................................................................................. 3-2

3.1.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................................ 3-2

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences........................................................................... 3-6

3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (TERRESTRIAL) .................................................................. 3-12

3.2.1 Definition of the Resource ............................................................................... 3-12

3.2.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-14

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences......................................................................... 3-21

3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 3-26

3.3.1 Definition of the Resource ............................................................................... 3-26

3.3.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-29

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences......................................................................... 3-31

3.4 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 3-33

3.4.1 Definition of the Resource ............................................................................... 3-33
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

July 2018 | ii

3.4.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-34

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences......................................................................... 3-37

3.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES....................................................................... 3-41

3.5.1 Definition of the Resource ............................................................................... 3-41

3.5.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-42

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences......................................................................... 3-45

3.6 INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION .................................................................. 3-50

3.6.1 Definition of the Resource ............................................................................... 3-50

3.6.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-50

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences......................................................................... 3-57

3.7 NOISE...................................................................................................................... 3-64

3.7.1 Definition of the Resource ............................................................................... 3-64

3.7.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-65

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences......................................................................... 3-70

3.8 LAND USE ................................................................................................................ 3-77

3.8.1 Definition of the Resource ............................................................................... 3-77

3.8.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-78

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences......................................................................... 3-84

3.9 SAFETY.................................................................................................................... 3-87

3.9.1 Definition of the Resource ............................................................................... 3-87

3.9.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-89

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences......................................................................... 3-91

3.10 SOCIOECONOMICS.................................................................................................... 3-93

3.10.1 Definition of the Resource ............................................................................... 3-93

3.10.2 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 3-94

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences....................................................................... 3-100

3.11 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ............................................ 3-103

3.11.1 Definition of the Resource ............................................................................. 3-103

3.11.2 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 3-105

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences....................................................................... 3-107

3.12 WATER RESOURCES............................................................................................... 3-109

3.12.1 Definition of the Resource ............................................................................. 3-109

3.12.2 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 3-112

3.12.3 Environmental Consequences....................................................................... 3-116

4. Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 FAIRCHILD AFB CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ........................................................................ 4-1

4.1.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ........................................ 4-1

4.1.2 Cumulative Impacts at Fairchild AFB................................................................. 4-4

4.2 MACDILL AFB CUMULATIVE IMPACTS........................................................................... 4-7

4.2.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ........................................ 4-7

4.2.2 Cumulative Impacts at MacDill AFB................................................................. 4-11

4.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS.............................................................................. 4-14
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

July 2018 | iii

4.4 COMPATIBILITY WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL, REGIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL 

LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS ............................................................ 4-14

4.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND 

MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY............................. 4-15

4.6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES .............................. 4-15

5. List of Preparers ............................................................................................................ 5-1

6. References ..................................................................................................................... 6-1

Appendices

A. Stakeholder Consultation and Public Involvement Materials

B. Air Conformity Applicability Model Reports 

C. Federal Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination

Figures

1-1. Locations of Fairchild AFB and MacDill AFB................................................................ 1-2

2-1. Proposed Construction, Demolition, and Renovation at Fairchild AFB......................... 2-3

2-2. Proposed Construction, Demolition, and Renovation at MacDill AFB .......................... 2-9

3-1. Historic Properties within the APE at Fairchild AFB ................................................... 3-27

3-2. Historic Properties within the APE at MacDill AFB..................................................... 3-28

3-3. Existing Noise Contours for Fairchild AFB................................................................. 3-67

3-4. Existing Noise Contours for MacDill AFB................................................................... 3-69

3-5. Noise Contours for Proposed Action.......................................................................... 3-73

3-6. Noise Contours for MacDill AFB Alternative .............................................................. 3-76

Tables

2-1. KC-135 Operations at Fairchild AFB............................................................................ 2-2

2-2. Proposed Construction, Demolition, and Renovation at Fairchild AFB......................... 2-4

2-3. Evaluation of Installation Alternatives against Selection Criteria .................................. 2-6

2-4. KC-135 Operations at MacDill AFB ............................................................................. 2-8

2-5. Proposed Construction, Demolition, and Renovation at MacDill AFB ........................ 2-10

3-1. Air Quality Standards and Monitored Data Closest to Fairchild AFB............................ 3-4

3-2. 2017 Emissions for Significant Stationary Sources at Fairchild AFB............................ 3-4

3-3. Air Quality Standards and Monitored Data Closest to MacDill AFB.............................. 3-5

3-4. 2016 Emissions for Significant Stationary Sources at MacDill AFB.............................. 3-6

3-5. Annual Emissions Compared to De Minimis Thresholds - Proposed Action................. 3-7

3-6. Annual GHG Emissions - Proposed Action.................................................................. 3-9

3-7. Impacts of Potential Climate Stressors on the Proposed Action .................................. 3-9

3-8. Annual Emissions Compared to De Minimis Thresholds - MacDill AFB Alternative.... 3-10
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

July 2018 | iv

3-9. Annual GHG Emissions - MacDill AFB Alternative..................................................... 3-11

3-10. Impacts of Potential Climate Stressors on the MacDill AFB Alternative ..................... 3-12

3-11. Protected and Sensitive Species Occurring On or Near Fairchild AFB ...................... 3-15

3-12. Protected and Sensitive Species Occurring On or Near MacDill AFB........................ 3-18

3-13. Historic Buildings in the Fairchild AFB APE............................................................... 3-29

3-14. MacDill Field Historic District Buildings...................................................................... 3-31

3-15. Soils Associated with the Proposed Action ................................................................ 3-35

3-16. Soils Associated with the MacDill AFB Alternative..................................................... 3-37

3-17. Common Sounds and Their Levels............................................................................ 3-64

3-18. Recommended Noise Limits for Land Use Planning.................................................. 3-65

3-19. Estimated Background Noise Levels Surrounding Fairchild AFB............................... 3-66

3-20. Area within Noise Contours at Fairchild AFB – Existing Conditions ........................... 3-68

3-21. Estimated Background Noise Levels Surrounding MacDill AFB................................. 3-68

3-22. Area within Noise Contours at MacDill AFB – Existing Conditions ............................. 3-70

3-23. Noise Levels Associated with Outdoor Construction.................................................. 3-71

3-24. Area within Noise Contours at Fairchild AFB – Proposed Action ............................... 3-74

3-25. Area within Noise Contours at MacDill AFB – MacDill AFB Alternative...................... 3-75

3-26. Existing Land Use, Future Land Use, and Planning Districts Associated with the 

Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 3-79

3-27. Existing Land Use, Future Land Use, and Planning Districts Associated with the 

MacDill AFB Alternative............................................................................................. 3-82

3-28. Total Population in the Vicinity of Fairchild AFB......................................................... 3-94

3-29. Employment by Industry in the Vicinity of Fairchild AFB ............................................ 3-95

3-30. Total Population in the Vicinity of MacDill AFB .......................................................... 3-97

3-31. Employment by Industry in the Vicinity of MacDill AFB.............................................. 3-98

3-32. Minority, Low-Income, Child, and Elderly Populations in the Vicinity of MacDill 

AFB 3-105

3-33. Additional Land Area within the ROI Exposed to Increased Noise Levels under 

MacDill AFB Alternative........................................................................................... 3-108

4-1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions at Fairchild AFB and 

Associated Region....................................................................................................... 4-2

4-2. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions at MacDill AFB and 

Associated Region....................................................................................................... 4-8
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

July 2018 | 1-1 

1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

1.1 Introduction

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) and Air Mobility Command (AMC) propose to add 12 KC-135

Stratotanker (KC-135) aircraft to the existing fleet of KC-135s at Fairchild Air Force Base (AFB), 

Washington, or as an alternative, MacDill AFB, Florida. This Environmental Assessment (EA) 

analyzes the potential for environmental and socioeconomic impacts from this Proposed Action 

and alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. This EA has been prepared in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

Regulations for Implementing NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§ 1500–

1508); and the USAF regulations for implementing NEPA (32 CFR § 989, as amended).

1.2 AMC and KC-135 Program Background

AMC is a USAF major command. AMC’s mission is to provide rapid, global mobility and 

sustainment for America’s armed forces. The command also plays a crucial role in providing 

humanitarian support in the United States and around the world. AMC personnel provide airlift 

and aerial refueling for all U.S. armed forces. Air refuelers are the backbone of enabling global 

reach, increasing U.S. and coalition aircrafts’ range mid-air (AMC 2017). 

The KC-135 and KC-10 Extender currently provide the core aerial refueling capability for the 

USAF. The KC-135 has excelled in this role for more than 50 years and is anticipated to 

continue to fulfill this mission need for many years to come even as the USAF’s air refueler fleet 

is progressively recapitalized with KC-46A Pegasus (KC-46A) aircraft. The KC-135 is capable 

of transporting medical patients using support pallets during aeromedical evacuations. 

Depending on fuel storage configuration, the KC-135 can carry up to 83,000 pounds of cargo 

(USAF 2014a).

1.3 Project Location and Background

Fairchild AFB is a 5,823-acre USAF installation under the command of AMC. It is located in 

Spokane County, Washington, approximately 12 miles west of the City of Spokane (see 

Figure 1-1). The 92d Air Refueling Wing (ARW) is the host unit at Fairchild AFB, which 

consists of the 92d Operations Group, the 92d Maintenance Group, the 92d Mission Support 

Group, the 92d Medical Group, and wing staff agencies. Fairchild AFB is also home to the 

141st ARW; the 336th Training Group, which operates the USAF Survival, Evasion, Resistance, 

and Escape School; Armed Forces Reserve Center; and the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency

(Fairchild AFB 2014a). The 92d ARW and 141st ARW currently operate 36 KC-135s. These 36 

aircraft are primary aerospace vehicles authorized (PAA) for performance of the wings’ mission. 

An additional eight backup aerospace vehicle inventory KC-135s are assigned to Fairchild AFB.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

July 2018 | 1-2 

Figure 1-1. Locations of Fairchild AFB and MacDill AFB

MacDill AFB is a 5,696-acre USAF installation under the command of AMC. It is located in 

Hillsborough County, Florida, approximately 8 miles south of downtown Tampa (see 

Figure 1-1). The installation is at the southern tip of Interbay Peninsula. MacDill AFB is home 

to the 6th Air Mobility Wing (AMW), which is comprised of the 6th Operations Group, the 6th

Maintenance Group, the 6th Mission Support Group, the 6th Medical Group, and wing staff 

agencies. In addition to the 6th AMW, MacDill AFB also hosts mission partners, including the 

927th ARW, U.S. Central Command, and U.S. Special Operations Command (MacDill AFB 

2017a). Prior to Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, the 6th AMW and 927th ARW operated 16 KC-135s. 

An additional 8 KC-135s were added to the installation during FY 2018 under a separate action. 

All 24 KC-135s at MacDill AFB are PAA, and no backup aerospace vehicle inventory KC-135s 

are assigned to the installation.

1.4 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of this Proposed Action is to continue to provide AMC continental U.S. active duty 

locations with fully capable air refueling assets to accomplish air refueling and related missions. 

The Proposed Action is needed because USAF must comply with the force adjustments 

enacted through the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act to redistribute 12 KC-135s 

within the continental United States in FY 2020. USAF needs a viable location to conduct the 

operations and maintenance activities associated with these 12 KC-135s. Adding 12 KC-135s 

to a location would require the activation of a new air refueling squadron with associated 

personnel, dependents, and facilities. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

July 2018 | 1-3 

1.5 NEPA Compliance Requirements

NEPA is a federal law requiring the analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with 

proposed federal actions before the actions are taken. The intent of NEPA is to make decisions 

informed by potential environmental consequences and take actions to protect, restore, or 

enhance the environment. NEPA established the CEQ, which is responsible for ensuring 

federal agency compliance with NEPA. CEQ NEPA regulations specify that an EA be prepared 

to determine whether to prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EA can aid in an agency’s compliance with NEPA 

when an EIS is unnecessary and facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is required.

CEQ regulations mandate all federal agencies to use a prescribed approach to environmental 

impact analysis. The approach includes an evaluation of the potential environmental 

consequences associated with a proposed action and considers alternative courses of action.

USAF NEPA regulations under 32 CFR § 989 provide procedures for environmental impact 

analysis to comply with NEPA and CEQ regulations. Air Force Policy Directive 32-70, 

Environmental Quality, states USAF will comply with applicable federal, state, and local

environmental laws and regulations, including NEPA. If significant impacts from a proposed 

action were predicted under NEPA, USAF would decide whether to conduct mitigation to reduce 

impacts below the level of significance, prepare an EIS, or abandon the proposed action. An 

EA is also used to guide USAF in implementing a proposed action in a manner consistent with 

USAF standards for environmental stewardship should that proposed action be approved for 

implementation.

Executive Order (EO) 11988 and EO 11990 require that a Finding of No Practicable Alternative 

(FONPA) accompany a FONSI for actions that involve action in a floodplain or new construction 

in a wetland. The FONPA provides a discussion for why no practicable alternatives exist for 

avoiding impacts on these resources. A FONPA is approved by the applicable USAF major 

command. A FONPA would be necessary for the addition of these KC-135s to MacDill AFB 

because most of that installation is within the 100-year floodplain.

1.6 Intergovernmental and Native American Tribal Coordination 

and Consultation and Public Involvement

1.6.1 Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination and Consultation

EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, as amended by EO 12416 with the 

same title, requires federal agencies to provide opportunities for consultation with officials of 

state and local governments that could be affected by a federal proposal. Through the 

interagency and intergovernmental coordination process, USAF notifies relevant federal, state, 

and local agencies of a proposed action and alternatives and provides them with sufficient time 

to make known their environmental concerns specific to the action. The process also provides 

USAF with the opportunity to cooperate with and consider state and local views in implementing 

the federal proposal.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

July 2018 | 1-4 

The Draft EA and Draft FONSI/FONPA will be made available to relevant federal, state, and 

local government agencies for a 30-day review period. The list of federal, state, and local 

government agencies and signed copies of distribution letters and government agency 

comments are included in Appendix A. Government agency comments will be considered in 

the development of the Final EA and prior to a decision being made on whether or not to sign 

the FONSI/FONPA and proceed with the Proposed Action or its alternatives. 

1.6.2 Government to Government Coordination and Consultation

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 United States Code (USC) 300101 et seq., 

requires federal agencies to consult with Native American tribal governments to identify cultural 

resources that may be adversely affected by the agency’s proposed action. Consistent with the 

NHPA, Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 4710.02, Interactions with FederallyRecognized Tribes, and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 90-2002, Air Force Interaction with 

Federally-Recognized Tribes, federally recognized tribes that are historically affiliated with the 

Fairchild AFB or MacDill AFB geographic regions have been invited to consult on all proposed 

undertakings that potentially affect properties of cultural, historical, or religious significance to 

the tribes. The tribal consultation process is distinct from NEPA consultation or the interagency 

coordination process. The timelines for tribal consultation are also distinct from those of other 

consultations. The Native American tribal governments that will be coordinated with regarding 

the Proposed Action and alternatives are listed in Appendix A along with all USAF 

correspondence and any responses that are received.

1.6.3 Public Involvement

NEPA requirements help ensure that environmental information is made available to the public 

during the decision-making process and prior to actions being taken. The premise of NEPA is 

that the quality of federal decisions will be enhanced if proponents provide information to the 

public and involve the public in the planning process.

A Notice for Early Public Review was published in the Tampa Bay Times on Monday, March 26, 

2018, because areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative are within the 100-year floodplain. The 

notice appeared in the local section of the Hillsborough and Pinellas counties editions. A copy 

of the notice is included in Appendix A. No public comments were received from the notice.

A notice of availability announcing the Draft EA and Draft FONSI/FONPA are available for a 

30-day comment period will be published in the Spokesman-Review and Tampa Bay Times. A 

copy of both newspapers notices are included in Appendix A. The Draft EA and Draft 

FONSI/FONPA will be made available in electronic format on the Fairchild AFB and MacDill 

AFB websites and in hardcopy format at the Fairchild AFB Library, Spokane Public Library, and 

Airway Heights Library in Washington and at the MacDill AFB Library and John F. Germany

Public Library in Tampa, Florida. Public comments received on the Draft EA and Draft 

FONSI/FONPA will be considered in the development of the Final EA and prior to a decision 

being made on whether or not to sign the FONSI/FONPA and proceed with the Proposed Action

or its alternatives. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

July 2018 | 2-1 

2. Description of the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives

The NEPA process evaluates potential environmental consequences associated with a 

proposed action and considers alternative courses of action as discussed in Section 1.5. This 

section describes the Proposed Action and alternatives considered, including the No Action 

Alternative. 

2.1 Proposed Action

USAF would add 12 KC-135s to the existing fleet of 36 KC-135s at Fairchild AFB in FY 2020. 

The addition of these aircraft would constitute activation of a new air refueling squadron under 

the 92d ARW and includes the following distinct components: 

 Increase KC-135 aircraft stationed at Fairchild AFB. 

 Increase associated personnel and dependents assigned to Fairchild AFB.

 Increase KC-135 operations and maintenance activities performed at Fairchild AFB. 

Perform facility construction, demolition, and renovation.

The following paragraphs provide additional details regarding each component of the Proposed 

Action.

Aircraft. The addition of 12 KC-135s would result in 48 KC-135s operating from Fairchild AFB. 

All 12 additional aircraft would be PAA for performance of the squadron’s mission. They would 

not be considered backup aerospace vehicle inventory, and no changes to the backup 

aerospace vehicle inventory of KC-135s would occur. The 12 aircraft would be gradually added 

to the installation during FY 2020, and all aircraft would be operational by September 30, 2020. 

Personnel and Dependents. A total of 370 personnel would accompany the additional 

KC-135s. The additional personnel would consist of 369 active duty military positions and 1 

civilian position. The personnel would consist of 99 operations, 246 maintenance, and 25 

mission support group authorizations. Accompanying dependents are estimated at 2.5 times 65 

percent of the active duty military personnel. Therefore, the 369 active duty military personnel 

would be accompanied by 600 dependents. Consequently, a total of 970 personnel and 

dependents would accompany the KC-135s in FY 2020. The current population of Fairchild 

AFB is 7,565 (5,248 personnel and 2,317 dependents) (AMC 2016). Therefore, the Proposed 

Action would increase the Fairchild AFB population by 12.8 percent. 

Aircraft Operations and Maintenance. The Proposed Action includes a 33.3 percent increase

in the number of KC-135 annual operations at Fairchild AFB, to include landings/take-offs and 

closed patterns, once the aircraft are added in FY 2020. The addition of this squadron would 

result in a 16.3 percent increase in total aircraft operations at Fairchild AFB. Table 2-1 provides 

a summary of the proposed increases in KC-135 operations at Fairchild AFB. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

July 2018 | 2-2 

Table 2-1. KC-135 Operations at Fairchild AFB

Average KC-135 Operations [Annual (Daily)]

Landing/Take-Off Operations Closed Pattern Operations Total Operations

Existing 2,948 (8.1) 11,965 (32.8) 14,913 (40.9)

Increase 983 (2.7) 3,988 (10.9) 4,971 (13.6)

Total 3,931 (10.8) 15,953 (43.7) 19,884 (54.5)

The proposed operations would occur within existing airspace and training areas currently 

utilized by KC-135s that operate from Fairchild AFB. A change in airspace would not occur 

under the Proposed Action.

There would be a corresponding (i.e., 33.3 percent) increase in aircraft maintenance activities 

following the addition of these KC-135s to Fairchild AFB. Aircraft maintenance practices would 

not change from those currently practiced on the existing fleet of KC-135s at Fairchild AFB.

Facility Construction, Demolition, and Renovation. Facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation would occur to support operations and maintenance of the additional KC-135s and to 

provide parking and office space for associated personnel at Fairchild AFB. Building 

construction would occur in the form of new buildings and additions onto existing buildings and 

would add 99,207 square feet (ft2

) of new interior space to Fairchild AFB. Building demolition 

would occur to remove outdated buildings and would remove 21,807 ft2 of existing interior space 

from the installation. Parking lot construction and demolition would accompany certain building 

construction projects and would result in a net reduction of 22,529 ft2 of paved parking area from 

Fairchild AFB. Building renovations would be limited to interior updates, and all renovations 

would occur within existing facility footprints. Building renovation would modify 127,392 ft2 of 

existing interior space. Renovations in the form of upgrades to the fuel hydrant system and 

pavement replacement of the aircraft parking ramp and surrounding Building 1017 would disturb 

409,451 ft2 of existing paved surface.

In total, the Proposed Action would disturb a maximum of 717,247 ft2

; however, this area could 

be smaller because some construction and demolition projects overlap with one another. The 

Proposed Action would increase the total amount of impervious surfaces on Fairchild AFB by 

34,172 ft2 and would increase the amount of interior space by 77,400 ft2

. Figure 2-1 shows the 

locations of the proposed construction, demolition, and renovation under the Proposed Action, 

and Table 2-2 provides a summary of these projects. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

July 2018 | 2-3 

Figure 2-1. Proposed Construction, Demolition, and Renovation at Fairchild AFB
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

July 2018 | 2-4 

Table 2-2. Proposed Construction, Demolition, and Renovation at Fairchild AFB

Location Timeline Description Area of Disturbance

Change in 

Impervious 

Surfaces

Building 1 

(Base and 

Squadron 

Operations 

Facility)

2020 Construct a new base/squadron 

operations facility. The new 

facility would be sited partially 

on a parking lot and landscaped 

field north of Building 1. The 

existing base/squadron 

operations facility (i.e., Building 

1) would be demolished 

following construction of the 

proposed facility.

Construction:

- New facility (62,258 ft2) 

Demolition:

- Building 1 (21,807 ft2) 

- Parking lot (33,777 ft2) 

+ 6,674 ft2

Building 1007 

(Primary Fuel 

Cell)

2019 Renovate the interior of 

Building 1007 for conversion to 

the installation’s primary fuel 

cell.

Renovation:

- Building 1007 (32,000 

ft2) 

0 ft2

Building 1017

(Central Tool 

Kit)

2019 Renovate the interior and 

exterior of Building 1017 to 

provide a new Central Tool Kit. 

Four new awnings would be 

constructed onto the sides of 

the building, and pavement 

beneath and immediately 

adjacent to the proposed 

awnings would be replaced. 

Roll-up hangar doors would be 

installed.

Construction:

- Four awnings (7,965 ft2) 

Renovation:

- Building 1017 (27,749 

ft2) 

- Pavement replacement 

(9,451 ft2) 

0 ft2

Building 2005

(Refueling 

Squadron and 

Aircraft 

Maintenance 

Personnel) 

2019 Renovate the bottom floor of 

Building 2005 to accommodate 

additional air refueling 

squadron and aircraft 

maintenance personnel. 

Renovation:

- Building 2005 (25,545 

ft2) 

0 ft2

Building 2007 

(Aircraft 

Maintenance 

Unit)

2021 Renovate the bottom floor of 

Building 2007 to accommodate 

the added aircraft maintenance 

unit. 

Renovation:

- Building 2007 (26,900 

ft2) 

0 ft2

Building 2045

(Flightline 

Warehouse)

2020 Construct an addition onto the 

southeast face of Building 2045 

to provide additional storage 

space for flightline supplies and 

equipment. A portion of 

Building 2045 would be 

renovated with high efficiency 

shelving. A gate onto the 

flightline would be relocated, 

and a new parking lot would be 

constructed. 

Construction:

- Addition to Building 2045 

(20,699 ft2) 

- Parking lot (11,248 ft2) 

Renovation:

- Building 2045 (1,798 ft2) 

+11,248 ft2
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

July 2018 | 2-5 

Location Timeline Description Area of Disturbance

Change in 

Impervious 

Surfaces

Building 2048

(Flight 

Simulator)

2019 Construct an addition onto the 

southwest face of Building 2048 

to provide an additional flight 

simulator bay and office space. 

Construction:

- Addition to Building 2048 

(4,250 ft2) 

+ 4,250 ft2

Building 2050 

(Hangar Bay)

2019 Renovate a small portion of the 

interior of Building 2050 to 

provide additional space for 

aircraft maintenance personnel. 

Renovation:

- Building 2050 (3,400 ft2) 

0 ft2

Building 2379 

(Fitness 

Center)

2020 Construct an addition on the 

northwest face of Building 2379 

to provide additional indoor 

fitness/athletic space. 

Renovate a portion of Building 

2379 to reconfigure the 

basketball court.

Construction:

- Addition to Building 2379 

(12,000 ft2) 

Renovation:

- Building 2379 (10,000 

ft2) 

+12,000 ft2

Aircraft Parking 

Ramp

2020 Demolish and replace

pavement on the parking ramp 

at aircraft parking spots 25 to 

28. Replace approximately 

3,200 linear feet of fuel line 

from Building 2028 to Spot 28. 

Install 1,200 linear feet of 

looped fuel hydrant system and 

replace existing hydrants for 

Spots 25 to 28. 

Renovation:

- Pavement replacement 

(400,000 ft2) 

- Fuel line replacement 

(6,400 ft2) 

0 ft2

Total Area 717,247 ft2 +34,172 ft2

2.2 Alternatives

Guidance for complying with NEPA requires an assessment of potentially effective and 

reasonably feasible alternatives for implementing the Proposed Action. Consideration of 

alternatives helps to avoid unnecessary impacts and allows for an analysis of reasonable ways 

to achieve a purpose. 

To warrant detailed evaluation in this EA, an alternative must be reasonable. Reasonable 

alternatives are those that are practical or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint 

and use common sense, rather than simply being desirable from the standpoint of the applicant. 

To be reasonable, an alternative must meet the purpose of and need for the action, be feasible 

and able to be implemented, and be suitable for consideration by decision makers. 

2.2.1 Selection Criteria for Installation Alternatives

USAF considered the other installations under the command of AMC as potential alternatives to 

Fairchild AFB. The installations considered needed to meet the following selection criteria to be 

reasonable alternatives:

The installation must be within the continental United States. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

July 2018 | 2-6 

The installation must currently host active duty KC-135s. Active duty KC-135

installations already possess operations, maintenance, and installation manpower 

knowledgeable of air refueling with KC-135s; support 24/7 flight operations; and are in 

proximity to KC-135 training areas. 

The installation must not have been selected to receive a KC-46A mission.

The installation must have available space (i.e., building and installation area) that can 

be reconfigured to accommodate additional personnel and maintenance activities. 

The installation must possess satisfactory infrastructure, such as hangar and apron 

space, runway length and weight-bearing capacity, and fuel storage and receipt 

capacity, to accommodate the additional aircraft.

Table 2-3 summarizes the evaluation of installations against the selection criteria. Those 

installations that met a given selection criterion are identified with a “Yes” and those that have 

not met the selection criterion are identified with a “No.” Because Fairchild AFB and MacDill

AFB were the only installations to meet the first three selection criteria, USAF only conducted 

space availability and infrastructure satisfaction evaluations for these two installations. As such,

the remaining installations are listed as “Not Evaluated” in Table 2-3 for the available space and 

satisfactory infrastructure selection criteria. 

Table 2-3. Evaluation of Installation Alternatives against Selection Criteria

Installation

Selection Criteria

Continental 

United 

States

Host Active 

Duty 

KC-135s

Not Selected for 

KC-46A Mission

Available 

Space

Satisfactory 

Infrastructure

Proposed Action 

– Fairchild AFB

Yes Yes Yes, but alternative 

site for future 

mission

Yes Yes

Dover AFB Yes No Yes Not Evaluated Not Evaluated

Joint Base 

Charleston

Yes No Yes Not Evaluated Not Evaluated

Joint Base LewisMcChordYes No Yes Not Evaluated Not Evaluated

Joint Base 

McGuire-DixLakehurst

Yes No Yes, but preferred 

site for future 

mission

Not Evaluated Not Evaluated

Little Rock AFB Yes No Yes Not Evaluated Not Evaluated

MacDill AFB Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

McConnell AFB Yes Yes No Not Evaluated Not Evaluated

Scott AFB Yes No Yes Not Evaluated Not Evaluated

Travis AFB Yes No Yes, but preferred 

site for future 

mission

Not Evaluated Not Evaluated
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

July 2018 | 2-7 

2.2.2 Evaluation and Selection of Installation Alternatives

The evaluation of the other installations against the selection criteria identified MacDill AFB as a

reasonable alternative to Fairchild AFB (see Table 2-3). MacDill AFB meets all five selection 

criteria presented in Section 2.2.1 as it is within the continental United States, currently hosts 

active duty KC-135s, has not been selected to receive a KC-46A mission, and has available 

space and satisfactory infrastructure to accommodate the additional aircraft, personnel, and 

maintenance activities. As identified in Table 2-3, no other installations met all of the selection 

criteria. Therefore, only Fairchild AFB and MacDill AFB have been carried forward for detailed 

evaluation in this EA. The MacDill AFB Alternative is described in detail in Section 2.2.2.1. 

2.2.2.1 MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

USAF would add 12 KC-135s to the existing fleet of 24 KC-135s at MacDill AFB in FY 2020. 

Similar to the Proposed Action, the addition of these aircraft would constitute activation of a new 

air refueling squadron under the 6th AMW and includes the following distinct components:

 Increase KC-135 aircraft stationed at MacDill AFB.

 Increase associated personnel and dependents assigned to MacDill AFB.

 Increase KC-135 operations and maintenance activities performed at MacDill AFB.

Perform facility construction, demolition, and renovation.

The following paragraphs provide additional details regarding each component of the MacDill 

AFB Alternative. 

Aircraft. The addition of 12 KC-135s under the MacDill AFB Alternative would result in a total 

of 36 KC-135s stationed at MacDill AFB. All 12 additional aircraft would be PAA for 

performance of the squadron’s mission. They would not be considered backup aerospace 

vehicle inventory. The 12 aircraft would be gradually added to the installation during FY 2020, 

and all aircraft would be operational by September 30, 2020. 

Personnel and Dependents. A total of 395 personnel would accompany the additional 

KC-135s. The additional personnel would consist of 394 active duty military positions and 1 

civilian position. The active duty military personnel would consist of 106 operations, 263

maintenance, and 25 mission operation support group authorizations. Accompanying 

dependents are estimated at 2.5 times 65 percent of the active duty military personnel. 

Therefore, the 394 active duty military personnel would be accompanied by 640 dependents. 

Consequently, a total of 1,035 personnel and dependents would accompany the KC-135s in FY 

2020. The current population of MacDill AFB is 42,023 (18,853 personnel and 23,170 

dependents) (MacDill AFB 2014). Therefore, the MacDill AFB Alternative would increase the 

MacDill AFB population by 2.5 percent.

Aircraft Operations and Maintenance. The MacDill AFB Alternative includes a 50.0 percent 

increase in the number of KC-135 annual operations at MacDill AFB, to include landings/takeoffs and closed patterns, once the aircraft are added in FY 2020. The addition of this squadron 

would result in a 29.0 percent increase in total aircraft operations at MacDill AFB. Table 2-4

provides a summary of the proposed increases in KC-135 operations at MacDill AFB.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

July 2018 | 2-8 

Table 2-4. KC-135 Operations at MacDill AFB

Average KC-135 Operations [Annual (Daily)]

Landing/Take-Off Operations Closed Pattern Operations Total Operations

Existing 4,210 (11.5) 17,159 (47.0) 21,369 (58.5)

Increase 2,105 (5.8) 8,580 (23.5) 10,685 (29.3) 

Total 6,315 (17.3) 25,739 (70.5) 32,054 (87.8) 

The proposed operations would occur within existing airspace and training areas currently 

utilized by KC-135s that operate from MacDill AFB. A change in airspace would not occur 

under this alternative. 

There would be a corresponding (i.e., 50.0 percent) increase in aircraft maintenance activities 

following the addition of these KC-135s to MacDill AFB. Aircraft maintenance practices would 

not change from those currently practiced on the existing fleet of KC-135s at MacDill AFB.

Facility Construction, Demolition, and Renovation. Facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation would occur to support operations and maintenance of the additional KC-135s and to 

provide parking, housing, and office space for associated personnel at MacDill AFB. Building 

construction would occur in the form of new buildings and additions onto existing buildings and 

would add 121,500 ft2 of new interior space to MacDill AFB. Building demolition would occur to 

make space for new construction and would remove 4,000 ft2 of existing building footprint from 

the installation. Parking lot construction and demolition would accompany certain building 

construction projects and would result in a net reduction of 22,500 ft2 of paved parking area from 

MacDill AFB. Building renovations would be limited to interior updates, and all renovations 

would occur within existing facility footprints. Building renovation would modify 157,440 ft2 of 

existing interior space. Renovations in the form of pavement repair and upgrades to the fuel 

hydrant system would occur on the North Ramp and could disturb as much as 1,350,000 ft2 of 

existing paved surface. 

In total, the MacDill AFB Alternative would disturb a maximum of 1,699,440 ft2

; however, this 

area could be smaller because some construction and demolition projects overlap with one 

another and the proposed renovations to Hangar 2 and the North Ramp would likely occur on a 

small fraction of the total area of these facilities. The MacDill AFB Alternative would increase 

the total amount of impervious surfaces on MacDill AFB by 104,500 ft2 and would increase the 

amount of interior space by 117,500 ft2

. Figure 2-2 shows the locations of the proposed 

construction, demolition, and renovation under the MacDill AFB Alternative, and Table 2-5

provides a summary of these projects. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

July 2018 | 2-9 

Figure 2-2. Proposed Construction, Demolition, and Renovation at MacDill AFB
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

July 2018 | 2-10

Table 2-5. Proposed Construction, Demolition, and Renovation at MacDill AFB

Location Timeline Description Area of 

Disturbance

Change in 

Impervious 

Surfaces

Hangar 2 

(Hangar 

Bay)

2019 Renovate the interior of Hangar 2 to

provide additional space for aircraft 

maintenance operations and storage.

Renovation:

- Hangar 2 

(82,715 ft2)

0 ft2

Building 55

(Aircraft 

Maintenance 

Squadrons)

2021 Renovate the interior of Building 55 to 

accommodate aircraft maintenance 

squadrons.

Renovation:

- Building 55 

(19,475 ft2) 

0 ft2

Building 56 

(Aircraft 

Maintenance 

Squadrons)

2021 Renovate the interior of Building 56 to 

accommodate aircraft maintenance 

squadrons.

Renovation:

- Building 56 

(30,000 ft2) 

0 ft2

Building 303 

(Fitness 

Center)

2020 Construct an addition onto the east face of 

Building 303 to provide additional indoor 

fitness/athletic space. The proposed 

addition would partially coincide with an 

athletic track and field. 

Construction:

- Addition to 

Building 303 

(5,000 ft2) 

+5,000 ft2

Building 378 

(Dormitory)

2020 Renovate the interior of Building 378 to 

satisfy the need for at least 68 new 

dormitory rooms.

Renovation:

- Building 378 

(25,250 ft2)

0 ft2

Fuel Cell 

Hangar

2019 Construct an additional full-in aircraft 

maintenance hangar with fuel cell 

capabilities. The proposed hangar would 

be sited on the north side of the North 

Ramp on a grass field.

Construction:

- Hangar 

(61,000 ft2) 

+61,000 ft2

North Ramp 2020 Install a looped fuel hydrant system and 

eight new hydrants on the North Ramp. 

Perform repairs to hard stands. 

Reconfigure parking spots to park 23 

KC-135s while retaining hydrant spacing

and the capability to park aircraft larger 

than a KC-135 on this ramp. 

Renovation:

- North Ramp 

(1,350,000

ft2) 

0 ft2

Squadron 

Operations 

Facility

2020 Construct a new squadron operations 

facility. The proposed facility would be 

sited between Hangars 4 and 5 partially on 

a parking lot. Building 44 overlaps with 

this siting and would be demolished. The 

parking lot immediately northwest of 

Buildings 247 and 293 would be expanded 

to Hillsborough Loop Drive to compensate 

for the lost parking lot.

Construction:

- New facility 

(51,000 ft2) 

- Parking lot 

(22,000 ft2) 

Demolition:

- Building 44 

(4,000 ft2) 

- Parking lot 

(40,000 ft2)

+38,500 ft2

Warehouse 

Facility 

2020 Construct a new warehouse facility on the 

flightline for storage of large aircraft parts. 

The proposed warehouse facility would be 

sited between Hangars 1 and 2 on a 

portion of a parking lot. 

Construction:

- Warehouse 

(4,500 ft2) 

Demolition:

- Parking lot 

(4,500 ft2)

0 ft2

Total Area 1,699,440 ft2 +104,500 ft2
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

July 2018 | 2-11

2.2.3 Selection Criteria for Construction, Demolition, and Renovation Alternatives

USAF also considered alternative strategies for the facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation proposed for Fairchild AFB and MacDill AFB. The construction, demolition, and 

renovation alternatives needed to meet the following selection criteria to be reasonable 

alternatives:

Minimize the amount of new construction, disturbance area, and new impervious 

surfaces. 

Avoid conflicts with existing and future facilities and missions. 

Meet operational efficiency requirements.

2.2.4 Evaluation and Selection of Construction, Demolition, and Renovation

Alternatives

The evaluation of construction, demolition, and renovation alternatives for Fairchild AFB and 

MacDill AFB against the selection criteria did not identify any reasonable alternatives because 

none of the alternative strategies for facility construction, demolition, and renovation met all of 

the selection criteria presented in Section 2.2.3. Sections 2.2.4.1 and 2.2.4.2 describe the 

construction, demolition, and renovation alternatives for Fairchild AFB and MacDill AFB, 

respectively, and provide an explanation for why these alternatives do not meet the 

construction, demolition, and renovation selection criteria. 

2.2.4.1 FAIRCHILD AFB CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, AND RENOVATION ALTERNATIVE

The Fairchild AFB Construction, Demolition, and Renovation Alternative would entail the 

construction, demolition, and renovation described under the Proposed Action in Section 2.1, 

with the following exceptions:

Building 1 would not be demolished, and a new base/squadron operation facility would 

not be constructed. Instead, Building 1 would undergo a major renovation and continue 

to serve as the base/squadron operations facility. Temporarily facilities, such as Building 

2060, would house mission components that could not fit into the newly renovated 

Building 1.

The pavement on the parking ramp at Spots 25 to 28 would not be demolished and 

replaced. Rather, a combination of new parking space would be constructed and

existing pavement at other locations on the parking ramp would be demolished and 

replaced to provide four additional parking spots with fuel hydrants.

Neither alternative strategy for facility construction, demolition, and renovation meets all of the 

selection criteria. While renovating Building 1 would minimize the amount of new construction, 

disturbance area, and new impervious surfaces as compared to constructing a new base/

squadron operations facility, these renovations would not provide an integrated workspace for 

all mission components because temporary facilities would be used to make up for the shortfall 

of available space within Building 1. The lack of an integrated workspace would reduce 

operational efficiencies and conflict with future missions because Building 2060 is planned to be 

repurposed for a separate function in FY 2021. Building 1 is also in poor condition, and a major 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

July 2018 | 2-12

renovation would not address all structural and safety deficiencies. Spots 25 to 28 were 

determined to be the most reasonable locations for the four additional parking spots. Any 

combination of new parking space construction or replacement of existing pavement at other 

locations on the parking ramp would disturb an area larger than that for Spots 25 to 28 and 

likely increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the installation. Additionally, the extension 

of a fuel line from Building 2028 to the alternative parking spots would disturb a greater distance 

than that between Building 2028 and Spot 28. For these reasons, the Fairchild AFB 

Construction, Demolition, and Renovation Alternative does not meet the selection criteria and 

was eliminated from further analysis.

2.2.4.2 MACDILL AFB CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, AND RENOVATION ALTERNATIVE

The MacDill AFB Construction, Demolition, and Renovation Alternative would entail the

construction, demolition, and renovation described under the MacDill AFB Alternative in Section 

2.2.2.1, with the following exceptions:

The proposed fuel cell hangar would not be constructed on the north side of the North 

Ramp. The hangar would instead be constructed at the northeast end of the North 

Ramp, adjacent to Building 563 and coinciding with a wash rack. The existing wash rack 

would be demolished, and a new wash rack would be constructed on the north side of 

the North Ramp south of Buildings 1065 and 1071.

The proposed reconfiguration of parking spots on the North Ramp would occur; 

however, the reconfiguration would not retain the existing hydrant spacing or the 

capability to park aircraft larger than a KC-135 on this ramp. 

The proposed warehouse facility would not be constructed. Instead, renovations to 

Buildings 49 and 1081 would occur to create storage space for large aircraft parts.

None of the three alternative strategies for facility construction, demolition, and renovation

meets all of the selection criteria. Constructing the proposed fuel cell hangar at the northeast 

end of the North Ramp would create additional new construction, disturbance area, and 

impervious surfaces as compared to the MacDill AFB Alternative and would conflict with an 

existing facility. Additional new construction and disturbance area would be created from 

relocating 12 to 15 existing hydrants on the North Ramp, and operational efficiencies would be 

reduced because aircraft larger than a KC-135 would no longer be able to park on the North 

Ramp. Lastly, while renovations to Buildings 49 and 1081 would minimize the amount of new 

construction and disturbance area as compared to constructing a new warehouse facility, these 

renovations would not meet operational efficiency requirements because large aircraft parts 

would be stored in two facilities, neither of which is directly on the flightline. Building 49 also 

requires a major renovation to address safety concerns at the loading docks. For these 

reasons, the MacDill AFB Construction, Demolition, and Renovation Alternative does not meet 

the selection criteria and was eliminated from further analysis.

2.3 No Action Alternative

The Environmental Impact Analysis Process (32 CFR 989.8[d]) requires consideration of the No 

Action Alternative, which provides a baseline against which the Proposed Action and action 

alternatives can be compared. In addition, CEQ NEPA guidance recommends inclusion of the 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

July 2018 | 2-13

No Action Alternative in an EA to assess any environmental consequences that may occur if the 

Proposed Action is not implemented. Therefore, the No Action Alternative is carried forward for 

detailed analysis in this EA although it does not meet all of the selection criteria listed in 

Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 or the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, as described in 

Section 1.4. 

USAF would not add 12 KC-135s and activate a new air refueling squadron at Fairchild AFB or 

MacDill AFB. No additional aircraft, personnel and dependents, or operations and maintenance 

activities would be added to either installation. No facility construction, demolition, or renovation 

would occur. The No Action Alternative would not allow USAF to comply with the force 

adjustments enacted through the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act to redistribute 12 

KC-135s within the continental United States in FY 2020. Consequently, USAF and AMC would 

not be able to continue to provide fully capable air refueling assets to accomplish air refueling 

and related missions, and AMC continental U.S. active duty locations would be unable to meet 

their mission to provide rapid global mobility and sustainment.

2.4 Identification of the Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative is the alternative that USAF believes best satisfies the purpose and 

need and would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, 

environmental, technical, and other factors. USAF has identified the Proposed Action, as 

described in Section 2.1 and which meets all of the selection criteria, as the Preferred 

Alternative.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

July 2018 | 2-14

This page intentionally left blank.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-1 

3. Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

This section presents a description of the environmental resources and baseline conditions that 

could be affected by the Proposed Action and its alternatives. This section also presents an 

analysis of the potential environmental consequences of the Proposed Action, MacDill AFB 

Alternative, and No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action and alternatives were evaluated 

for their potential environmental consequences on the environmental resources in accordance 

with CEQ NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1508.8.

All environmental resources were initially considered in this EA. In compliance with NEPA, 

CEQ, and USAF Environmental Impact Analysis Process regulations and guidelines, the 

following discussion of the affected environment and environmental consequences focuses only 

on those environmental resources considered potentially subject to impacts or with potentially 

significant environmental issues. The environmental resources analyzed in detail for the 

Proposed Action and MacDill AFB Alternative are air quality, terrestrial biological resources, 

cultural resources, geological resources, hazardous materials and wastes, infrastructure and 

transportation, noise, land use, safety, socioeconomics, and water resources. The 

environmental resources not analyzed in detail in this EA because clearly insignificant or no 

impacts would occur are airspace and marine biological resources. Environmental justice and 

sensitive receptors is analyzed in detail for the MacDill AFB Alternative but not for the Proposed 

Action at Fairchild AFB. The following paragraphs explain why airspace, marine biological 

resources, and environmental justice and sensitive receptors for Fairchild AFB were dismissed 

from detailed analysis in this EA.

Airspace. The Proposed Action and its alternatives would not include any changes to existing 

airspace. All KC-135s would continue to conduct operations within existing airspace and 

training areas currently utilized by KC-135s that operate from Fairchild AFB and MacDill AFB. 

Therefore, no impacts on airspace would occur. The additional aircraft operations would slightly 

increase noise when compared to existing conditions, which is discussed in Section 3.7. 

Marine Biological Resources. Fairchild AFB is more than 200 miles from the nearest marine 

environment; therefore, no direct or indirect impacts on marine biological resources would occur 

from the Proposed Action. While MacDill AFB is immediately surrounded by marine 

environment on three sides, no construction would occur in the marine waters surrounding the 

installation. Even with a slight increase in noise from additional aircraft operations, sound from 

aircraft is refracted and scattered at the water surface, and marine species do not experience 

the same level of sound as terrestrial species (NPS 1994). As such, no direct or indirect 

impacts on marine biological resources would occur from the MacDill AFB Alternative. 

Section 3.2 addresses potential impacts on nesting sea turtles and terrestrial biological 

resources. 

Environmental Justice and Sensitive Receptors for the Proposed Action at Fairchild AFB. 

The Proposed Action at Fairchild AFB would not result in disproportionately high and adverse 

health or environmental impacts on environmental justice (i.e., minority and low-income) 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-2 

populations or disproportionate impacts on sensitive receptor (i.e., children and elderly) 

populations. Facility construction, demolition, and renovation would occur within discrete areas 

of Fairchild AFB in land uses that are functionally related to the airfield where access is 

restricted to military and DoD civilian personnel, except for the addition/renovation to Building 

2379 (Fitness Center). As such, there would be no adverse impacts on off-installation 

populations and little to no impact on on-installation populations during construction, demolition, 

and renovation. Standard construction safety best management practices (BMPs) (e.g., fencing 

and other security measures) would reduce potential risks to on-installation populations to 

minimal levels. Therefore, construction associated with the Proposed Action would not result in 

disproportionate impacts on any populations, including minority and low-income populations, or 

increased exposure of children and elderly persons to environmental health risks or safety risks. 

The Proposed Action would result in an average of 13.6 additional KC-135 aircraft operations 

per day. Noise resulting from the increase of KC-135 operations would not have the potential to 

cause adverse effects on any populations because when compared to existing conditions it 

would have no perceptible effect on the overall noise in areas surrounding the installation. 

Additionally, based on review of aerial photography, there are no structures or other areas 

where environmental justice and sensitive receptor populations would congregate within the 

proposed 65-A-weighted decibels (dBA) Day-night Sound Level (DNL) noise contour outside of 

the installation. The on-installation land under the proposed 65 dBA DNL noise contour consists 

only of land uses that are functionally related to the airfield (e.g., airfield, aircraft operations and 

maintenance, industrial, and open space [conservation area or buffer space]), and there are no 

land uses or areas where environmental justice and sensitive receptor populations might 

congregate. 

Therefore, there would be no significant or disproportionately high and adverse health or 

environmental impacts on minority or low-income populations, and no significant or 

disproportionate impacts on child or elderly populations on or near Fairchild AFB during facility 

construction, demolition, and renovation or during aircraft operation. Environmental justice and 

sensitive receptors for the MacDill Alternative has been carried forward for detailed analysis in 

the EA because noise from the increase of KC-135 aircraft would potentially affect

environmental justice and sensitive receptor populations.

3.1 Air Quality

3.1.1 Definition of the Resource

Air quality in a given location is defined by the concentration of various pollutants in the 

atmosphere. A region’s air quality is influenced by many factors including the type and amount 

of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and the 

prevailing meteorological conditions. 

3.1.2 Affected Environment 

3.1.2.1 FAIRCHILD AFB

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 10 and Washington State 

Department of Ecology regulate air quality in the State of Washington, and the Spokane 

Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) regulates air quality in the greater Spokane region 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-3 

including at Fairchild AFB. The Clean Air Act (42 USC §§ 7401–7671q), as amended, assigns 

USEPA the responsibility to establish primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR § 50) that specify acceptable concentration levels of six criteria 

pollutants: particulate matter (measured as both particulate matter less than 10 microns in 

diameter [PM10] and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter [PM2.5]), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), and lead. Short-term 

NAAQS (1-, 8-, and 24-hour periods) have been established for pollutants contributing to acute 

health effects, while long-term NAAQS (annual averages) have been established for pollutants 

contributing to chronic health effects. While each state has the authority to adopt standards 

stricter than those established under the federal program, the State of Washington has 

accepted the federal standards.

Federal regulations designate areas in violation of the NAAQS as nonattainment and areas with 

levels below the NAAQS as attainment. Maintenance is designated to areas that have 

previously been designated as nonattainment and have been redesignated to attainment for a 

probationary period through implementation of maintenance plans. 

USEPA has designated all of Spokane County as attainment for all criteria pollutants, and parts 

of the county as maintenance areas for CO and PM10. Fairchild AFB is not within these 

maintenance areas (USEPA 2018a, SRCAA 2015, SRCAA 2016). Because the Proposed 

Action is within an area that is in full attainment for the NAAQS, general conformity rules do not 

apply. USEPA monitors levels of criteria pollutants at representative sites throughout the United 

States. For reference purposes, Table 3-1 shows the highest reported concentrations by all 

monitoring stations within Spokane County during the last three years. 

Regulatory Overview. Fairchild AFB operates under a synthetic minor air-operating permit. 

The permit requirements include annual periodic inventory of all significant stationary sources of 

air emissions for each of the criteria pollutants of concern and monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements. Primary stationary sources of air emissions include paint booths, fuel storage 

areas, and diesel-fueled electricity generators (Fairchild AFB 2012a). Table 3-2 lists Fairchild 

AFB's installation-wide air emissions from all significant stationary sources. Washington does 

not require permitting of mobile source emissions (e.g., aircraft and vehicle operations).

Climate and Greenhouse Gases. Fairchild AFB’s average high temperature is 82 degrees

Fahrenheit (°F) in the hottest month of August and average low temperature is 22°F in the 

coldest month of December. Fairchild AFB has average annual precipitation of 17 inches per 

year. The wettest month of the year is December with an average rainfall of 2.3 inches (Idcide 

2018).
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-4 

Table 3-1. Air Quality Standards and Monitored Data Closest to Fairchild AFB 

Pollutant Air Quality Standard Monitored Concentrations

Fairchild AFB

Level Averaging Period 2014 2015 2016

CO 

1-hour (ppm) 35 Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year

3.1 4.1 No Data

8-hour (ppm) 9 1.8 2.9 1.8

NO2

1-hour (ppb) 100 98th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years

No Data No Data No Data

O3

8-hour (ppm) 0.070 3-year average of the fourth 

highest daily maximum

0.060 0.066 0.056

SO2

1-hour (ppm) 75 98th percentile, averaged over 3 

years

No Data No Data No Data

3-hour (ppb) 0.5 Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year

No Data No Data No Data

PM2.5

24-hour (μg/m3) 35 98th percentile, averaged over 3 

years

19 No Data No Data

Annual mean (μg/m3) 12 Averaged over 3 years 7.1 No Data No Data

PM10

24-hour (μg/m3) 150 Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year over 3 years

79 No Data 70

Lead

Rolling 3 month 

average (μg/m3) 

0.15 Not to be exceeded No Data No Data No Data

Sources: 40 CFR 50.1–50.12, USEPA 2018b

Key: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

Table 3-2. 2017 Emissions for Significant Stationary Sources at Fairchild AFB

Pollutant Emissions (tons per year [tpy])

CO 0.9

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 5.2

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 6.4

PM10/PM2.5 0.6

Source: Fairchild AFB 2017
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-5 

3.1.2.2 MACDILL AFB

USEPA Region 4 and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) regulate air 

quality in Florida. Florida has accepted the federal NAAQS. USEPA has designated all of 

Hillsborough County as attainment for all criteria pollutants, and parts of the county as a 

maintenance area for SO2. MacDill AFB is not within the SO2 maintenance area (USEPA 

2018a, FDEP 2015). Because the MacDill AFB Alternative is within an area that is in full 

attainment for the NAAQS, general conformity rules do not apply. USEPA monitors levels of 

criteria pollutants at representative sites throughout the United States. For reference purposes, 

Table 3-3 shows the highest reported concentrations by all monitoring stations within 

Hillsborough County during the last three years.

Table 3-3. Air Quality Standards and Monitored Data Closest to MacDill AFB

Pollutant Air Quality Standard Monitored Concentrations

MacDill AFB

Level Averaging Period 2014 2015 2016

CO 

1-hour (ppm) 35 Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year

0.5 0.4 1.4

8-hour (ppm) 9 1.0 0.7 0.8

NO2

1-hour (ppb) 100 98th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years

30 47 No Data

O3

8-hour (ppm) 0.070 3-year average of the fourth 

highest daily maximum

0.071 0.068 0.070

SO2

1-hour (ppm) 75 98th percentile, averaged over 3 

years

60 69 69

3-hour (ppb) 0.5 Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year

No Data No Data No Data

PM2.5

24-hour (μg/m3) 35 98th percentile, averaged over 3 

years

No Data 30 17

Annual mean (μg/m3) 12 Averaged over 3 years No Data 9.8 7.7

PM10

24-hour (μg/m3) 150 Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year over 3 years

71 50 42

Lead

Rolling 3 month 

average (μg/m3)

0.15 Not to be exceeded 0.13 0.15 0.09

Sources: 40 CFR 50.1–50.12, USEPA 2018b

Key: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-6 

Regulatory Overview. MacDill AFB is considered a synthetic minor source for the purposes of 

air permitting. The installation limits its actual annual emissions to levels beneath the major 

source thresholds by including federally enforceable limitations in its synthetic minor airoperating permit. These limitations are implemented via specific practices according to fuel type 

and process. The installation’s permit (#0570141-020-AO) expires June 25, 2018 (MacDill AFB 

2017b). Other permit requirements include a periodic inventory of all significant stationary 

sources of air emissions as well as monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. Primary 

sources of air emissions are boilers and back-up generators as well as multiple exempt 

sources such as natural gas-fired external combustion heating units, fuel storage tanks, 

parts washers, woodworking activities, painting and enclosed blasting operations, etc. 

(MacDill AFB 2017b). Table 3-4 lists MacDill AFB's facility-wide air emissions from all 

significant stationary sources. Florida does not require permitting of mobile source emissions 

(e.g., aircraft and vehicle operations).

Table 3-4. 2016 Emissions for Significant Stationary Sources at MacDill AFB

Pollutant Emissions (tpy)

CO 1.8

NOx 7.1

VOCs 20.7

PM10/PM2.5 0.7

SO2 0.2

Source: MacDill AFB 2016

Climate and Greenhouse Gases. MacDill AFB’s average high temperature is 90°F in the 

hottest month of July and average low temperature is 54°F in the coldest month of January. 

MacDill AFB has average annual precipitation of 50 inches per year. The wettest month of the 

year is August with an average rainfall of 8.3 inches (Idcide 2018). 

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on air quality would be significant if an action would interfere with the state's ability to 

maintain the NAAQS, or it would contribute to a violation of any federal, state, or local air 

regulation.

3.1.3.1 PROPOSED ACTION

The Proposed Action would have short-term, minor and long-term, moderate adverse impacts

on air quality. Short-term impacts would be from fugitive dust and equipment exhaust 

generated by heavy equipment during construction and demolition. Long-term impacts would 

be from increases in aircraft operations, ground support equipment, aircraft maintenance, new 

personnel, and heating of proposed buildings (i.e., operational activities). 

Because the Proposed Action is within an area that is in full attainment for the NAAQS, the 

general conformity rules do not apply. Although the general conformity rules do not apply, the

general conformity de minimis thresholds were used as significance indicators to determine the 

level of impacts under NEPA and if additional analysis would be required.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-7 

The USAF Air Conformity Applicability Model (ACAM) was used to estimate air emissions from 

the Proposed Action (see Appendix B). Table 3-5 lists total direct and indirect annual 

emissions resulting from the Proposed Action. These emission estimates include those from 

construction and demolition and operational activities such as aircraft operations, ground 

support equipment, aircraft maintenance, new personnel, and heating of proposed buildings. All 

construction and demolition activities have been analyzed as occurring during a single calendar 

year. Operational emissions would be produced during all calendar years following the 

construction and demolition year. Construction and demolition and operational emissions from 

the Proposed Action would be below the de minimis thresholds for all criteria pollutants except 

NOx; therefore, impacts from these pollutants would be minor. NOx emissions from operation 

activities were carried forward for additional review to determine if it may interfere with the 

state's ability to maintain the NAAQS in this region. 

Table 3-5. Annual Emissions Compared to De Minimis Thresholds - Proposed Action

Activity/Source CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

De 

Minimis

Threshold 

[tpy]

Exceeds 

De Minimis

Thresholds?

[Yes/No]

Construction & Demolition

Year 8.8 12.2 16.5 <0.1 39.5 0.6 100 No

Operations Years 88.0 136.5 7.3 9.6 1.3 1.2 100 Yes, NOx only. 

Source: USAF 2017a

Estimated NOx emissions from the operational component of the Proposed Action were 

compared to the most recent Spokane County emissions inventory (2014) to determine their 

potential to contribute to an exceedance of the NO2 NAAQS. The total NOx emissions in 

Spokane County was 14,063 tons in 2014, and the NOx emissions from the operational 

component of the Proposed Action would be 1.0 percent of those county-wide emissions 

(136.5/14,063 × 100 = 1.0 percent) (USEPA 2014a). Spokane County has been designated as 

unclassifiable/attainment for NO2, and the concentrations of NO2 are expected to be so much 

less than the NAAQS that they are not even monitored in the area. Therefore, these NOx

emissions would not interfere with the state's ability to maintain the NO2 NAAQS in this region.

NOx (and VOC) emissions are precursors to the formation of O3. The fourth-highest maximum 

O3 levels in the Spokane region are slightly below the 8-hour O3 NAAQS of 0.07 parts per 

million (ppm). For example, the Cheney air monitoring station, located approximately 15 miles 

southeast of Fairchild AFB, recorded the fourth-highest O3 concentrations in 2016, 2015, and 

2014 at 0.053, 0.066, and 0.060 ppm, respectively (USEPA 2018b). Assuming the 1.0 percent 

increase from the operational component of the Proposed Action is applied to the 2016-

monitored value, the concentration would increase from 0.053 to 0.054 ppm and continue to be 

below the 0.07 ppm standard. Therefore, it is not expected that NOx emissions would interfere 

with the state's ability to maintain the 8-hour O3 NAAQS in this region.

In summary, air emissions from the Proposed Action would occur within an attainment area. 

The operational component of the Proposed Action would introduce NOx emissions greater than 

the general conformity de minimis levels and equal to approximately 1.0 percent of the total 

emissions of Spokane County. However, these emissions would not interfere with the state's 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-8 

ability to maintain the NAAQS or lead to a violation of any federal, state, or local air quality 

regulation. 

Regulatory Review. No new stationary sources of air emissions are part of the Proposed 

Action at this time; therefore, no air permitting requirements are necessary. Some minor new 

stationary source emissions, such as emergency generators and boilers and heaters, might

become necessary in the future. Any new stationary sources of air emissions would fully 

comply with SRCAA permitting requirements. In addition, SRCAA Regulation I outlines other 

non-permitting requirements, such as controlling fugitive dust and open burning. All persons 

responsible for any operation, process, handling, transportation, or storage facility that could 

result in fugitive dust would take reasonable precautions to prevent such dust from becoming 

airborne. Reasonable precautions might include using water to control dust from road grading 

or land clearing. The Proposed Action would proceed in full compliance with current SRCAA

Regulation I requirements with compliant practices and products. Examples of such 

requirements include the following:

Outdoor burning (SRCAA Regulation I, Article VI, 6.01)

Particulate matter; preventing particulate matter from becoming airborne (SRCAA 

Regulation I, Article VI, 6.05)

Standards for controlling particulate matter on paved surfaces (SRCAA Regulation I, 

Article VI, 6.14)

Standards for controlling particulate matter on unpaved surfaces (SRCAA Regulation I, 

Article VI, 6.15).

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. This EA examines greenhouse gases (GHGs) as a 

category of air emissions. Issues of temperature and precipitation trends are evaluated to 

determine if the Proposed Action and alternatives would be affected by climate change. This 

EA does not attempt to measure the actual incremental impacts of GHG emissions from the 

Proposed Action and alternatives because there is a lack of consensus on how to measure such 

impacts. 

Changes in GHG emissions from the Proposed Action would primarily come from the fuel used 

during KC-135 operations. The Proposed Action would result in a minute increase in annual 

carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions as compared to current global, nationwide, and 

statewide emissions (see Table 3-6). The impacts of such a small increase in GHG emissions 

would be negligible. The Proposed Action would also have 44 percent fewer GHG emissions 

than the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Washington is in the northwestern climate region of the United States and is beginning to 

experience changes in the timing of streamflow, changing snowmelt, and reduced supply of 

water. The sensitivity of agriculture in the northwest to climate change stems from its 

dependence on irrigation water; a specific range of temperatures, precipitation, and growing 

seasons; and the sensitivity of crops to temperature extremes. Average annual temperatures 

during the last century across the northwest increased by almost 1.3°F, and precipitation 

generally increased (NCA 2014a).
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-9 

Table 3-6. Annual GHG Emissions - Proposed Action

Scale CO2e Emissions (MMT) Percent Increase from Proposed Action

Global 43,125 0.00006

United States 6,870 0.0004

Washington 76.0 0.04

Proposed Action 0.028 - 

Sources: USEIA 2018, USAF 2017a

Key: MMT = million metric tons.

Table 3-7 outlines potential climate stressors and their impacts on the Proposed Action. The 

operational activities at Fairchild AFB in and of themselves are only indirectly dependent on any 

of the elements associated with future climate scenarios (e.g., meteorological changes). At this 

time, no future climate scenario or potential climate stressor would have appreciable impacts on 

any element of the Proposed Action. 

Table 3-7. Impacts of Potential Climate Stressors on the Proposed Action

Potential Climate Stressor Impacts on the Proposed Action

Changing stream flow and snow melt Negligible

Longer fire seasons and more severe wildfires Negligible

Changes in precipitation patterns Negligible

Increase in temperature Negligible

Harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife, ecosystems Negligible

Source: NCA 2014a

3.1.3.2 MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

The MacDill AFB Alternative would have short-term, minor and long-term, moderate adverse 

impacts on air quality. Short-term impacts would be from fugitive dust and equipment exhaust 

generated by heavy equipment during construction and demolition. Long-term impacts would 

be from increases in aircraft operations, ground support equipment, aircraft maintenance, new 

personnel, and heating of proposed buildings (i.e., operational activities). 

Because the MacDill AFB Alternative is within an area that is in full attainment for the NAAQS, 

the general conformity rules do not apply. Although the general conformity rules do not apply, 

the general conformity de minimis thresholds were used as significance indicators to determine 

the level of impacts under NEPA and if additional analysis would be required.

The ACAM was used to estimate air emissions from the MacDill AFB Alternative (see 

Appendix B). Table 3-8 lists total direct and indirect annual emissions resulting from the 

MacDill AFB Alternative. All construction and demolition activities have been analyzed as 

occurring during a single calendar year. Operational emissions would be produced during all 

calendar years following the construction and demolition year. Construction and demolition 

emissions from the MacDill AFB Alternative would be below the de minimis thresholds for all 

criteria pollutants. Operational emissions from the MacDill AFB Alternative would be below the 

de minimis thresholds for all criteria pollutants except CO and NOx. Therefore, impacts from 

emissions of all criteria pollutants except CO and NOx would be minor. CO and NOx emissions 

from operational activities were carried forward for additional review to determine if they may 

interfere with the state's ability to maintain the NAAQS in this region. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-10

Table 3-8. Annual Emissions Compared to De Minimis Thresholds - MacDill AFB Alternative 

Activity/Source CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

De 

Minimis

Threshold 

[tpy]

Exceeds 

De Minimis

Thresholds? 

[Yes/No]

Construction & Demolition

Year 7.9 10.9 39.3 <0.1 57.6 0.5 100 No

Operations Years 164.5 255.7 13.8 17.9 2.5 2.4 100 Yes, CO and 

NOx only.

Source: USAF 2017a

Estimated CO emissions from the operational component of the MacDill AFB Alternative were 

compared to the most recent Hillsborough County emissions inventory (2014) to determine their 

potential to contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS. The total CO emissions in Hillsborough 

County was 193,332 tons in 2014, and the CO emissions from the operational component of the 

MacDill AFB Alternative would be 0.1 percent of those county-wide emissions (164.5/193,332 × 

100 = 0.1 percent) (USEPA 2014a). Exceedances of the CO NAAQS are normally localized 

and near the emission source. Most CO emissions from the MacDill AFB Alternative would be 

from aircraft operations, not at ground level, and readily dispersed. Given that the county is in 

attainment for the CO NAAQS by a wide margin as indicated in Table 3-3 and the CO 

emissions would be readily dispersed, the MacDill AFB Alternative would not interfere with the 

state's ability to maintain the CO NAAQS in this region.

Estimated NOx emissions from the operational component of the MacDill AFB Alternative were 

compared to the most recent Hillsborough County emissions inventory (Calendar Year 2014) to 

determine their potential to contribute to an exceedance of the NO2 NAAQS. The total NOx

emissions in Hillsborough County was 31,474 tons in 2014, and the NOx emissions from the 

operational component of the MacDill AFB Alternative would be 0.8 percent of those countywide emissions (255.7/31,474 × 100 = 0.8 percent) (USEPA 2014a). Given that the county is in 

attainment for the NO2 NAAQS by a wide margin as indicated in Table 3-3, NOx emissions 

would not interfere with the state's ability to maintain the NO2 NAAQS in this region. 

NOx (and VOC) emissions are precursors to the formation of O3. The fourth-highest maximum 

O3 levels in the Hillsborough County region are slightly below the 8-hour O3 NAAQS of 0.07 

ppm. For example, the Grandy Boulevard, Tampa air monitoring station, located approximately 

four miles northwest of MacDill AFB, recorded the fourth-highest O3 concentrations in 2016, 

2015, and 2014 at 0.067, 0.066, and 0.066 ppm, respectively (USEPA 2018b). Assuming the 

0.8 percent increase from the operational component of the MacDill AFB Alternative is applied 

to the 2016-monitored value, the concentration would increase from 0.067 to 0.068 ppm and 

continue to be below the 0.070 ppm standard. Therefore, it is not expected that NOx emissions 

would interfere with the state's ability to maintain the 8-hour O3 NAAQS in this region. 

In summary, air emissions from the MacDill AFB Alternative would occur within an attainment 

area. The operational component of the MacDill AFB Alternative would introduce CO and NOx

emissions greater than the general conformity de minimis levels and equal to approximately 0.1 

and 0.8 percent of the total respective emissions of Hillsborough County. However, these 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-11

emissions would not interfere with the state's ability to maintain the NAAQS or lead to a violation 

of any federal, state, or local air quality regulation. 

Regulatory Review. No new stationary sources of air emissions are part of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative at this time; therefore, no air permitting requirements are necessary. Some minor 

new stationary source emissions, such as back-up generators and boilers and heaters, might

become necessary in the future. Any new stationary sources of air emissions would fully 

comply with FDEP permitting requirements. In addition, the Florida Administrative Code (FAC)

outlines other non-permitting requirements, such as controlling fugitive dust and open burning. 

All persons responsible for any operation, process, handling, transportation, or storage facility 

that could result in fugitive dust would take reasonable precautions to prevent such dust from 

becoming airborne. Reasonable precautions might include using water to control dust from 

building construction, road grading, or land clearing. The MacDill AFB Alternative would 

proceed in full compliance with current FAC requirements, with compliant practices and 

products. These requirements include the following:

Air Pollution Control – General Provisions (62-204 FAC)

Particulate Matter Emissions (62-296 FAC)

Open Burning (62-256 FAC)

Gasoline Vapor Control (62-252 FAC).

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. Changes in GHG emissions from the MacDill AFB 

Alternative would primarily come from the fuel used during KC-135 operations. The MacDill 

AFB Alternative would result in a minute increase in annual CO2e emissions as compared to 

current global, nationwide, and statewide GHG emissions (see Table 3-9). The impacts of such 

a small increase in GHG emissions would be negligible. The MacDill AFB Alternative would 

also have 44 percent greater GHG emissions than the Proposed Action. 

Table 3-9. Annual GHG Emissions - MacDill AFB Alternative

Scale CO2e Emissions (MMT) Percent Increase from the 

MacDill AFB Alternative

Global 43,125 0.0001

United States 6,870 0.0007

Florida 231.4 0.02

MacDill AFB Alternative 0.050 - 

Sources: USEIA 2018, USAF 2017a 

Key: MMT = million metric tons.

Florida is in the southeastern climate region of the United States, where climate change leaves 

this area exceptionally vulnerable to sea level rise, extreme heat events, hurricanes, and 

decreased water availability. The geographic distribution of these impacts and vulnerabilities is 

uneven because the region encompasses a wide range of natural system types from the 

Appalachian Mountains to the coastal plains. Temperatures increased from 1970 to the present 

by an average of 2°F with higher average temperatures during summer months. The number of 

category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic basin has increased substantially since the early 

1980s compared to the historical record that dates back to the mid-1880s. Sea level rise is 

projected to increase resulting in major damage as wind-driven waves ride upon higher seas 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-12

and reach farther inland. Flooding and erosion in coastal areas will increase with sea level rise 

and will damage some coastal areas during storms and extreme high tides (NCA 2014b).

Table 3-10 outlines potential climate stressors and their impacts on the MacDill AFB Alternative. 

The operational activities at MacDill AFB in and of themselves are only indirectly dependent on 

any of the elements associated with future climate scenarios (e.g., meteorological changes). At 

this time, no future climate scenario or potential climate stressor would have appreciable 

impacts on any element of the MacDill AFB Alternative with exception to KC-135 operations 

possibly being temporarily relocated to other installations during and immediately following 

flooding and hurricanes events at MacDill AFB. 

Table 3-10. Impacts of Potential Climate Stressors on the MacDill AFB Alternative

Potential Climate Stressor Impacts on the MacDill AFB 

Alternative

More frequent and intense heat waves Negligible

Sea-level rise Minor

Changes in precipitation patterns Negligible

Increase in hurricanes Minor

Harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife, ecosystems Negligible

Source: NCA 2014b

3.1.3.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative would result in no impacts on air quality because neither the 

Proposed Action nor the MacDill AFB Alternative would be implemented. No facility 

construction, demolition, or renovation would be undertaken, and there would be no changes in 

aircraft operations. Air quality conditions would remain unchanged when compared to existing 

conditions at both installations and as described in Sections 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.2.2. 

3.2 Biological Resources (Terrestrial) 

3.2.1 Definition of the Resource

Biological resources include native or naturalized plants and animals and the habitats 

(e.g., grasslands, forests, wetlands) in which they exist. Protected and sensitive biological 

resources include Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species (threatened or endangered) 

and those proposed for ESA-listing as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) (terrestrial and freshwater organisms) and migratory birds. Migratory birds are 

protected species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Sensitive habitats include those 

areas designated or proposed by USFWS or NMFS as critical habitat protected by the ESA and 

as sensitive ecological areas designated by state or other federal rulings. Sensitive habitats 

also include wetlands, plant communities that are unusual or limited in distribution, and 

important seasonal use areas for wildlife (e.g., migration routes, breeding areas, crucial summer 

and winter habitats).

The ESA (16 USC § 1531 et seq.) establishes a federal program to protect and recover 

imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA requires federal 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-13

agencies, in consultation with USFWS, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out 

are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. Under the 

ESA, “jeopardy” occurs when an action is reasonably expected, directly or indirectly, to diminish 

numbers, reproduction, or distribution of a species so that the likelihood of survival and recovery 

in the wild is appreciably reduced. An “endangered species” is defined by the ESA as any 

species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A “threatened 

species” is defined by the ESA as any species likely to become an endangered species in the 

foreseeable future. The ESA also prohibits any action that causes a “take” of any listed animal. 

“Take” is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect 

or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Listed plants are not protected from take, although 

it is illegal to collect or maliciously harm them on federal land. 

Critical habitat is designated if USFWS or NMFS determines that the habitat is essential to the 

conservation of a threatened or endangered species. Federal agencies must ensure that their 

activities do not adversely modify designated critical habitat to the point that it will no longer aid 

in the species’ recovery. 

In Washington state, special-status species are listed by the Washington Fish and Wildlife 

Commission under the provisions of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Rule 232-12-297 

(Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Wildlife Species Classification). The Washington 

Natural Heritage Program tracks rare vascular plant species in the state.

In Florida, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission oversees the protection and 

management of state-protected fauna under the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species 

Act (Florida Statute 372.072). Within the FAC, protection is provided to endangered species 

(68A-27.003 FAC), threatened species (68A-27.004 FAC), and species of special concern (68A27.005 FAC). The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services maintains the 

state list of plants designated as endangered, threatened, and commercially exploited (5B-40 

FAC) as defined under Florida Statute 581.185(2).

The MBTA of 1918 (16 USC 703–712), as amended, and EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, require federal agencies to minimize or avoid impacts on 

migratory birds. Unless otherwise permitted by regulations, the MBTA makes it unlawful to (or 

attempt to) pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill any migratory bird, nest, or egg. Federal agencies 

with activities that that could have measurable negative impacts on migratory birds are directed 

by EO 13186 to develop and implement a Memorandum of Understanding with USFWS to

promote the conservation of migratory bird populations.

Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

(BGEPA), which prohibits the “take” of bald or golden eagles in the United States without a 50 

CFR § 22.26 permit. BGEPA defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, 

capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb.” For purposes of these guidelines, “disturb” means “to 

agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause: (1) injury 

to an eagle; (2) a decrease in its productivity by substantially interfering with normal breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering behavior; or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-14

covers impacts that result from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used 

nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle’s return, such alterations 

agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, 

or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death, or nest abandonment.

3.2.2 Affected Environment 

3.2.2.1 FAIRCHILD AFB

Vegetation. Fairchild AFB covers approximately 5,800 acres, and approximately 2,800 acres 

are improved and semi-improved areas primarily found in the northern portion of the installation. 

Approximately 1,400 acres in the northeast corner and southern portion of the installation are 

generally unimproved areas and are covered with open non-native grass fields, wetlands, 

Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) thicket, scattered ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) 

stands, native grassland with some invasive plants, and shrub fields. Much of the unimproved 

portions are dominated by pasture grasses and weeds, although some aggressive native 

species might be present. Most of the vegetation along the Fairchild AFB airfield falls in this 

category. Vegetation near the runway is managed to minimize avian use in accordance with the 

Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Reduction Plan (Fairchild AFB 2012b).

The areas of the Proposed Action (i.e., areas proposed for facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation under the Proposed Action) occur within semi-improved, improved, BASH/airfield, 

and vegetative bed land cover types. This vegetation is regularly maintained and landscaped, 

and the grounds are not considered natural vegetation areas. Vegetation within the airfield is 

maintained and mowed in accordance with the BASH plan to minimize bird/aircraft strikes.

Wildlife. In general, most unimproved wildlife habitat at Fairchild AFB occurs in the southern 

portion of the installation in the area that contains a mixture of disturbed and semi-native 

wetlands. This area provides habitat suitable for wildlife such as hawks, owls, deer, songbirds, 

waterfowl, and upland birds. The areas of the Proposed Action do not occur within unimproved 

habitat.

In semi-improved or improved areas, where the Proposed Action would occur, common bird 

species include American robin (Turdus migratorius), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), 

and purple finch (Haemorhous purpureus). Seasonal water in drainage ditches and open fields 

near the airfield provide limited habitat value to wildlife. Airfield grassland areas provide suitable 

habitat for herptiles including salamanders (Ambystoma spp.), frogs (Rana spp.), and snakes 

(Thamnophis spp. and Crotalus spp.) However, vegetation in this area is managed to minimize 

avian use in accordance with the BASH Reduction Plan (Fairchild AFB 2012b).

Protected and Sensitive Species. There are four federally listed and ten state-listed species 

that are known to occur or could potentially occur on Fairchild AFB. The list of special status 

species was developed based on data provided in the 2012 Fairchild AFB Installation Natural 

Resources Management Plan and information obtained from the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Washington Natural Heritage Program, and the USFWS Information for 

Planning and Consultation report generated for the installation (Fairchild AFB 2012b, WDFW 

2017, WNHP 2017, USFWS 2018a). Table 3-11 presents the list of special status species that 

could occur on Fairchild AFB and includes the federal and state status and notes on habitat for 

each.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-15

Table 3-11. Protected and Sensitive Species Occurring On or Near Fairchild AFB 

Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Notes

Birds

American white 

pelican 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos

ST Breeds primarily on isolated islands in freshwater 

lakes and rivers and forages in shallow areas of inland 

marshes, lakes, and rivers. No suitable habitat in the 

areas of the Proposed Action.

Common loon Gavia immer SS Prefers lakes with coves and islands. In their winter 

range along ocean coasts, they occur close to shore 

and in bays and estuaries. Some winter inland on 

large reservoirs and slow-moving rivers. No suitable 

habitat in the areas of the Proposed Action.

Sharp-tailed 

grouse 

Tympanuchus 

phasianellus 

ST Inhabits shrub/meadow steppe. No suitable habitat in 

the areas of the Proposed Action but individuals could 

migrate through.

Ferruginous 

hawk

Buteo regalis ST Inhabits shrub-steppe and grassland regions of 

several eastern Washington counties. Nests on cliffs, 

high bluffs, utility towers, trees, or on the ground. No

suitable habitat in the areas of the Proposed Action but 

individuals could migrate through.

Upland sandpiper Bartramia 

longicauda

SE Inhabits grasslands and agricultural areas where grain 

crops, alfalfa, and grazed pastures predominate. 

There have been no records since 1993. No suitable 

habitat in the areas of the Proposed Action.

Yellow-billed 

cuckoo – 

Western U.S. 

Distinct 

Population 

Segment

Coccyzus 

americanus

FT Prefers open lowland deciduous woodlands with 

clearings and shrubby vegetation near rivers and 

streams. No suitable habitat in the areas of the 

Proposed Action.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Northern leopard 

frog

Rana pipens SE Inhabits hay fields and grassy woodlands. Requires 

permanent deep water for overwintering close to 

seasonal ponds and wetlands for breeding. No 

suitable habitat in the areas of the Proposed Action.

Fishes

Bull trout Salvelinus 

confluentus

FT Needs cold water to survive and requires stable 

stream channels, clean spawning and rearing gravel, 

complex and diverse cover, and unblocked migratory 

corridors. No suitable habitat in the areas of the 

Proposed Action.

Plants

American 

pillwort1

Pilularia 

americana

ST Inhabits vernal pools. No suitable habitat in the areas 

of the Proposed Action.

Austin’s 

knotweed

Polygonum 

austiniae

ST Inhabits shrub-steppe ponderosa pine. No suitable 

habitat in the areas of the Proposed Action.

Inch-high rush1 Juncus uncialis ST Inhabits vernal pools, channel scablands, swales, and 

moist areas. No suitable habitat in the areas of the 

Proposed Action.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-16

Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Notes

Plants (continued)

Mousetail1 Myosurus 

laevicaulis

ST Obligate vernal pool species found on hard, bare, 

desiccated clay in sparsely vegetated areas of shallow 

pools. No suitable habitat in the areas of the 

Proposed Action.

Spalding’s 

catchfly1 

Silene spaldingi FT Inhabits open native grasslands with a minor shrub 

component, occasionally with scattered conifers. No 

suitable habitat in the areas of the Proposed Action.

Water howellia Howellia 

aquatilis

FT Inhabits wetlands within forested flat elevated land 

deeply scarred by channels. No suitable habitat in the 

areas of the Proposed Action.

Sources: Fairchild AFB 2012b, WDFW 2017, WNHP 2017, USFWS 2018a

Key: FT = federally threatened, SE = state-listed as endangered, ST = state-listed as threatened, 

SS = state sensitive. 

Note: 1 Species documented on Fairchild AFB.

Federally listed species include Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii) and water howellia 

(Howellia aquatilis) plant species, yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), and bull trout 

(Salvelinus confluentus). There is no designated or proposed critical habitat for any federally 

threatened or endangered species on the installation (USFWS 2018a). No native bunchgrass 

habitat for the federally listed Spalding’s catchfly and no suitable wetland habitat for water 

howellia occur within or near the areas of the Proposed Action. The Spalding’s catchfly has 

only been observed in the southern portion of the installation and water howellia has never been 

observed on Fairchild AFB. The yellow-billed cuckoo is an avian species strongly associated 

with shrubby vegetation near rivers and streams. This habitat does not occur within or near the 

areas of the Proposed Action. Because there is no fish habitat on Fairchild AFB, the bull trout 

has been eliminated from further consideration in this EA. 

There is no suitable habitat in the areas of the Proposed Action for any of the state-listed plants. 

Other state-listed species with no suitable habitat within the areas of the Proposed Action

include: American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), upland sandpiper (Bartramia 

longicauda), common loon (Gavia immer), and northern leopard frog (Rana pipens). Statelisted bird species that could migrate through the areas of the Proposed Action include the 

sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), and ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis). 

3.2.2.2 MACDILL AFB

Vegetation. Institutional areas comprise approximately 3,500 acres of the approximately 5,690-

acres of MacDill AFB. With the exception of ditches and smaller watercourses, the areas of the 

MacDill AFB Alternative (i.e., areas proposed for facility construction, demolition, and renovation 

under the MacDill AFB Alternative) are classified as institutional (improved and semi-improved) 

and BASH/Airfield. Vegetation in institutional and BASH/Airfield areas is a mixture of St.

Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum) and bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) lawns and 

fields, landscaping, and xeriscaping (MacDill AFB 2011a). Vegetation within the airfield is 

maintained and mowed in accordance with the BASH plan to minimize bird/aircraft strikes.

Wildlife. MacDill AFB is mostly urban with small tracts of wildlands limiting its use by animals

that require large home ranges. Native wildlife habitat quality has been degraded because of 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-17

historic fire protection measures and non-native plant invasion. According to the 1992 MacDill 

Air Force Base Wildlife Survey, six habitat types are present on the installation including: paved 

runway and taxiways, mowed lawn areas; slash pine plantations; pine flatwoods; mixed pine 

and oak woodlands; creeks, bays and lagoons, dredged channels; and mangroves and high 

marsh (MacDill AFB 2017c).

The habitat of the institutional and BASH/airfield areas within or adjacent to the areas of the 

MacDill AFB Alternative provide limited food and cover for commonly occurring animals such as 

squirrels, rabbits, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), armadillos (Dasypus 

novemcinctus), raccoons (Procyon lotor), and opossums (Didelphis virginiana).

Protected and Sensitive Species. More than 30 federally and state-listed species have been 

identified as possibly occurring on or near MacDill AFB. The list of special status species was 

developed based on data provided in the MacDill AFB Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan, information obtained from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, and the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation report generated for 

the installation (MacDill AFB 2017c, FFWCC 2017, USFWS 2018b). Table 3-12 lists these 

species along with other protected species that could occur on MacDill AFB.

Seventeen federally listed species have the potential to occur near MacDill AFB including: West 

Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), piping 

plover (Charadrius melodus), red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), red-cockaded woodpecker 

(Picoides borealis), wood stork (Mycteria americana), American alligator (Alligator 

mississippiensis), Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), hawksbill sea turtle 

(Eretmochelys imbricata), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead sea turtle 

(Caretta caretta), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

[=oxyrhynchus] desotoi), Brooksville bellflower (Campanula robinsiae), Florida bonamia 

(Bonamia grandiflora), Florida golden aster (Chrysopsis floridana), and pygmy fringe-tree 

(Chionanthus pygmaeus) (MacDill AFB 2013, MacDill AFB 2017c, FFWCC 2017, USFWS 

2018b). 

USFWS has not designated any portion of MacDill AFB as critical habitat for the federally listed 

species (USFWS 2018b). 

Of the federally listed species, there is no suitable habitat within or near the areas of the MacDill 

AFB Alternative for the West Indian manatee, sea turtles, or Atlantic sturgeon. The Florida 

scrub jay and the red-cockaded woodpecker have not been documented on MacDill AFB and 

there is no suitable habitat there (MacDill AFB 2017c, MacDill AFB 2013). The American 

alligator is relocated off-installation when encountered and because 50 CFR 17.42(a)(2)(i) 

allows for take of the American alligator by DoD when acting in the course of official duties. No 

threatened or endangered plant species have been documented on MacDill AFB; therefore, the 

Brooksville bellflower, Florida bonamia, Florida golden aster, and pygmy fringe-tree are not 

expected to occur there. These species are not further considered in this EA. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-18

Table 3-12. Protected and Sensitive Species Occurring On or Near MacDill AFB

Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Notes

Mammals

Sherman’s fox 

squirrel

Sciurus niger 

shermani

SSC Prefers pine flatwood habitat. No suitable habitat in 

the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.

West Indian 

manatee1

Trichechus 

manatus

FT Summer range in Tampa Bay and tributaries. No 

suitable habitat in the areas of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative.

Birds

Scott’s seaside 

sparrow

Ammodramus 

maritimus 

peninsulae

ST Primarily inhabits tidal marshes in Florida. No 

suitable habitat in the areas of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative; however, could occur within airspace.

Florida scrub jay Aphelocoma 

coerulescens

FT Florida oak scrub and scrubby flatwoods found on 

prehistoric and current sand dunes. No suitable 

habitat in the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Burrowing owl1 Athene 

cunicularia

ST Nests in open, mowed areas. Suitable habitat 

occurs near the areas of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative.

Rufa red knot1 Calidris canutus 

rufa

FT Uses relatively undisturbed sandy beaches and tidal 

flats. No suitable habitat in the areas of the MacDill 

AFB Alternative; however, could occur within 

airspace.

Snowy plover Charadrius 

alexandrinus 

ST Occurs along shorelines in winter. Observed along 

the shoreline at the MacDill AFB Family 

Campground in 2016. No suitable habitat in the 

areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative; however, 

could occur within airspace.

Piping plover1 Charadrius 

melodus

FT Occurs along shorelines in winter. No suitable 

habitat in the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative; 

however, could occur within airspace.

Little blue heron1 Egretta caerulea ST Common along shorelines, ditches, and mangroves. 

No suitable habitat in the areas of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative; however, could occur within airspace.

Reddish egret1 Egretta rufescens ST Prefers shorelines, sandbars, and shallow salt 

ponds. No suitable habitat in the areas of the 

MacDill AFB Alternative; however, could occur 

within airspace.

Tricolored heron1 Egretta tricolor ST Common along shorelines, ditches, and mangroves. 

No suitable habitat in the areas of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative; however, could occur within airspace.

Southeastern 

American kestrel1

Falco sparverius 

paulus

ST Prefers open stands of mature pines. No suitable 

habitat in the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Florida sandhill 

crane1

Grus canadensis 

pratensis

ST Inhabits freshwater marshes, prairies, and pastures. 

No suitable habitat in the areas of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative.

American 

oystercatcher1

Haematopus 

palliatus

ST Prefers coastal shorelines, sandbars, and tidal flats. 

No suitable habitat in the areas of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative; however, could occur within airspace.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-19

Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Notes

Birds (continued)

Bald eagle1 Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

BGEPA Potential for foraging and nesting on the installation. 

No suitable habitat in the areas of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative.

Wood stork1 Mycteria 

americana

FT Occurs regularly in freshwater and estuarine 

wetlands. No suitable habitat in the areas of the 

MacDill AFB Alternative; however, could occur 

within airspace.

Red-cockaded 

woodpecker

Picoides borealis FE Prefers longleaf pine stands, occasionally slash 

pines. No suitable habitat in the areas of the 

MacDill AFB Alternative.

Roseate spoonbill1 Platalea ajaja ST Forages and roosts along shorelines and mangrove 

systems. No suitable habitat in the areas of the 

MacDill AFB Alternative; however, could occur 

within airspace.

Black skimmer1 Rynchops niger ST Prefers open sandy beaches. No suitable habitat in 

the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative; however, 

could occur within airspace.

Least tern1 Sterna antillarum ST Forages in drainage ditches and ponds on the 

installation. No suitable habitat in the areas of the 

MacDill AFB Alternative.

Reptiles and Amphibians

American alligator1 Alligator 

mississippiensis

FT (S/A) Found occasionally and relocated off installation. 

No suitable habitat in the areas of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative.

Atlantic 

loggerhead sea 

turtle1

Caretta caretta FT Uses beach areas for nesting. No suitable habitat in 

the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas FT Uses beach areas for nesting. No suitable habitat in 

the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Leatherback sea 

turtle

Dermochelys 

coriacea

FE Uses beach areas for nesting. No suitable habitat in 

the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Eastern indigo 

snake

Drymarchon 

corais couperi

FT Occurs in woody uplands bordering mangroves. 

Suitable habitat occurs near the areas of the MacDill 

AFB Alternative.

Hawksbill sea 

turtle

Eretmochelys 

imbricata

FE Uses beach areas for nesting. No suitable habitat in 

the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Gopher tortoise1 Gopherus 

polyphemus

FC, ST Occurs in recently burned pine flatwoods. Suitable 

habitat occurs near the areas of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative.

Short-tailed snake Lampropeltis 

extenuata

ST Prefers xeric pine flatwoods. Suitable habitat occurs 

near the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Florida pine snake Pituophis 

melanoleucus 

mugitus

ST Prefers xeric pine flatwoods. Suitable habitat occurs 

near the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-20

Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Notes

Fishes

Atlantic sturgeon 

(gulf subspecies) 

Acipenser 

oxyrinchus 

(=oxyrhynchus) 

desotoi

FT Occurs in most major river systems from Mississippi 

River to Suwannee River (Florida) and marine 

waters of Central and Eastern Gulf of Mexico south 

to Florida Bay. No suitable habitat in the areas of 

the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Plants and Lichens

Brooksville 

bellflower

Campanula 

robinsiae

FE Generally found in pond margins, wet prairies, or 

seepage areas in hardwood forests. No suitable 

habitat in the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Florida bonamia Bonamia 

grandiflora

FT Generally found in white sand scrub associated with 

scrub oaks and sand pine. No suitable habitat in the 

areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Florida golden 

aster

Chrysopsis 

floridana

FE Generally found in sand pine scrub. No suitable 

habitat in the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Pygmy fringe-tree Chionanthus 

pygmaeus

FE Generally found in the xeric, coarse white sand of 

scrub/oak scrub. No suitable habitat in the areas of 

the MacDill AFB Alternative. 

Sea oats1 Uniola paniculata NL2 Generally found in coastal sand dunes. No suitable 

habitat in the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative. 

Sea grapes1 Coccoloba 

uvifera

NL2 Generally found in coastal sand dunes. No suitable 

habitat in the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Sources: MacDill AFB 2013, MacDill AFB 2017c, FFWCC 2017, USFWS 2018b 

Key: C = Candidate species (Federal designation); E = Endangered; F = Federal; NL = Not listed; S = State; SSC = 

Species of special concern (state designation); T = Threatened; T (S/A) = Threatened due to similarity of appearance 

Notes:

1 Species documented on MacDill AFB.

2 Sea oats and sea grapes are not federally or state-listed species but are protected under Florida Statute 161.242.

Most of the listed species are associated with shoreline areas and the mangrove community

and would not be expected to occur within or near the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative (see 

Habitat Notes in Table 3-12); however, some listed species could occur within the installation’s 

airspace. These federally listed species include the red knot, piping plover, and wood stork. 

State-listed species that could occur in the airspace include Scott’s seaside sparrow 

(Ammodramus maritimus peninsulae), snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), little blue heron

(Egretta caerulea), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), 

American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus), roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), and black 

skimmer (Rynchops niger).

No threatened or endangered plant species have been documented on MacDill AFB; however, 

MacDill AFB has sea oats (Uniola paniculata) and sea grapes (Coccoloba uvifera) on its 

shoreline, which are protected under Florida Statutes 161.242. The areas of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative do not include the shoreline areas; therefore, these species are not further 

considered in this EA. 

The following listed species could occur in burrows adjacent to the areas of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), Florida 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-21

pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus), short-tailed snake (Stilosoma extenuatum), and 

the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi). 

The burrowing owl is considered a resident on MacDill AFB. According to a 2011–2012 survey, 

the burrowing owl population is estimated at 12 adults although there might be more individuals 

during the peak of the nesting season. There were 31 active and 26 inactive owl burrows within 

the boundaries of the airfield at that time (MacDill AFB 2012a). There are no burrowing owls 

within the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative; however, there are documented burrows along 

the western airfield areas.

The gopher tortoise is also a resident of MacDill AFB. This species prefers dry upland habitats 

including sandhills and pine flatwoods but is also found in human-altered environments. There 

are approximately 162 active, 31 inactive, and 17 abandoned gopher tortoise burrows in the 

unimproved, grassy areas on the flightline, and they also occur in smaller numbers in other 

locations on the installation (MacDill AFB 2012a). Based on the number of burrows found in the 

2011–2012 survey, there could be as many as 119 gopher tortoises on MacDill AFB. 

The Florida pine snake, short-tailed snake, and the eastern indigo snake could occur on MacDill 

AFB in association with gopher tortoise habitat. These species of snake also benefits from 

management of gopher tortoise habitat; however, they have never been observed on the 

installation (MacDill AFB 2017c, MacDill AFB 2012a).

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences

The biological resources analysis discusses impacts from facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation and aircraft operations on vegetation, wildlife, and protected and sensitive species 

from the Proposed Action and alternatives. For vegetation and wildlife, each species has 

unique, fundamental needs for food, shelter, water, and space and can be sustained only where 

their specific combination of habitat requirements are available. Removal of sustaining 

elements of a species’ habitat impacts its ability to exist. Therefore, the evaluation of impacts 

on wildlife and vegetation is based on whether the action would cause habitat displacement 

resulting in reduced feeding or reproduction, removal of critical habitat for sensitive species, 

and/or behavioral avoidance of available habitat as a result of noise or human disturbance. The 

level of impacts on biological resources is based on (1) the importance (i.e., legal, commercial, 

recreational, ecological, or scientific) of the resource, (2) the proportion of the resource that 

would be affected relative to its occurrence in the region, (3) the sensitivity of the resource to the 

proposed activities, and (4) the duration of ecological ramifications. Impacts on biological 

resources are considered significant if species or special habitats are adversely affected over 

large areas, or disturbances cause reductions in population size or distribution of a species of 

special concern.

3.2.3.1 PROPOSED ACTION

Vegetation. Short- and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on vegetation would 

occur. Short-term impacts would occur from temporary disturbance of vegetation from the use 

of heavy equipment and may include trampling and soil compaction. Areas of temporary ground 

disturbance would be reseeded with native vegetation. Permanent removal of vegetation and 

trees at new construction sites would create long-term impacts from permanent reduction in 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-22

vegetation cover on the installation. The areas of the Proposed Action are already highly 

disturbed from ongoing routine maintenance and landscaping activities and are of low ecological 

value. These areas are not considered natural vegetation areas; therefore, there would be no

impacts on native vegetation.

Wildlife. Short- and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on wildlife would occur. 

Although some birds, small mammals, invertebrates, and other common, small wildlife species 

may use the areas of the Proposed Action for shelter and feeding, the abundance of wildlife in 

these areas is low because vegetation is regularly disturbed and there are few native plant 

species. Additionally, these areas would not overlap the portions of the installation where 

wetlands and higher-value wildlife habitat exists. 

Short-term impacts on wildlife would occur from noise associated with heavy equipment use and 

increased human presence during facility construction, demolition, and renovation. Any 

increase in the frequency or intensity of noise from facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation could temporarily displace wildlife. The proposed construction activities would 

require use of heavy equipment that would generate short-term increases in noise near the 

project sites. Individual pieces of heavy equipment typically generate noise levels of 80 to 90 

dBA at a distance of 50 feet (see Section 3.7). With multiple items of equipment operating 

concurrently, noise levels can be high within several hundred feet of active construction sites. 

Wildlife species would be expected to utilize adjacent suitable habitat during construction and 

would return to the area once the noise from heavy equipment use has ceased. Furthermore, 

wildlife currently inhabiting the areas of the Proposed Action would be habituated to noise 

disturbances because of the existing highly urbanized environment. There could be a small 

increase in the frequency of startle responses or other behavioral modifications caused by the 

Proposed Action.

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on wildlife would occur from the permanent loss of potential 

habitat for wildlife. The loss of habitat would have only minor impacts because the proposed 

construction activities would occur in improved or semi-improved areas that do not provide high 

quality habitat for wildlife species. Removal of dead trees and vegetation, which provide habitat 

for birds and bats, would be permanently lost. BMPs would be followed to the greatest extent 

possible to reduce or avoid impacts. These BMPs would include topping trees or removing 

dead limbs instead of removing the entire tree, leaving as much trunk height as possible, 

creating artificial cavities (nest boxes), and drilling into trees to replace cavities lost during tree 

removal. 

There would be a 33.3 percent increase in KC-135 operations (annually) and a 16.3 percent 

increase in total aircraft operations at Fairchild AFB. Increased aircraft operations could 

increase the potential for BASH interactions. The Fairchild AFB BASH Plan establishes 

procedures and actions to minimize the potential for wildlife strikes. To prevent aircraft strikes 

from raptors, waterfowl, and other migratory birds, Fairchild AFB would continue to implement 

the BASH minimization techniques from the Plan. 

Increases in noise levels or frequencies from aircraft operations could result in a change in bird 

and other wildlife behavior or a decrease in ability to hear. Wildlife living at and near the 

Fairchild AFB runway could be most affected by an increase in the intensity of noise. However, 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-23

birds and other wildlife living below the flight paths at Fairchild AFB are exposed to noise from 

existing operations year round and would likely be habituated to noise disturbances. The most 

likely, detectable response of wildlife to an increase in aircraft operations at Fairchild AFB could 

be a temporary change in behavior, such as flushing or some other startle response. However, 

birds and other wildlife have been documented to become habituated to aircraft overflights and 

other noises after continuous or frequent exposure. Habituation also has been frequently noted 

when using noise-making devices to scare birds away from crops or airfields (Larkin 1996, 

Efroymson et al. 2000).

Over the long term, the increased presence of aircraft and associated operational noise on and 

near the installation from the additional KC-135s would have negligible impacts on wildlife 

populations. Noise levels would increase only marginally on and near the installation. The 

overall noise environment would be comparable to the existing KC-135 mission. Birds and 

other wildlife breeding and foraging on Fairchild AFB currently either avoid loud areas or are 

habituated to the frequent noise from aircraft operations. The Proposed Action would cause a 

slight increase in the frequency of exposure to loud noises, and thus possibly an increase in 

startle responses by nearby wildlife. 

Protected and Sensitive Species. The Proposed Action would result in no effects on the 

following federally listed species: Spalding’s catchfly, water howellia, bull trout, and yellow-billed 

cuckoo. USAF is consulting with USFWS on this determination (see Appendix A). No native 

bunchgrass habitat for the federally listed Spalding’s catchfly and no suitable wetland habitat for 

water howellia occur within or near the areas of the Proposed Action. The Spalding’s catchfly 

has only been observed in the southern portion of the installation and water howellia has never 

been observed on Fairchild AFB. Additionally, the yellow-billed cuckoo is strongly associated 

with shrubby vegetation near rivers and streams. This habitat does not occur within or near the 

areas of the Proposed Action.

The Proposed Action would result in short- and long-term, minor, adverse impacts on statelisted birds migrating through the area. No suitable habitat for state-listed species exists within 

or near areas of the Proposed Action; however, the state-listed sharp-tailed grouse and 

ferruginous hawk could migrate through the area. Noise impacts on the state-listed bird species 

would be similar to those described for wildlife. During aircraft operations, listed and protected 

species living near the airfield could be affected by an increase in the frequency and intensity of 

noise. Protected and sensitive species near Fairchild AFB are currently and have continuously 

been exposed to frequent daily aircraft operations. Therefore, these species likely are 

habituated to aircraft operations and changes in behavior would be temporary and insignificant. 

The MBTA and EO 13186 require federal agencies to avoid take of migratory birds listed in 50 

CFR 10.13. The following environmental protection measures are recommended to minimize or 

avoid takes of migratory birds that could occur within areas of the Proposed Action: 

Any groundbreaking construction or tree-cutting activities would be performed before 

migratory birds return to Fairchild AFB or after all young have fledged.

If construction is scheduled to start during the period when migratory birds are present, a 

site-specific survey for nesting migratory birds would be performed immediately prior to 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-24

construction by a qualified biologist. If nesting birds are found during the survey, buffer 

areas would be established around nests. Construction would be deferred in buffer 

areas until birds have left the nest. Confirmation that all young have fledged would be 

made by a qualified biologist.

3.2.3.2 MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

Vegetation. Short- and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on vegetation would 

occur. Short-term impacts would occur from temporary disturbance of vegetation from the use 

of heavy equipment and may include trampling and soil compaction. Areas of temporary ground 

disturbance would be reseeded with native vegetation. Permanent removal of vegetation and 

trees at new construction sites would create long-term impacts from permanent reduction in 

vegetation cover on the installation. The areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative are already highly 

disturbed from ongoing routine maintenance and landscaping activities and are of low ecological 

value. These areas are not considered natural vegetation areas; therefore, there would be no 

impacts on native vegetation.

Wildlife. Short- and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on wildlife would occur. 

Although some birds, small mammals, invertebrates, and other common, small wildlife species 

may use the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative for shelter and feeding, the abundance of 

wildlife in these areas is low because vegetation is regularly disturbed and there are few native 

plant species. Additionally, these areas would not overlap the portions of the installation where 

wetlands and higher-value wildlife habitat exists. 

Short-term impacts on wildlife would occur from noise associated with heavy equipment use and 

increased human presence during facility construction, demolition, and renovation. Any 

increase in the frequency or intensity of noise from facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation could temporarily displace wildlife. The proposed construction activities would 

require use of heavy equipment that would generate short-term increases in noise near the 

project sites. Wildlife species would be expected to utilize adjacent suitable habitat and would 

return to the area once the noise from heavy equipment use has ceased. Furthermore, wildlife 

currently inhabiting the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative would be habituated to noise 

disturbances because of the existing highly urbanized environment. There could be a small 

increase in the frequency of startle responses or other behavioral modifications caused by the 

MacDill AFB Alternative. 

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on wildlife would occur from the permanent loss of potential 

habitat for wildlife. The loss of habitat would have only minor impacts because the proposed 

construction activities would occur in institutional areas that do not provide high quality habitat 

for wildlife species. Removal of dead trees and vegetation, which could provide habitat for birds 

and bats, would be permanently lost. BMPs would be followed to the greatest extent possible to 

reduce or avoid impacts. These BMPs would include topping trees or removing dead limbs 

instead of removing the entire tree, leaving as much trunk height as possible, creating artificial 

cavities (nest boxes), and drilling into trees to replace cavities lost during tree removal.

Some of the proposed construction would occur in or adjacent to drainage ditches or near 

wetlands where bird species often occur. The construction activities could disturb birds that use 

these drainage ditches for foraging. The birds would be expected to relocate to another ditch or 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-25

other similar, suitable foraging habitat on the installation. No proposed construction activities

would occur in areas where shorebirds or colonial nesting species are likely to nest.

There would be a 50.0 percent increase in KC-135 operations (annually) and a 29.0 percent 

increase in total aircraft operations at MacDill AFB. Increases in noise levels or frequencies 

from aircraft operations could result in a change in bird and other wildlife behavior or a decrease 

in ability to hear. Wildlife living at and near the MacDill AFB runway could be most affected by 

an increase in the intensity of noise. However, birds and other animals living below the flight 

paths at MacDill AFB are exposed to noise from existing operations year round and would likely 

be habituated to noise disturbances. The most likely, detectable response of wildlife to an 

increase in aircraft operations at MacDill AFB could be a temporary change in behavior, such as 

flushing or some other startle response. However, birds and other wildlife have been 

documented to become habituated to aircraft overflights and other noises after continuous or 

frequent exposure. 

Over the long term, the increased presence of aircraft and associated operational noise on and 

near the installation from the additional KC-135s would have negligible impacts on wildlife 

populations. Noise levels would increase only marginally on and near the installation. The 

overall noise environment would be comparable to the existing KC-135 mission. Birds and 

other wildlife breeding and foraging on MacDill AFB currently either avoid loud areas or are 

habituated to the frequent noise from aircraft operations. The MacDill AFB Alternative would 

cause a slight increase in the frequency of exposure to loud noises, and thus possibly an 

increase in startle responses by nearby wildlife. 

Protected and Sensitive Species. The MacDill AFB Alternative would result in short- and 

long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on protected and sensitive species. The MacDill AFB 

Alternative may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the federally listed red knot, piping 

plover, and wood stork. USAF is conducting consultation with USFWS on this determination

(see Appendix A). Noise impacts on these listed species from the increase in aircraft 

operations would be minor and similar to those described for wildlife. The increase in aircraft 

operations could also increase the potential for BASH interactions involving these listed species. 

Coastal and estuarine bird species including the red knot, piping plover, and wood stork could 

occur in the airspace and be impacted by the increase in operations. Two fatal bird strikes 

involving federally listed species, one of a red knot and one of a wood stork, occurred in 2015. 

However, a review of 15 years of summary reports submitted as part of the Depredation Permit 

renewal process shows that these two incidents are anomalies. Analysis of the data from 2000 

to 2015 indicates that no other recorded strikes of federally listed species have occurred outside 

of the two 2015 incidents (Kirkpatrick 2016). 

The MacDill AFB Alternative would result in no effects on the federally listed Florida scrub jay, 

red-cockaded woodpecker, eastern indigo snake, Atlantic sturgeon, and all federally listed sea 

turtle and plant species. The Florida scrub-jay and red-cockaded woodpecker have never been 

documented on the installation. The eastern indigo snake is often a commensal in gopher 

tortoise burrows; however, the locations of gopher tortoise burrows are near but not within the 

areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative. Suitable habitat does not occur in the areas of the MacDill 

AFB Alternative for the sea turtles and plants. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-26

State-listed species that could also occur in the airspace include Scott’s seaside sparrow, 

snowy plover, little blue heron, reddish egret, tricolored heron, American oystercatcher, roseate 

spoonbill, and black skimmer. Impacts of increased aircraft operations on state-listed bird 

species would be similar to those discussed for federally listed birds. Suitable habitat for the 

gopher tortoise, Florida pine snake, short-tailed snake, and burrowing owl occurs near the areas 

of the MacDill AFB Alternative; however, there are no burrows within the footprints of 

disturbance. 

Environmental protection measures similar to those described for the Proposed Action in 

Section 3.2.3.2 would be followed to minimize or avoid takes of migratory birds within the areas 

of the MacDill AFB Alternative. 

3.2.3.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

No impacts on biological resources would occur under the No Action Alternative. No facility 

construction, demolition, and renovation would occur, and there would be no increases in 

support personnel or aircraft operations. Biological resources at Fairchild AFB and MacDill AFB 

would remain the same as existing conditions described in Sections 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2, 

respectively. 

3.3 Cultural Resources

3.3.1 Definition of the Resource

Cultural resources are historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects considered 

important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other 

purposes. Depending on the condition and historic use, such resources might provide insight 

into the cultural practices of previous civilizations, or they might retain cultural and religious 

significance to modern groups. Cultural resources that are listed in or eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are known as historic properties. Section 106 of 

the NHPA requires federal agencies to assess the impact of their undertakings on historic 

properties in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE is the “geographic area or areas 

within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of 

historic properties, if any such properties exist” (36 CFR 800.16[d]). USAF is consulting under 

Section 106 of the NHPA with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for 

each installation and with federally recognized tribes (see Appendix A). As a part of the 

Section 106 process, USAF has defined the APE as a 0.25-mile radius around the proposed 

facility construction, demolition, and renovation areas. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show the APE for 

the Proposed Action and MacDill AFB Alternative, respectively.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-27

Figure 3-1. Historic Properties within the APE at Fairchild AFB
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-28

Figure 3-2. Historic Properties within the APE at MacDill AFB
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-29

Typically, cultural resources are subdivided into architectural resources, archaeological 

resources, and resources of traditional, cultural, or religious significance. Architectural 

resources include standing buildings, bridges, dams, other structures, and designed landscapes 

of historic or aesthetic significance. Generally, architectural resources must be more than 50 

years old to warrant consideration for the NRHP. More recent structures might warrant 

protection if they are of exceptional importance or if they have the potential to gain significance 

in the future. Architectural resources at least 45 years of age were considered in this EA to 

account for the range in project implementation years. That is, resources that are currently 45 

years of age could attain 50 years of age by the time facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation projects are implemented. Archaeological resources comprise areas where human 

activity has measurably altered the earth or deposits of physical remains are found 

(e.g., projectile points and bottles), but standing structures do not remain. Resources of 

traditional cultural or religious significance can include archaeological resources, sacred sites, 

structures, prominent topographic features, habitat, plants, animals, or minerals considered 

essential for the preservation of traditional culture. 

3.3.2 Affected Environment 

3.3.2.1 FAIRCHILD AFB

Architectural Resources. Fairchild AFB conducted installation-wide historic architecture 

surveys in 1990 and the mid-1990s and more focused surveys in 2005 and 2007. Historic 

properties in the APE include Buildings 2025 (snow barn), 2050 (maintenance hangar), and 

2245 (administrative office) (Fairchild AFB 2018a). Building 2401 (pump station) is a historicage building in the APE that was recently evaluated as not eligible for NRHP listing. Fairchild 

AFB is requesting the Washington SHPO’s concurrence with this assessment separate from this 

EA (Paul 2018). Also present within the APE is the former Flight Line Historic District and 14 

formerly contributing buildings. Fairchild AFB executed a Memorandum of Agreement with the 

Washington SHPO in 2012 that mitigated adverse effects from the planned demolition of the 

hangars comprising the historic district (Fairchild AFB 2012c). Six of the original 20 buildings 

have been demolished, and per the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, the historic district 

is no longer eligible for NRHP listing. Table 3-13 identifies and Figure 3-1 shows historic 

properties within the Fairchild AFB APE.

Table 3-13. Historic Buildings in the Fairchild AFB APE

Building ID Description Year Built NRHP Eligibility

Building 2025 Snow Barn/ Maintenance Hangar 1943 Individually Eligible

Building 2050 Maintenance Hangar 1943 Individually Eligible

Building 2245 Administrative Office 1943 Individually Eligible

Archaeological Resources. Fairchild AFB conducted archaeological surveys at the main 

installation in 1988 with a later resource-specific evaluation in 1998. After conducting a building 

survey in 1990, the Spokane City/County Historic Preservation Office determined that due to the 

high degree of disturbance at Fairchild AFB, no additional archaeological surveys of the 

installation were warranted unless there was an inadvertent discovery (Fairchild AFB 2018a). 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-30

Four historic archaeological sites have been identified on the installation, none of which are

eligible for listing in the NRHP. No known archaeological sites are within the APE.

Traditional Resources. Fairchild AFB regularly consults with four federally recognized tribes 

as part of the NEPA and Section 106 processes: Coeur d’Alene Tribe, Confederated Tribes of 

the Colville Reservation, Kalispel Tribe of Indians, and Spokane Tribe of Indians. Fairchild AFB 

is consulting with these tribes on the Proposed Action (see Appendix A). No tribal sacred sites 

or properties of traditional religious or cultural importance have been identified on Fairchild AFB

during previous consultations.

3.3.2.2 MACDILL AFB

Architectural Resources. MacDill AFB has completed several installation-wide architectural 

surveys that have collectively evaluated all buildings in the APE that were constructed before 

1970 (MacDill AFB 2017d). A recently completed survey evaluated Cold War-era buildings 

constructed between 1971 and 1992. Preliminary results from this survey indicate none of the 

evaluated buildings are eligible for the NRHP (Vichich 2018). Historic properties previously 

identified in the APE include Building 501 and the MacDill Field Historic District. The MacDill 

Field Historic District contains 23 buildings and is eligible for NRHP listing for its association with 

MacDill AFB’s participation in World War II, including involvement in “Project X” ferrying combat 

troops to the Pacific Theater and training of replacement crews for the European Theater. The 

district is also eligible for its architectural significance and contains examples of Spanish and 

Mediterranean architectural styles. Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation 

has been completed for all historic resources in the district, ranging from Level I to Level IV

(MacDill AFB 2017d). All 23 buildings in the MacDill Field Historic District are in the APE 

(Table 3-14). These buildings are all contributing resources of the historic district, and eight of 

the buildings are also individually eligible for NRHP listing. Figure 3-2 identifies historic 

properties within the MacDill AFB APE.

Archaeological Resources. An archaeological assessment of MacDill AFB was conducted in 

1986 by the National Park Service. The assessment concluded that 59 percent of the 

installation, including airfield and cantonment areas, had been disturbed to the point that there 

would be no likelihood of finding archaeological resources (MacDill AFB 2017d). Based on 

concerns from the SHPO and Seminole Tribe of Florida regarding the reliability of the 1986 

survey, MacDill AFB initiated a base-wide Phase I archaeological survey in 2017. MacDill AFB 

has identified nine archaeological sites on the installation, none of which are within the APE.

Traditional Resources. MacDill AFB regularly consults with three federally recognized tribes 

as part of the NEPA and Section 106 processes: Seminole Tribe of Florida, Miccosukee Tribe of 

Indians of Florida, and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. MacDill AFB is consulting with these 

tribes on the MacDill AFB Alternative (see Appendix A). One archaeological site on the 

installation is known to contain human remains and related artifacts and is culturally sensitive. 

This site is not within the APE. No other tribal sacred sites or properties of traditional religious 

or cultural importance have been identified on MacDill AFB during previous consultations.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-31

Table 3-14. MacDill Field Historic District Buildings

Building ID Description Year 

Built NRHP Eligibility HABS Level

Hangar 1 Hangar 1941 Individually Eligible, Contributing III

Hangar 2 Hangar 1941 Individually Eligible, Contributing I 

Hangar 3 Hangar 1941 Individually Eligible, Contributing I

Hangar 4 Hangar 1941 Individually Eligible, Contributing III

Hangar 5 Hangar 1941 Individually Eligible, Contributing III

Building 11 Warehouse 1941 Contributing III

Building 12 Maintenance Shop 1941 Contributing III

Building 26 Fire Station 1941 Individually Eligible, Contributing I 

Building 27 Photographic and

Mapping Facility

1941 Contributing II

Building 28 Storage Shed 1942 Contributing II

Building 29 Warehouse 1941 Contributing II

Building 30 Quartermaster 

Warehouse, 

Commissary

1941 Individually Eligible, Contributing I

Building 31 Maintenance Shop 1941 Contributing III

Building 32 Maintenance Shop 1941 Contributing III

Building 33 Maintenance Shop 1941 Contributing III

Building 34 Civil Engineering

Storage Shed

1941 Contributing III

Building 35 Maintenance Shop 1941 Contributing II

Building 37 Water Tower 1941 Contributing IV

Building 41 Theater 1941 Individually Eligible, Contributing I 

Building 42 Instrument Laboratory 1942 Contributing II

Building 45 Vehicle Fuel Station 1942 Contributing III

Building 68 Storage Shed 1941 Contributing III

Building 347 Civil Engineering Offices 1944 Contributing III

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on cultural resources result from actions that change culturally valued elements of a 

resource or restrict access to cultural resources. Impacts on cultural resources may be shortterm or long-term; direct or indirect; and negligible, minor, moderate, or significant in magnitude. 

Direct impacts can result from physically altering, damaging, or destroying all or part of a 

resource. Indirect impacts can occur from alterations to characteristics of the surrounding 

environment that contribute to the importance of the resource; introducing visual, atmospheric, 

or audible elements that are out of character with the property or that alter its setting or feeling. 

Under Section 106 of the NHPA, USAF must determine if the Proposed Action and alternatives 

would result in an “adverse effect” on historic properties and must avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

such effects if they would occur. For the purposes of Section 106, an adverse effect is one that 

changes elements or characteristics of a historic property that make the property eligible for 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-32

listing in the NRHP. This analysis focuses on cultural resources that are listed in or eligible for 

listing in the NRHP and incorporates USAF findings of effect under Section 106 of the NHPA.

3.3.3.1 PROPOSED ACTION

Facility renovation would occur at Building 2050, which is eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

Renovations to this building would reconfigure and update interior spaces to accommodate 

changes in maintenance, storage, and administrative functions. Such renovations have 

occurred periodically throughout the building’s history to accommodate changes in mission 

needs, and the proposed renovations would not adversely affect the building’s eligibility for 

NRHP listing. Renovations at Buildings 1007 and 1017 would have no adverse effect on the 

former Flight Line Historic District, which is no longer eligible for NRHP listing. 

Visual intrusion of proposed facility additions adjacent to Building 2045 and construction of the 

base and squadron operations facility would have no adverse impact on cultural resources in 

the APE. The proposed construction would occur in the context of an active military installation

and would represent incremental changes to the setting surrounding Buildings 2025, 2050, and 

2245. These projects would have no adverse effect on historic properties under Section 106 of 

the NHPA.

The Proposed Action would not be expected to impact archaeological or traditional resources 

because no such properties have been identified within the APE. Ground-disturbing activities 

would occur in previously disturbed areas in the cantonment area, and it is highly unlikely that 

any previously undocumented archaeological resources would be encountered during facility 

construction, demolition, and renovation. In the event of an unanticipated or inadvertent 

discovery, USAF would comply with Section 106 of the NHPA, as specified in standard 

operating procedures described in the Fairchild AFB Integrated Cultural Resources 

Management Plan. 

Impacts on cultural resources from population increase or increased noise from aircraft 

operations are not expected. Although the Proposed Action would result in a 16.3 percent

increase in total operations at Fairchild AFB, noise associated with this level of increase would 

generally not be perceptible. Further, proposed levels of aircraft activity and noise at Fairchild 

AFB would be below conditions in 2007, which was a recent peak in activity when operations 

averaged 203 per day (Fairchild AFB 2007a).

Fairchild AFB is consulting with the Washington SHPO to request concurrence that the 

Proposed Action would have no adverse effect on historic properties under Section 106 of the 

NHPA (see Appendix A). 

3.3.3.2 MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

Facility renovations would occur at Hangar 2, which is individually eligible for NRHP listing and 

also a contributing resource of the MacDill Field Historic District. Renovations at Hangar 2 

would update interior spaces to accommodate changes in maintenance, storage, and 

administrative functions. Such renovations have occurred periodically in the past at Hangar 2, 

and the proposed renovations would not affect character-defining features of the hangar or its 

integrity and would have no adverse effect under Section 106 of the NHPA. The proposed 

squadron operations facility and the warehouse facility would be constructed within the MacDill 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-33

Field Historic District and would be designed to be compatible with the district’s historic

architectural styles and consistent with other recent buildings constructed within the district to 

minimize physical and visual intrusion on the district. With these considerations, the proposed 

construction would have no adverse effect on the MacDill Field Historic District under Section 

106 of the NHPA.

Visual intrusion of proposed facility additions and construction of the fuel cell hangar outside of 

the MacDill Field Historic District would have no adverse impact on cultural resources in the 

APE. The proposed construction would occur in the context of an active military installation and 

would adhere to MacDill AFB’s environmental design guidelines. These projects would have no 

adverse effect on historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would not be expected to impact archaeological or traditional 

resources because no such properties have been identified within the APE. Ground-disturbing 

activities would primarily occur in previously disturbed areas in the cantonment area, and it is 

highly unlikely that any previously undocumented archaeological resources would be 

encountered during facility construction, demolition, or renovation. A cultural resources monitor 

would be present during construction in any undeveloped areas. In the event of an 

unanticipated or inadvertent discovery, USAF would comply with Section 106 of the NHPA, as 

specified in standard operating procedures described in the MacDill AFB Integrated Cultural 

Resources Management Plan (MacDill AFB 2017d).

Impacts on cultural resources from population increase or increased noise from aircraft 

operations are not expected. Although the alternative would result in a 29.0 percent increase in 

total operations at MacDill AFB, noise associated with this level of increase would generally not 

be perceptible. Further, proposed levels of aircraft activity and noise at MacDill AFB would be

below conditions in 2007, which was a recent peak in activity when operations averaged 163 

per day (MacDill AFB 2008a).

MacDill AFB consulted with the Florida SHPO and requested concurrence that the MacDill AFB 

Alternative would have no adverse effect on historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

The Florida SHPO concurred with that determination on May 30, 2018 (see Appendix A). 

3.3.3.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative would not impact cultural resources. No facility construction, 

demolition, or renovation would occur, and there would be no changes in aircraft operations. 

Cultural resources at both installations would remain unchanged when compared to existing 

conditions identified in Sections 3.3.2.1 and Section 3.3.2.2. 

3.4 Geological Resources

3.4.1 Definition of the Resource

Geological resources consist of the Earth’s surface and subsurface materials. Within a given 

physiographic province, these resources typically are described in terms of geology, topography 

and physiography, soils, and, where applicable, geologic hazards. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-34

Geology is the study of the Earth’s composition and provides information on the structure and 

configuration of surface and subsurface features. Such information derives from field analysis 

based on observations of the surface and borings to identify subsurface composition. 

Topography and physiography pertain to the general shape and arrangement of a land surface, 

including its height and the position of its natural and human-made features.

Soils are the unconsolidated materials overlying bedrock or other parent material. Soils are 

typically described in terms of their complex type, slope, and physical characteristics. 

Differences among soil types, in terms of their structure, elasticity, strength, shrink-swell 

potential, and erosion potential, affect their abilities to support certain applications or uses. In 

appropriate cases, soil properties must be examined for their compatibility with particular 

construction activities or types of land use.

Prime farmland is protected under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 and is 

defined as land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for 

producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and is available for these uses. The 

intent of the FPPA is to minimize the extent that federal programs contribute to the unnecessary 

conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The implementing procedures of the FPPA and 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) require federal agencies to evaluate the 

adverse impacts (direct and indirect) of their activities on prime and unique farmland and 

farmland of statewide and local importance, and to consider alternative actions that could avoid 

adverse impacts. Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for the 

production of specific high-value food and fiber crops. Farmland of statewide and local

importance are lands that do not meet the criteria for prime or unique farmland, but are 

considered to be important for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops by 

state or local agencies (NRCS Undated). 

Geologic hazards are natural geologic events that can endanger human lives and threaten 

property. Examples of geologic hazards include erosion, earthquakes, landslides, ground 

subsidence, and sinkholes.

3.4.2 Affected Environment 

3.4.2.1 FAIRCHILD AFB

Regional Geology. Fairchild AFB is within the Columbia Plateau physiographic province and 

the Channeled Scablands area of the Columbia Basin (Fairchild AFB 2012b, WDNR 2018). The 

Columbia Basin was formed by Columbia Plateau lava flows and glacial floodwaters that 

widened the Spokane River valley and deposited a layer of gravel up to 500 feet thick. Bedrock 

underlying the Columbia Basin is basalt that covered and lapped up against Precambrian 

granitic rock during a series of lava flows in the Miocene Epoch (Fairchild AFB 2012b). 

Deposits of glacial till, glacial moraine, or glacial outwash blanket the basin and the Channeled 

Scablands are characterized by a thin layer of soil alternating with basalt outcroppings and 

areas of deeper soils (USFS 1994, Fairchild AFB 2012b). 

Basalt outcroppings, the result of cooled lava, are the prominent geological features on the 

installation and can be seen along the eastern boundary. Perched water tables occur in many 

areas of the installation and are associated with stratified sand and clay soil layers deposited by 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-35

the historic catastrophic floods. These areas present challenges to infrastructure design, 

stormwater management, siting of buried utilities and foundations, construction scheduling, and 

groundwater management (Fairchild AFB 2012b). 

Topography and Physiography. The Columbia Basin is characterized by steep river canyons, 

extensive plateaus, and tall and sinuous ridges (WDNR 2018). Rolling hills of loess cover 

unglaciated areas in the southern and eastern portions of the basin (USFS 1994). Fairchild 

AFB is surrounded by mountains and rolling terrain; however, the topography of the installation

and its immediate surroundings is generally flat with an average elevation of 2,430 feet above 

mean sea level (MSL) (Fairchild AFB 2012b). The topography within the proposed facility 

construction, demolition, and renovation areas ranges from approximately 2,420 feet above 

MSL to 2,440 feet above MSL (USGS 2017). 

Soils. The NRCS mapped two soil series, Cheney and Phoebe, within Fairchild AFB in the 

2006 update to the 1968 Soil Survey of Spokane County, Washington (NRCS 2006). The 

NRCS Web Soil Survey mapped Phoebe-dry Bong complex soil (0 to 8 percent slopes) as the 

only soil type within all of the proposed facility construction, demolition, and renovation areas

except for a portion of the proposed fuel line replacement and fitness center addition. These 

areas contain Cheney ashy silt loam soil (0 to 8 percent slopes) (NRCS 2018a). Details about 

both soils and their descriptions are provided in Table 3-15. The soils within the facility 

construction, demolition, and renovation areas have been previously disturbed by construction 

or landscaping. Surface cover in these areas is a combination of pavement, buildings, and 

landscaped lawn. 

Table 3-15. Soils Associated with the Proposed Action

Soil Type Characteristics Erosion 

K Factor1

Farmland 

Classification

Phoebe-dry Bong 

complex (0 to 8 percent 

slopes)

Very deep, somewhat excessively 

drained soils of moderate permeability. 

Not hydric.

0.15 Prime farmland if 

irrigated

Cheney ashy silt loam (0 

to 8 percent slopes)

Very deep, somewhat excessively 

drained soils of moderate permeability. 

Not hydric.

0.37 Prime farmland

Source: NRCS 2006, NRCS 2018a

Note: 1 Erosion K Factor indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Values of K range from 

0.02 to 0.69. The higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water.

Both soils found in the proposed facility construction, demolition, and renovation areas are 

considered prime farmland. Cheney ashy silt loam soils, 0 to 8 percent slopes, are considered 

prime farmland and Phoebe-dry Bong complex soils, 0 to 8 percent slopes, are considered 

prime farmland if irrigated (NRCS 2006, NRCS 2018a). Although these soils are classified as 

prime farmland, all land within Fairchild AFB is used for military mission purposes, has been 

previously disturbed and modified due to development, and is not currently available for 

agricultural use. As per Section 1540(c) (1) of the FPPA, “farmland” does not include land 

already in or committed to urban development or water storage where ‘already in’ urban 

development includes, among several factors, lands identified as an urbanized area on a 

Census Bureau Map. Fairchild AFB is identified as an urbanized area on the 2010 Census 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-36

Urbanized Area Reference Map for Spokane, Washington; therefore, soils within the proposed 

facility construction, demolition, and renovation areas are not considered “farmland” and are not 

subject to the FPPA (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a). 

Geologic Hazards. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) produces seismic hazard maps based 

on current information about the frequency and intensity of earthquakes. The maps show the 

levels of horizontal shaking that have a 2 in 100 chance of being exceeded in a 50-year period. 

Shaking is expressed as a percentage of the force of gravity (percent g). In general, little or no 

damage is expected at values less than 10 percent g, moderate damage could occur at 10 to 20 

percent g, and major damage could occur at values greater than 20 percent g. The 2014 

National Seismic Hazard map shows that that Fairchild AFB has a seismic hazard rating of 

approximately 8 to 16 percent g. Therefore, Fairchild AFB is at moderate risk from geologic 

hazards such as earthquakes (USGS 2014a).

3.4.2.2 MACDILL AFB

Regional Geology. MacDill AFB is situated in the Gulf Coastal Lowlands physiographic 

province and the Pamlico Terrace. There are three principal lithologic sequences in the area. 

The surficial unit is unconsolidated sand, clay, and marl. This unit may include remnants of the 

Hawthorn Formation composed of sand, clay, and thin lenses of limestone. Sands in this unit 

range from 5 to 20 feet thick with clay layers up to 40 feet thick. This surficial layer is very thin 

to absent on the eastern side of the installation, and underlying limestone formations may 

outcrop in this area. Underlying the surficial layer are the Tampa and Suwannee limestones, 

which range from 250 to 500 feet thick. Below this layer is the Ocala Group, consisting of Avon 

Park, Lake City, and Oldsmar limestones; and the Cedar Keys Limestone, which are 

approximately 2,300 feet deep (MacDill AFB 2017c).

Topography and Physiography. The geologic features of MacDill AFB are consistent with the 

generally flat, sandy terrain of the surrounding area and the Pamlico Terrace. The Pamlico 

Terrace rises gently from the coast to approximately 25 feet above MSL. Elevations on the 

installation range from sea level at the southern edge to approximately 15 feet above MSL in the 

northern portions; however, much of the installation is less than 5 feet above MSL (MacDill AFB 

2017c). The topography within the proposed facility construction, demolition, and renovation

areas ranges from approximately 5 feet above MSL to 8 feet above MSL (USGS 2015).

Soils. The NRCS mapped eight soil series within the MacDill AFB in the 1989 Soil Survey of 

Hillsborough County, Florida. These soil series include Arents, Malabar, Myakka, Pomello,

St. Augustine, Tavaress, Urban Land, and Wabasso (NRCS 1989). The NRCS Web Soil 

Survey mapped Urban Land as the only soil type within all of the proposed facility construction, 

demolition, and renovation areas (NRCS 2018b). Soils are classified as Urban Land where 

existing development has altered or obscured the original soils beyond identification and are 

described in Table 3-16 (NRCS 1989). Most of the soil at the airfield and cantonment area on 

MacDill AFB is fill derived from dredging activities in surrounding areas that was used during 

construction of the installation to fill existing swamps and create stable construction surfaces 

(MacDill AFB 2017d). Surface cover in the proposed construction areas is currently a 

combination of pavement, buildings, and landscaped lawn. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-37

Table 3-16. Soils Associated with the MacDill AFB Alternative

Soil Type Characteristics1 Farmland Classification

Urban Land (0 to 5 percent 

slopes)

85 percent or more of the surface is 

covered by impervious surfaces and 

artificially drained. Not hydric. 

Not prime farmland

Sources: NRCS 1989, NRCS 2018b

Note: 1 The NRCS does not rate Urban Land for characteristics such as water capacity or erosion potential. 

Erosion is an ongoing problem on portions of MacDill AFB such as along Gadsden Point at the 

southeastern corner of the Bay Palms Golf Complex, which is outside of the proposed 

construction areas. Additionally, sand often washes into the boat channel leading to the 

installation’s marina. Continued sea-level rise associated with climate change is likely to 

exacerbate shoreline erosion (FOCC 2010) 

The proposed facility construction, demolition, or renovation areas do not contain soils classified 

as prime or unique farmland or farmland of statewide or local importance (NRCS 2018b).

Geologic Hazards. Sinkholes are common in Hillsborough County, but are uncommon on 

MacDill AFB because of overlying impervious layers of clay, limited groundwater recharge, and 

the presence of a slow discharge zone for the Floridian aquifer. Sinkhole activity at MacDill AFB 

is minimal with only one sinkhole identified during a 1985 study (MacDill AFB 2017c). There 

has also been a considerable amount of fill material placed on MacDill AFB to provide adequate 

land for development. 

MacDill AFB is at minimal risk from geologic hazards such as earthquakes because Florida lies 

on a passive continental margin with a stable transition between continental and oceanic crust. 

The 2014 National Seismic Hazard map shows that MacDill AFB has a seismic hazard rating of 

approximately 2 to 4 percent g (USGS 2014a), making the risk of damage from seismic activity 

minimal.

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences

Protection of unique geological features, minimization of soil erosion, and the siting of facilities 

in relation to potential geologic hazards are considered when evaluating potential impacts of a 

proposed action on geological resources. Generally, adverse impacts can be avoided or 

minimized if proper construction techniques, erosion-control measures, and structural 

engineering design are incorporated into project development.

Impacts on geological resources would be significant if they would substantially alter the 

lithology (i.e., the character of a rock formation), stratigraphy (i.e., the layering of sedimentary 

rocks), and geological structures that control groundwater quality, distribution of aquifers and 

confining beds, and groundwater availability; or substantially change the soil composition, 

structure, or function within the environment.

3.4.3.1 PROPOSED ACTION

There would be no impacts on geological resources from the additional KC-135 airframes, the 

addition of personnel and dependents, the increase in KC-135 operations and maintenance 

activities, interior renovations, or the flightline gate relocation at Fairchild AFB. The additional 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-38

KC-135 airframes would remain on paved surfaces and would not result in soil disturbance or 

compaction. Neither the addition of personnel and dependents nor the proposed KC-135

operations in existing training airspaces and areas would result in any ground disturbance. 

KC-135 maintenance activities would not change from those currently practiced on the existing 

fleet of KC-135s at Fairchild AFB; therefore, soil contamination from spills would be avoided and 

minimized through continuation of existing practices (see Section 3.5 for additional analysis 

related to spill prevention and control). All proposed renovation projects, except the pavement 

replacement at Building 1017 and pavement and fuel line replacements on the parking ramp, 

would be limited to interior updates within existing facility footprints; therefore, no ground 

disturbance would result from these activities. The Proposed Action has potential to impact 

geological resources during proposed facility construction and demolition projects, and some 

renovation (i.e., upgrades to the fuel hydrant system and pavement replacement on the parking 

ramp and surrounding Building 1017) projects. 

Regional Geology. The Proposed Action would not alter geological structures or features and 

would have no impact on regional geology.

Topography and Physiography. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts would occur to the 

natural topography as a result of demolition, site preparation (i.e., grading, excavating, and 

recontouring), and construction activities associated with the Proposed Action. However, the 

proposed facility construction, demolition, and renovations areas are mostly flat, and 

disturbance of these areas would not appreciably change local topography.

Soils. Short- and long-term, minor, adverse impacts on soils would occur. Short-term impacts 

would result from soil disturbance, compaction, and erosion during the proposed facility 

construction, demolition, renovation (i.e., fuel hydrant system upgrades and pavement 

replacement) projects. Soil disturbance, compaction, and erosion would occur during demolition 

of existing paved surfaces and buildings; site preparation; and expansion, construction, or 

replacement of impervious surfaces. A total ground area of approximately 581,890 ft2 would be 

disturbed; however, this area could be smaller because some construction and demolition 

projects overlap with one another. Soil productivity, which is the capacity of the soil to produce 

vegetative biomass, would decline in temporarily disturbed areas and would be eliminated within 

the footprint of new buildings and pavement. Loss of soil structure due to compaction from foot 

and construction vehicle/equipment traffic could result in changes in drainage patterns and 

increased erosion and sedimentation. However, soils within the proposed facility construction, 

demolition, renovation (i.e., fuel hydrant system upgrades and pavement replacement) areas 

have already been generally disturbed and compacted through previous construction and

landscaping. Long-term impacts would result from permanent vegetation removal and the 

increase in impervious surfaces resulting from proposed construction. The total 34,172 ft2

increase in impervious surfaces would result in increased rates of erosion due to increased 

stormwater runoff flows. The footprint of Building 1 and its associated parking lot, which are 

proposed to be demolished, and any currently vegetated portions of the fuel line replacement 

route would be re-vegetated following project completion. Additionally, pavement replacement

at Building 1017 and the parking ramp would not result in any additional areas of impervious 

surface on the installation. Therefore, no long-term impacts would occur from the proposed 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-39

demolition and renovation (i.e., fuel hydrant system upgrades or pavement replacement) 

projects. 

Short- and long-term impacts would be minimized through the implementation of environmental 

protection measures and BMPs including erosion and sediment control measures. Such 

environmental protection measures would be included as part of project-specific and installation 

Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (ESCPs). Measures could include installing silt fencing 

and sediment traps, applying water to disturbed soil, decompacting soils, and revegetating

disturbed areas as soon as possible after the disturbance, where possible. These measures 

would reduce soil compaction and loss of soil productivity and would minimize the risk of 

erosion and sedimentation. See Section 3.12 for additional analysis of potential impacts from 

erosion and sedimentation associated with stormwater runoff. Implementation of environmental 

protection measures would also minimize the potential for and extent of contamination 

associated with any spills from construction equipment (see Section 3.5 for discussion of 

potential spills). Additionally, site-specific soil testing would be conducted prior to, or during, 

construction or demolition, as required, to determine if limitations exist and to determine 

appropriate measures to minimize potential adverse impacts. 

Although the soils in the proposed facility construction, demolition, renovation areas have the 

physical properties necessary for classification as prime farmland soils, they are in an urbanized

area and, therefore, are not subject to the FPPA. No impacts on prime farmland soils would 

occur. 

Geologic Hazards. Long-term, minor, adverse impacts could result from geologic hazards. 

Earthquake activity could result in adverse impacts on humans and property. However, all new 

construction would be designed consistent with the requirements established in the Unified 

Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-310-04, Seismic Design for Buildings, and EO 13717, Establishing a 

Federal Earthquake Risk Management Standard, which would reduce the potential for adverse 

impacts associated with structural failure during or following a seismic event.

3.4.3.2 MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

There would be no impacts on geological resources from the additional KC-135 airframes, the 

addition of personnel and dependents, the increase in KC-135 operations and maintenance 

activities, or interior renovations at MacDill AFB. The additional KC-135 airframes would remain 

on paved surfaces and would not result in soil disturbance or compaction. Neither the addition 

of personnel and dependents nor the proposed KC-135 operations in existing training airspaces 

and areas would result in any ground disturbance. KC-135 maintenance activities would not 

change from those currently practiced on the existing fleet of KC 135s at MacDill AFB; 

therefore, soil contamination from spills would be avoided and minimized through continuation 

of existing practices (see Section 3.5 for additional analysis related to spill prevention and 

control). All proposed renovation projects, except the North Ramp project, would be limited to 

interior updates within existing facility footprints; therefore, no ground disturbance would result 

from these activities. The MacDill AFB Alternative has potential to impact geological resources 

during proposed facility construction, demolition, and North Ramp renovation (i.e., upgrades to 

the fuel hydrant system and pavement repairs and upgrades on the North Ramp) projects. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-40

Regional Geology. The MacDill AFB Alternative would not alter geological structures or 

features and would have no impact on regional geology.

Topography and Physiography. The MacDill AFB Alternative would have no impact on 

topography. The topography in the construction, demolition, and North Ramp renovation project 

areas has been modified from its original condition and is level. The proposed facility 

construction, demolition, and North Ramp renovation would require minimal grading and would 

not further modify topography from its existing condition. 

Soils. Short- and long-term, minor, adverse impacts on soils would occur. Short-term impacts 

would result from soil disturbance, compaction, and erosion during the proposed facility 

construction, demolition, and North Ramp renovation projects. Soil disturbance, compaction, 

and erosion would occur during demolition of existing paved surfaces and buildings; site 

preparation; and expansion, construction, or replacement of impervious surfaces. A total

ground area of approximately 1,542,000 ft2 would be disturbed; however, this area could be 

smaller because demolition of Building 44 overlaps with the proposed squadron operations 

facility. Soil productivity would decline in temporarily disturbed areas and would be eliminated 

within the footprint of new buildings and pavement. Loss of soil structure due to compaction 

from foot and construction vehicle/equipment traffic could result in changes in drainage patterns 

and increased erosion and sedimentation. However, proposed facility construction, demolition, 

and North Ramp renovation areas have already been generally disturbed and compacted 

through previous construction or landscaping. Long-term impacts would result from permanent 

vegetation removal and the increase in impervious surfaces resulting from proposed 

construction. The total 104,500 ft2 increase in impervious surfaces would result in increased 

rates of erosion due to increased stormwater runoff flows. The proposed demolition projects 

and the North Ramp renovation project would not result in any additional areas of impervious

surface on the installation; therefore, no long-term impacts would occur from these projects. 

Short- and long-term impacts would be minimized through the implementation of environmental 

protection measures and BMPs including erosion and sediment control measures. Such 

environmental protection measures would be included as part of project-specific ESCPs and 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and the MacDill SWPPP. Measures could 

include installing silt fencing and sediment traps, applying water to disturbed soil, decompacting 

soils, and revegetating disturbed areas as soon as possible after the disturbance, where 

possible. These measures would reduce soil compaction and loss of soil productivity and would 

minimize the risk of erosion and sedimentation. See Section 3.12 for additional analysis of 

potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation associated with stormwater runoff. 

Implementation of environmental protection measures would also minimize the potential for and 

extent of contamination associated with any spills from construction equipment (see Section 

3.5). Additionally, site-specific soil testing would be conducted prior to, or during, construction 

or demolition, as required, to determine if limitations exist and to determine appropriate 

measures to minimize potential adverse impacts.

No prime or other important farmland soils occur in the proposed facility construction, 

demolition, renovation areas; therefore, no impacts on prime farmland soils would occur.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-41

Geologic Hazards. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts could result from geologic hazards. 

Because sinkhole activity at MacDill AFB is minimal, it is unlikely the proposed facility 

construction, demotion, and renovation projects would be affected by this geological hazard. 

Although unlikely, earthquake activity could result in adverse impacts on humans and property. 

New construction would be designed consistent with the requirements established in the UFC 3-

310-04 and EO 13717, which would reduce the potential for adverse impacts associated with 

structural failure during or following a seismic event.

3.4.3.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

No impacts on geological resources would occur under the No Action Alternative. No facility 

construction, demolition, and renovation would occur, and there would be no increases in 

support personnel or aircraft operations. Geological resources at Fairchild AFB and MacDill 

AFB would remain the same as existing conditions identified in Sections 3.4.2.1 and Section 

3.4.2.2, respectively. 

3.5 Hazardous Materials and Wastes

3.5.1 Definition of the Resource

Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Wastes, and Petroleum Products. Hazardous materials 

are defined by 49 CFR 171.8 as hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, marine pollutants, 

elevated temperature materials, materials designated as hazardous in the Hazardous Materials 

Table (49 CFR 172.101), and materials that meet the defining criteria for hazard classes and 

divisions in 49 CFR § 173. Hazardous wastes are defined by the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) at 42 USC § 6903(5), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments, as “a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, 

concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may (A) cause, or significantly 

contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating 

reversible, illness; or (B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the 

environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise 

managed.”

Petroleum products include crude oil or any derivative thereof, such as gasoline, diesel, or 

propane. They are considered hazardous materials because they present health hazards to 

users in the event of incidental releases or extended exposure to their vapors. 

Evaluation of hazardous materials and wastes focuses on the storage, transportation, handling, 

and use of hazardous materials, as well as the generation, storage, transportation, handling, 

and disposal of hazardous wastes. In addition to being a threat to humans, the improper 

release or storage of hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and petroleum products can 

threaten the health and well-being of wildlife species, habitats, soil systems, and water 

resources.

Special Hazards. Special hazards are substances that might pose a risk to human health and 

are addressed separately from hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Special hazards 

include asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), lead-based paint (LBP), and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs), all of which are typically found in older buildings and utilities infrastructure. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-42

Asbestos is regulated by USEPA under the Clean Air Act; Toxic Substances Control Act; and 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). USEPA 

has established that any material containing more than 1 percent asbestos by weight is 

considered an ACM. ACMs are generally found in building materials such as floor tiles, mastic, 

roofing materials, pipe wrap, and wall plaster. ACMs might be present in buildings on Fairchild 

AFB and MacDill AFB. LBP is found in many surface coatings on Fairchild AFB and MacDill 

AFB. PCBs are man-made chemicals that persist in the environment and were widely used in 

building materials (e.g., caulk) and electrical products prior to 1979. Structures constructed 

prior to 1979 potentially include PCB-containing building materials.

Environmental Contamination. CERCLA governs response or cleanup actions to address 

releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants into the environment, to 

include at federal facilities such as Fairchild AFB and MacDill AFB. The Defense Environmental 

Restoration Program was formally established by Congress in 1986 to provide for the cleanup of 

Department of Defense property at active installations, Base Realignment and Closure 

installations, and formerly used defense sites throughout the United States and its territories. 

The two restoration programs under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program are the 

Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) and the Military Munitions Response Program 

(MMRP). The ERP addresses contaminated sites while the MMRP addresses nonoperational 

military ranges and other sites suspected or known to contain unexploded ordnance (UXO), 

discarded military munitions, or munitions constituents. Each site is investigated and 

appropriate remedial actions are taken under the supervision of applicable federal and state 

regulatory programs. When no further remedial action is necessary for a given site, the site is 

closed and it no longer represents a threat to human health. 

Radon. Radon is a naturally occurring odorless and colorless radioactive gas found in soils and 

rocks that can lead to the development of lung cancer. Radon tends to accumulate in enclosed 

spaces, usually those that are below ground and poorly ventilated (e.g., basements). USEPA 

established a guidance radon level of 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) in indoor air for residences, 

and radon levels above this amount are considered a health risk to occupants.

3.5.2 Affected Environment 

3.5.2.1 FAIRCHILD AFB

Hazardous Materials, Petroleum Products, and Hazardous Wastes. Fairchild AFB uses 

hazardous materials and petroleum products such as liquid fuels, aircraft deicer, pesticides, and 

solvents for everyday operations. The use of these hazardous materials and petroleum 

products results in the generation and storage of hazardous wastes and used petroleum 

products on the installation. Fairchild AFB is a RCRA Large Quantity Generator with facility 

identification number WA9571924647 (Fairchild AFB 2016a). RCRA Large Quantity Generators 

generate 1,000 kilograms per month or more of hazardous waste or more than 1 kilogram per 

month of acutely hazardous waste. Within the areas of the Proposed Action, hazardous 

materials, hazardous wastes, and petroleum products are used and generated at Buildings 

2007, 2045, and 2050 (Fairchild AFB 2016a).

USAF installations manage hazardous materials through AFI 32-7086, Hazardous Materials 

Management, and hazardous wastes through AFI 32-7042, Waste Management. Fairchild AFB 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-43

has implemented installation-specific hazardous materials and hazardous waste management 

plans. These plans define roles and responsibilities, addresses record keeping requirements, 

and provides spill contingency and response requirements (Fairchild AFB 2014b, Fairchild AFB 

2016a).

Special Hazards. ACMs on Fairchild AFB are managed in accordance with the installation’s 

asbestos management plan (Fairchild AFB 2016b) and through a database that contains

detailed and updated information on surveys and abatement actions. ACMs are generally 

maintained in place until the building is renovated or demolished. Within the areas of the 

Proposed Action, previous surveys have identified ACMs in Buildings 1, 1017, and 2050

(Fairchild AFB 2016c). The other buildings associated with the Proposed Action might also 

contain ACMs. 

The installation’s lead exposure and LBP management plan provides guidance on how to 

protect USAF personnel and the public from exposure and the management and disposal of 

LBP (Fairchild AFB 2016d). Fairchild AFB has conducted surveys for LBP in many buildings. 

Within the areas of the Proposed Action, surveys have identified LBP in Buildings 1, 1017, and 

2050 (Fairchild AFB 2016c). The other buildings associated with the Proposed Action might 

also contain LBP. 

Buildings 1, 1007, 1017, and 2050 were constructed prior to 1979 and, therefore, have the 

greatest potential to contain PCBs in building material (Fairchild AFB 2018b). Older electrical 

infrastructure, such as light fixtures and surge protectors, within these buildings might also 

contain PCBs.

Environmental Contamination. As of December 2015, there are 60 active ERP and 3 active 

MMRP sites on Fairchild AFB (Fairchild AFB 2015a). This EA focuses only on those sites that 

have potential to be impacted by the Proposed Action. ERP sites that require no further action; 

do not directly coincide with facilities proposed for construction, demolition, or renovation; or 

would not be impacted by the proposed work activities are not evaluated further. None of 

Fairchild AFB’s MMRP sites coincide with areas associated with the Proposed Action. The 

three ERP sites potentially affected by the Proposed Action are described below. 

ERP Site SS-26. This ERP site is located along Taxiway 1 and immediately adjacent to 

Building 1017. Contamination associated with this site includes benzene in groundwater 

attributed to leaking jet fuel distribution lines. The strategy for ERP Site SS-26 is currently longterm monitoring (Fairchild AFB 2018c, Fairchild AFB 2015a).

ERP Site SS-39. This ERP site consists of trichloroethylene- and carbon tetrachloridecontaminated groundwater plumes that extend across the installation over an area 

approximately 3 miles long and a third of a mile wide. Buildings 1, 2048, and 2050 might be 

within the footprint of a plume. ERP Site SS-39 is currently undergoing remedial action in 

accordance with the 2011 interim record of decision. 

ERP Site TU-504. This ERP site consists of soil contamination resulting from leaks at the fuel 

storage tanks. The first 12 feet of surface soils have been remediated to industrial standards, 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-44

but further investigation is necessary should any proposed excavation extend beyond 12 feet in 

depth (Fairchild AFB 2018c).

USAF has initiated a study of historical firefighting foam releases and the potential for chemicals 

contained in firefighting foam to have contaminated groundwater. Perfluorooctanoic acid 

(PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) are two such chemicals and both were detected 

in USAF monitoring wells along the southeastern and north perimeter of the installation at levels 

above the USEPA health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion. Contaminated soil and 

groundwater have been identified near the installation’s fire station, which is located 

immediately upgradient of Building 1 and the proposed base and squadron operations facility. 

PFOA and PFOS has also been detected above the health advisory levels in nearby off-base 

residential wells and a City of Airway Heights municipal well. USAF is performing additional 

sampling and investigation. PFOA and PFOS are unregulated compounds and have low 

potential for vapor intrusion (Fairchild AFB 2018c). 

Radon. USEPA rates Spokane County, Washington, as radon zone 1. Counties in zone 1 

have a predicted average indoor radon screening level greater than 4 pCi/L (USEPA 2018c).

3.5.2.2 MACDILL AFB

Hazardous Materials, Petroleum Products, and Hazardous Wastes. MacDill AFB uses 

hazardous materials and petroleum products such as liquid fuels, pesticides, and solvents for 

everyday operations. The use of these hazardous materials and petroleum products results in 

the generation and storage of hazardous wastes and used petroleum products on the 

installation. MacDill AFB is a RCRA Large Quantity Generator with facility identification number 

FL6570024582. Within the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative, hazardous materials, 

hazardous wastes, and petroleum products are used and generated only at Hangar 2 (MacDill 

AFB 2011b).

MacDill AFB has implemented installation-specific hazardous materials and hazardous waste 

management plans. These plans define roles and responsibilities, addresses record keeping 

requirements, and provides spill contingency and response requirements (MacDill AFB 2017e, 

MacDill AFB 2011b). MacDill AFB also maintains a Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasures Plan (MacDill AFB 2012b), which identifies specific procedures and 

responsibilities for responding to a spill.

Special Hazards. ACMs on MacDill AFB are managed in accordance with the installation’s 

asbestos management and operations plan (MacDill AFB 2011c). ACMs are generally 

maintained in place until the building is renovated or demolished. Hangar 2 and Buildings 55, 

303, and 378 are likely to contain ACMs (MacDill AFB 2018a). The other buildings associated 

with the MacDill AFB Alternative might also contain ACMs.

The installation’s LBP management plan provides guidance on how to protect USAF personnel 

and the public from exposure to and the management and disposal of LBP (MacDill AFB 2007). 

Hangar 2 and Buildings 55, 303, and 378 are likely to contain LBP (MacDill AFB 2018a). The 

other buildings associated with the MacDill AFB Alternative might also contain LBP. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-45

Hangar 2 and Buildings 55, 303, and 378 were constructed prior to 1979 and, therefore, have 

the greatest potential to contain PCBs in building material (MacDill AFB 2018a). Older electrical 

infrastructure, such as light fixtures and surge protectors, within these buildings might also 

contain PCBs.

Environmental Contamination. As of July 2017, there are 25 active ERP and 4 active MMRP 

sites on MacDill AFB (MacDill AFB 2017a). This EA focuses only on those sites that have 

potential to be impacted by the MacDill AFB Alternative. ERP sites that require no further 

action; do not directly coincide with facilities proposed for construction, demolition, or 

renovation; or would not be impacted by the proposed work activities are not evaluated further. 

None of MacDill AFB’s MMRP sites coincide with areas associated with the MacDill AFB 

Alternative. The three ERP sites potentially affected by the MacDill AFB Alternative are 

described below.

Site 57, Former Pumphouse 76 and Fuel Pits 5-12. This ERP site is located on the north side of 

the North Ramp and coincides with the location of the proposed fuel cell hangar. Contamination 

associated with this site includes benzene in groundwater attributed to leaks from former aircraft 

fueling infrastructure. Contaminated soil has been removed from the site, and in situ 

groundwater treatment has been accomplished. Land use controls prohibit residential uses on 

the site because soil remediation is to industrial standards, and long-term groundwater 

monitoring is in place to verify the plume will dissipate (MacDill AFB 2018b).

Solid Waste Management Unit 61. This ERP site consists of a large chlorinated solvent plume 

that extends from the flightline to Hillsborough Bay. The plume coincides with portions of the 

North Ramp. In situ groundwater treatment has been accomplished, and land use controls 

prohibit use of groundwater from within the site. Long-term groundwater monitoring is in place 

to verify the plume will dissipate (MacDill AFB 2018b).

Solid Waste Management Unit 76. This ERP site is located within the Aircraft Hangar Complex 

and includes the proposed squadron operations facility; proposed warehouse facility; Hangar 2; 

Buildings 44, 55, and 56; and portions of the North Ramp. Soil and groundwater contamination 

resulting from past aircraft maintenance activities have been identified on the site. Some 

contaminated soils (i.e., those above industrial standards) have been removed from the site, 

and in situ groundwater treatment has been accomplished. Land use controls prohibit 

residential uses on the site, and long-term groundwater monitoring is in place to verify the plume 

will dissipate (MacDill AFB 2018b).

Radon. USEPA rates Hillsborough County, Florida, as radon zone 2. Counties in zone 2 have 

a predicted average indoor radon screening level between 2 and 4 pCi/L (USEPA 2018c).

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on or from hazardous materials and wastes would be considered significant if a 

proposed action would result in noncompliance with applicable federal or state regulations, or 

increase the amounts generated or procured beyond current management procedures, permits, 

and capacities. Impacts on contaminated sites would be considered significant if a proposed 

action would disturb or create contaminated sites resulting in negative impacts on human health 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-46

or the environment, or if a proposed action would make it substantially more difficult or costly to 

remediate existing contaminated sites.

3.5.3.1 PROPOSED ACTION

Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Wastes, and Petroleum Products. Short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts would occur from the use of hazardous materials and petroleum products and 

the generation of hazardous wastes during the proposed facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation. Hazardous materials that could be used include paints, welding gases, solvents, 

preservatives, and sealants. Additionally, hydraulic fluids and petroleum products, such as 

diesel and gasoline, would be used in the vehicles and equipment supporting facility 

construction. Construction would generate negligible to minor quantities of hazardous wastes. 

Contractors would be responsible for the disposal of hazardous wastes in accordance with 

federal and state laws. All hazardous materials, petroleum products, and hazardous wastes 

used or generated during construction would be contained, stored, and managed appropriately 

(e.g., secondary containment, inspections, spill kits) in accordance with applicable regulations to 

minimize the potential for releases. Contractors could be required to develop and implement 

their own Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans. All construction equipment 

would be maintained according to the manufacturer’s specifications and drip mats would be 

placed under parked equipment as needed. Hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and 

petroleum products currently within the affected portions of Buildings 2007, 2045, and 2050 

would be relocated to similar facilities to accommodate building renovation.

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts would occur from increases in use of hazardous materials 

and petroleum products and hazardous wastes generation following the proposed addition of 12 

KC-135s to Fairchild AFB. Additional quantities of hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and 

petroleum products, most notably jet fuel, would be delivered, stored, used, and disposed of

appropriately at Fairchild AFB for operation and maintenance of the additional aircraft. The 

quantities of hazardous materials, petroleum products, and hazardous wastes required for 

operation and maintenance of these additional aircraft would be similar and proportional to 

those for the installation’s existing KC-135s. New hazardous materials storage and hazardous 

waste collection points would be established, as necessary, and most likely would be sited in 

Buildings 1007, 2045, and 2050 based on anticipated building function. Fairchild AFB’s 

hazardous materials and hazardous waste management plans would be amended, as needed, 

for any new hazardous material, hazardous waste, or petroleum product capabilities. These 

plans would continue to be followed to lessen the potential for a release. Fairchild AFB is 

anticipated to have sufficient delivery, storage, and disposal capacity to accommodate the 

increased hazardous materials, petroleum products, and hazardous wastes requirements from 

the additional aircraft.

Special Hazards. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts from special hazards might occur from 

the proposed demolition and renovation of buildings potentially containing special hazards 

including ACMs, LBP, and PCBs that could be disturbed. Surveys for special hazards would be 

completed, as necessary, by a certified contractor prior to work activities to ensure that 

appropriate measures are taken to reduce potential exposure to, and release of, these special 

hazards. Contractors would wear appropriate personal protective equipment and would be 

required to adhere to all federal, state, and local regulations as well as the installation’s 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-47

management plans for these special hazards. All ACM- and LBP-contaminated debris would be 

disposed of at an USEPA-approved landfill. New building construction would not include the 

use of these special hazards because federal policies and laws limit their use in building 

construction applications. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impacts through demolition would 

occur from reducing the potential for future human exposure to special hazards and reducing 

the amount ACMs, LBP, and PCBs to maintain at Fairchild AFB.

Environmental Contamination. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts would occur because 

some facility construction, demolition, and renovation would coincide with active ERP sites. The 

proposed construction of the base and squadron operation facility, demolition of Building 1 and 

associated parking lots, addition onto Building 2048, pavement replacement outside of Building 

1017, and fuel line replacement have the greatest potential for conflicts with active ERP sites 

because work activities would involve ground disturbance within an active ERP site. Prior to the 

start of any construction or demolition, USAF would coordinate with the Fairchild AFB ERP 

office to ensure that ground disturbance is coordinated with ongoing remediation and 

investigation activities. The ERP office would ensure necessary consultation and coordination 

is completed with the USEPA and Washington State Department of Ecology, as required. ERP 

Sites SS-26 and SS-39 consist of groundwater contamination; therefore, contractors would take 

appropriate groundwater control measures should ground disturbance reach the depth of 

groundwater. The proposed facility projects would not impair the ability to monitor these sites. 

ERP Site TU-504 consists of soil contamination within the footprint of the proposed fuel line 

replacement. The first 12 feet of surface soils have been remediated to industrial standards and 

further investigation and appropriate corresponding remediation would be completed should the 

anticipated depth of excavation for the proposed fuel line reach 12 feet below ground surface 

(bgs). Proper handling and disposition of contaminated soils would be followed during 

construction on ERP Site TU-504. 

USAF continues to sample for and investigate PFOA and PFOS in accordance with regulatory 

health advisories. Construction of the proposed base and squadron operational facility and 

demolition of Building 1 and associated parking lots is likely to coincide with soil and 

groundwater contamination resulting from historic PFOA and PFOS releases. PFOA and PFOS 

have low potential for vapor intrusion. Construction within the footprint of PFOA and PFOS soil 

contamination would be subject to environmental requirements for the handling and disposition 

of the soil. This construction would be coordinated with the Fairchild AFB ERP office, who 

would in turn ensure necessary environmental regulatory consultation and coordination occurs.

Contractors performing construction and demolition could encounter undocumented soil or 

groundwater contamination. If soil or groundwater that is believed to be contaminated was 

discovered, the contractor would be required to immediately stop work, report the discovery to 

the installation, and implement appropriate safety measures. Commencement of field activities 

would not continue in this area until the issue was investigated and resolved.

Radon. Long-term, minor, adverse impacts from radon are possible. Based on the USEPA 

rating of radon zone 1 for Spokane County, it is possible the new and renovated facilities could 

have indoor radon screening levels greater than 4 pCi/L. Although basements and poorly 

ventilated areas are most commonly affected by radon, any indoor space in contact with the 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-48

ground (i.e., first floor of a slab building) is at risk. Radon could be managed in new 

construction by incorporating passive features into the design that limit the ability for radon to 

enter the building. These features could include placing aggregate material and matting below 

the concrete floor to encourage lateral, rather than vertical, flow of soil gas; designing the 

heating, ventilation, and air condition system to avoid depressurization of the first floor; and 

using airtight seals around pipes and wires where they protrude from below grade. Periodic 

radon testing would occur as needed in each new and renovated building. Post-construction 

radon management measures, such as installing ventilation systems to remove radon that has 

already entered the building, would be installed in buildings that test higher than 4 pCi/L.

3.5.3.2 MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Wastes, and Petroleum Products. Short-term, minor, 

adverse impacts would occur from the use of hazardous materials and petroleum products and 

the generation of hazardous wastes during the proposed facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation. Hazardous materials that could be used include paints, welding gases, solvents, 

preservatives, and sealants. Additionally, hydraulic fluids and petroleum products, such as 

diesel and gasoline, would be used in the vehicles and equipment supporting facility 

construction. Construction would generate negligible to minor quantities of hazardous wastes. 

Contractors would be responsible for the disposal of hazardous wastes in accordance with 

federal and state laws. All hazardous materials, petroleum products, and hazardous wastes 

used or generated during construction would be contained, stored, and managed appropriately 

(e.g., secondary containment, inspections, spill kits) in accordance with applicable regulations to 

minimize the potential for releases. Contractors could be required to develop and implement 

their own Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans. All construction equipment 

would be maintained according to the manufacturer’s specifications and drip mats would be 

placed under parked equipment as needed. Hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and 

petroleum products currently within the affected portions of Hangar 2 would be relocated to 

similar facilities to accommodate building renovation.

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts would occur from increases in use of hazardous materials 

and petroleum products and hazardous wastes generation following the proposed addition of 12 

KC-135s to MacDill AFB. Additional quantities of hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and 

petroleum products, most notably jet fuel, would be delivered, stored, used, and disposed of 

appropriately at MacDill AFB for operation and maintenance of the additional aircraft. The 

quantities of hazardous materials, petroleum products, and hazardous wastes required for 

operation and maintenance of these additional aircraft would be similar and proportional to 

those for the installation’s existing KC-135s. New hazardous materials storage and hazardous 

waste collection points would be established, as necessary, and most likely would be sited in 

Hangar 2, the proposed fuel cell hangar, and the proposed warehouse facility based on 

anticipated building function. MacDill AFB’s hazardous materials and hazardous waste 

management plans and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan would be 

amended, as needed, for any new hazardous material, hazardous waste, or petroleum product 

capabilities. These plans would continue to be followed to lessen the potential for a release and 

provide spill contingency and response requirements. MacDill AFB is anticipated to have 

sufficient delivery, storage, and disposal capacity to accommodate the increased hazardous 

materials, petroleum products, and hazardous wastes requirements from the additional aircraft.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-49

Special Hazards. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts from special hazards might occur from 

the proposed demolition and renovation of buildings potentially containing special hazards 

including ACMs, LBP, and PCBs that could be disturbed. Surveys for special hazards would be 

completed, as necessary, by a certified contractor prior to work activities to ensure that 

appropriate measures are taken to reduce potential exposure to, and release of, these special 

hazards. Contractors would wear appropriate personal protective equipment and would be 

required to adhere to all federal, state, and local regulations as well as the installation’s 

management plans for these special hazards. All ACM- and LBP-contaminated debris would be 

disposed of at an USEPA-approved landfill. New building construction would not include the 

use of these special hazards because federal policies and laws limit their use in building 

construction applications. Long-term, negligible, beneficial impacts through demolition would 

occur from reducing the potential for future human exposure to special hazards and reducing 

the amount ACMs, LBP, and PCBs to maintain at MacDill AFB.

Environmental Contamination. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts would occur because 

some facility construction, demolition, and renovation would coincide with active ERP sites. The 

proposed construction of the fuel cell hangar, warehouse facility, and squadron operations 

facility; demolition of Building 44; and renovation of the North Ramp have the greatest potential 

for conflicts with active ERP sites because work activities would involve ground disturbance 

within an active ERP site. Prior to the start of any construction or demolition, USAF would 

coordinate with the MacDill AFB ERP office to ensure that ground disturbance is coordinated 

with ongoing remediation and investigation activities. The ERP office would ensure necessary

environmental regulatory consultation and coordination action is completed, as required. Site 

57 and Solid Waste Management Units 61 and 76 consist of groundwater contamination 

beneath several facilities; therefore, contractors would take appropriate groundwater control 

measures should ground disturbance reach the depth of groundwater. The proposed facility 

projects would not impair the ability to monitor these sites. Site 57 and Solid Waste 

Management Unit 76 also contain areas where soil contamination above residential limits 

remains. The MacDill AFB ERP office would identify these areas to contractors so that 

appropriate safety precautions could be taken for workers during construction. The land use 

controls (e.g., prohibitions on residential development and groundwater use) at these ERP sites 

would not conflict with the proposed facility projects; however, handling and disposition 

requirements would apply to disturbances of contaminated soils.

Contractors performing construction and demolition could encounter undocumented soil or 

groundwater contamination. If soil or groundwater that is believed to be contaminated was 

discovered, the contractor would be required to immediately stop work, report the discovery to 

the installation, and implement appropriate safety measures. Commencement of field activities 

would not continue in this area until the issue was investigated and resolved. 

Radon. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts from radon are possible but unlikely. There is 

only a minimal potential for elevated indoor radon levels in Hillsborough County; therefore, it is 

unlikely the new and renovated buildings would have indoor radon screening levels greater than 

4 pCi/L. Additionally, the Florida Department of Health states that radon controls are generally 

unnecessary for new construction within the portion of Hillsborough County containing MacDill 

AFB (Florida DOH Undated). 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-50

3.5.3.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No Action Alternative, neither the Proposed Action nor the MacDill AFB Alternative 

would be implemented and hazardous materials and wastes conditions would remain as 

described in Sections 3.5.2.1 and 3.5.2.2. No impacts would occur. Special hazards currently 

found in the buildings proposed for demolition and renovation would remain intact and continue 

to require maintenance by USAF personnel.

3.6 Infrastructure and Transportation

3.6.1 Definition of the Resource

Infrastructure consists of the systems and physical structures that enable a population in a 

specified area to function. Infrastructure is wholly man-made with a high correlation between 

the type and extent of infrastructure and the degree to which an area is characterized as “urban” 

or developed. The availability of infrastructure and its capacity to support growth are generally 

regarded as essential to the economic growth of an area. The infrastructure components 

discussed in this section include utilities, solid waste management, and the transportation 

system. Utilities include electrical supply, water supply, sanitary sewer system, natural gas 

supply, liquid fuel supply, stormwater drainage system, and communications system. Solid 

waste management primarily relates to the availability of landfills to support a population’s solid 

waste needs. The transportation system addresses the capacity of roads, parking areas, and 

installation access gates to support vehicular movements.

3.6.2 Affected Environment 

3.6.2.1 FAIRCHILD AFB

Electrical Supply. Electrical power at Fairchild AFB is provided via the Bonneville Power 

Administration through Avista Utilities from two on-installation 115-kilovolt (kV) substations

(North and South). Both substations have three feeder circuits each distributing power at 

13.2 kV. The electrical system consists of the two substations, power lines (underground and 

overhead), high-voltage switches, junction boxes, and transformers. Annual maintenance on 

the North and South substation infrastructure is performed by Bonneville Power Administration 

(Fairchild AFB 2012a).

The estimated maximum peak electrical loading for Fairchild AFB is 10.8 megawatts (MW) with

3.78 MW of headroom. The average electrical demand is 65 percent of the peak load. In 2010, 

AMC determined that the electrical system at Fairchild AFB was adequate (Fairchild AFB 

2014a). Electrical system infrastructure is present within the areas of the Proposed Action.

Water Supply. Potable water is provided to Fairchild AFB by the Fort George Wright Annex 

well complex, which is northeast of Spokane International Airport. Five pumps at the well 

complex have a total capacity of 4,420 gallons per minute or 6.4 million gallons per day (mgd). 

The wells at the complex draw groundwater from both the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie

Aquifer and the Latah (Hangman) Creek Aquifer and feed the Geiger Reservoir from which 

water is then piped to storage tanks at the installation. The installation has a total water storage 

capacity of 2.16 million gallons (Fairchild AFB 2014a, Fairchild AFB 2011). 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-51

The Fairchild AFB water supply system, including storage capacity, provides an adequate 

supply of potable water to meet duration, flow rate, and pressure requirements for industrial and 

domestic consumption and fire protection. If water demand is not met by the well complex, two 

backup groundwater sources for potable water supply (i.e., Well 2 and an intertie with the City of 

Spokane) could supply an additional 4.6 mgd of potable water (Well 2 provides 1 mgd and the 

intertie provides 3.6 mgd), for a total of 11 mgd of available capacity to the installation. As of 

2012, the average water demand at the installation was 1.73 mgd with a peak water demand of 

4.82 mgd (Fairchild AFB 2014a). Potable water infrastructure is present within the areas of the 

Proposed Action.

Sanitary Sewer System. The sanitary sewer system at Fairchild AFB consists of lateral lines 

from buildings, lift stations, 605 sewer manholes, and 284,190 linear feet of sewer collection 

mains. The Spokane Wastewater Management Department treats most of the wastewater from 

the installation at the Riverside Park Water Reclamation Facility. The only exceptions are three 

mounded drain field systems that Fairchild AFB operates and maintains on the south side of the 

installation. The Riverside Park Water Reclamation Facility is located on the east bank of the 

Spokane River and currently processes approximately 29 to 30 mgd of sewage, which is 

approximately 68.2 percent of the 44 mgd capacity (Fairchild AFB 2014a).

The maximum wastewater discharge capacity of the installation’s sanitary sewer system is 1.8 

mgd. In 2012, daily discharges from the installation averaged 0.68 mgd and peaked in March 

and April at 1.25 mgd. The average daily discharge was 39 percent of the installation system 

capacity and 70 percent of the capacity at peak daily discharge. The overall condition of the 

sanitary sewer system is considered adequate for current mission requirements; however, 

recent surveys of the system have identified several inflow and infiltration issues that require 

attention (Fairchild AFB 2014a). Sanitary sewer infrastructure is present within the areas of the 

Proposed Action.

Natural Gas Supply. The natural gas system at Fairchild AFB consists of gas lines (steel and 

polyethylene piping), valves, vents, and meters. The steel pipes generally date from 1960, 

while the polyethylene pipes are less than 10 years old. The steel gas lines are protected from 

corrosion by a cathodic protection system. The main meter for natural gas is located at Graham 

Gate. Two contractors, Honeywell and Avista Utilities, currently own the natural gas system 

pipelines on the installation (Fairchild AFB 2014a). Natural gas infrastructure is present within 

the areas of the Proposed Action.

Liquid Fuel Supply. The liquid fuel storage system at Fairchild AFB consists of a filtration 

house, bulk storage farm with three tanks, transfer system, and three hydrant-refueling systems 

with operating storage tanks, ground products storage system, and two Government-owned 

vehicle service stations. Liquid fuel is received by the installation from both commercial pipeline 

and tank trucks. Fairchild AFB has a liquid fuel capacity of approximately 4.6 million gallons 

with 1.8 million gallons of storage demand, resulting in an available capacity of 61 percent. The 

distribution system can receive approximately 480,000 gallons per day (gpd) with an average 

demand of 360,000 gpd. In 2010, AMC determined that the fuel systems at Fairchild AFB were 

adequate (Fairchild AFB 2014a). Liquid fuel infrastructure is present within the areas of the 

Proposed Action.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-52

Stormwater Drainage System. The stormwater drainage system at Fairchild AFB consists of 

stormwater collection catch basins, drywells, collection piping, lagoons, ditches, and other 

stormwater conveyances. The installation’s system is divided into eight stormwater basins with 

Drainage Basin 1 being the largest. All of the proposed facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation would occur within Drainage Basin 1. Drainage Basin 1 flows in a northwest-tosoutheast direction via storm sewer, open storm conveyances, and sheet flow into a series of 

ponds before discharging off installation. Industrial activities occurring within Drainage Basin 1 

include aircraft maintenance, washing, and refueling; vehicle maintenance, washing, and 

refueling; outdoor equipment and vehicle storage; bulk fuel storage; personal vehicle 

maintenance and washing; and aircraft de-icing and anti-icing activities. The existing 

stormwater conveyance system covers the central part of the installation and flightline areas. 

The southern portion of the installation has a stormwater conveyance system serving the 

Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape School Campus. The remainder of the developed 

area allows sheet flow into open drainage ditches. Perched groundwater is present in many 

areas of the installation and localized flooding/ponding may occur, especially in the spring 

(Fairchild AFB 2014a). 

Fairchild AFB operates under the USEPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) and a required SWPPP. The 

stormwater drainage system is managed in accordance with the installation’s SWPPP (Fairchild 

AFB 2014a). Details about the installation’s NPDES Stormwater MSGP are provided in Section 

3.12.2.1. This permit does not authorize stormwater discharges associated with construction 

activities; therefore, a separate Notice of Intent for a NPDES Construction General Permit and 

SWPPP must be filed for all new construction activities that disturb 1 or more acres. 

Stormwater infrastructure is present within the areas of the Proposed Action.

Communications System. The communications system at Fairchild AFB is capable of 

supporting voice, data, video, wireless, land mobile radio, aircraft communications, and security 

systems. Backbone communications components and technology currently used are mostly 

copper and dated. As facilities are modernized, renovated, or constructed, new fiber 

communications are included in this process. The system includes a manhole/duct system, 

which is used to distribute copper and fiber cable throughout the installation. In remote areas of 

the installation, the fiber and copper cables are direct buried and do not use this system. The 

installation’s telephone system utilizes multiple switches to handle a variety of installation 

telephone requirements. The three main switches are located at Buildings 1304, 2248, and 

9000. These switches are connected via a Synchronous Optical Network backbone (Fairchild 

AFB 2014a). Communications infrastructure is present within the areas of the Proposed Action.

Solid Waste Management. Solid waste at Fairchild AFB is managed via an Integrated Solid 

Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) in accordance with AFI 32-7042, Waste Management. The 

Solid Waste Management and Recycling Program includes off-installation solid waste disposal 

and a full-service recycling center on the installation. A contractor, Quality Support Services, 

manages the recycling center at Building 2420. Under agreement with the City of Spokane and 

Spokane County, all municipal solid waste is disposed of at the Spokane Regional Waste-toEnergy Facility. Solid waste collection is completed by a contractor, Sunshine Disposal and 

Recycling. Construction and demolition (C&D) debris at the installation is recycled to the 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-53

greatest extent possible with the remainder disposed of at the Graham Road Recycling and 

Disposal Center, which has a remaining permitted capacity of approximately 13,053,000 tons 

(Fairchild AFB 2014a, Waste Management 2016).

Transportation System. There are 9.8 million ft2 of roadway surfaces on Fairchild AFB. The 

roads on the installation are adequate and meet current mission needs. The primary arterial 

roads moving traffic onto and off the installation are Mitchell Drive and Rambo Road, which 

connect with Bong Street, Arnold Street, Fairchild Street, and Eaker Avenue. All other roads on 

the installation feed into these primary roads. The main secondary roads include Strategic Air 

Command Boulevard, West Castle Street, and O’Malley Avenue. Arnold Street provides 

immediate access to the flightline at Fairchild AFB. The 2008 Transportation Plan for the 

installation provides specific recommendations and plans for future road and parking 

improvements based upon known problem areas and future facilities. Some of the 

recommended projects from the plan have already been constructed (Fairchild AFB 2014a). 

Regional access to Fairchild AFB is provided by Interstate (I)-90, U.S. Highway 2 (U.S. 2), and 

Washington State Highway 902. Vehicle access to the installation is provided through three 

primary gates: Main Gate, Rambo Gate, and Thorpe Gate. The Main Gate is located off U.S. 2 

and is open 24 hours a day. Rambo Gate, which is on the east side of the installation on South 

Rambo Road, is for commercial vehicles and DoD badge holders and is open from 6 a.m. to 8

a.m. (inbound only) and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. (outbound only) Monday through Friday. Thorpe Gate 

is in the southeastern part of the installation and serves personnel working in the southern 

portion of the installation, as well as personnel living in off-installation communities, such as the 

cities of Cheney and Medical Lake. Thorpe Gate is open 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. (inbound only) and 4

p.m. to 6 p.m. (outbound only) Monday through Friday for DoD badge holders. Assuming a 

worst-case scenario processing rate of 134 vehicles per lane per hour, the existing five lanes 

across the three gates providing access to the installation operate at capacity (668 vehicles) 

and at times operate over capacity during peak hours. McFarland Gate and Graham Gate are 

located on the west side of the installation, but are only used as contingency gates (Fairchild 

AFB 2014a). 

3.6.2.2 MACDILL AFB

Electrical Supply. Electrical power at MacDill AFB is provided by Tampa Electric Company 

(TECO), which provides two 35.2 MW feeders to the substation on the installation. The 

substation has five feeders that supply 13.2 kV power throughout the installation. The 

installation uses 26 MW, leaving a remaining capacity of 9.2 MW. TECO is constructing the 

Interbay Substation north of MacDill AFB, which will provide an additional 35.2 MW, doubling 

current capacity and solving any redundancy issues. Construction of the substation began in 

July 2017 and is scheduled to be complete by summer 2018 (TECO 2018). The installation is 

continually implementing energy conservation projects to meet the federal requirement for 

reduced energy consumption (MacDill AFB 2017a). 

Electricity is distributed via both underground and overhead lines throughout the installation. 

The administrative, flightline, and housing areas are served by primary and secondary 

underground lines, while the southern airfield and petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) farm areas 

receive electricity via overhead lines. The electrical distribution system has been updated and 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-54

is in excellent condition (MacDill AFB 2017a). Electrical system infrastructure is located within 

the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Water Supply. The potable water distribution system at MacDill AFB is privately owned and 

operated by the Florida Government Utility Authority (FGUA), which obtains water from the City 

of Tampa. Water quality is very good and the installation operates three chlorine booster 

stations that can treat domestic water when needed. There are three potable water tie-ins to 

receive water at the installation boundary and two water towers for potable water storage on the 

installation. The north tower, located in the main cantonment area, holds 500,000 gallons and 

the south tower, located in the accompanied housing area, holds 250,000 gallons, resulting in a 

total storage capacity of 750,000 gallons on the installation (MacDill AFB 2017a). 

The water distribution system, which includes potable water and fire protection, consists of 

227,000 linear feet of piping, most of which is 50 to 60 years old. It is a mixture of steel, cast 

iron, polyvinyl chloride, and high-density polyethylene pipe. The installation has been 

implementing improvement projects to replace the original cast iron pipes. Additional 

improvement projects are underway with more planned in the future. Despite being improved in 

recent years, the water distribution system is still considered degraded (MacDill AFB 2017a).

The capacity of the water distribution system at MacDill AFB is 3.6 mgd. Average demand on 

the installation is 1.05 mgd and peak demand is 3.31 mgd. During average and peak demand 

requirements, the installation has adequate water supply (MacDill AFB 2017a). Potable water 

infrastructure is located within the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative. 

Sanitary Sewer System. The water discharge and sewer collection systems at MacDill AFB 

are privately owned and operated by FGUA. The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) on the 

installation has a capacity of 1.2 mgd, which is sufficient to handle the average demand of 

400,000 gpd. Effluent from the WWTP is pumped into a holding pond with a capacity of 4 

million gallons. From the holding pond, the treated water is pumped to the north and south golf

courses for irrigation and to an irrigation field. The wastewater discharge and sewer collection 

systems are in good condition and consist of more than 62,000 linear feet of piping, 60 lift 

stations, and the WWTP. Approximately 12,000 linear feet of piping and 60 manholes have 

been recently replaced with more improvements planned for the future (MacDill AFB 2017a). 

Sanitary sewer infrastructure is located within the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Natural Gas Supply. Natural gas on MacDill is provided by Peoples Gas Company of Tampa, 

and the installation’s natural gas distribution system is owned and operated by USAF. Natural 

gas on the installation is used for heating facilities and water. The natural gas distribution 

system is in good condition and consists of 10 percent steel pipe and 90 percent high-density 

polyethylene pipe. It includes more than 43,000 linear feet of piping throughout the installation 

with an additional 16,523 linear feet in the housing areas. Due to the mild temperatures at 

MacDill AFB, natural gas demand is low. The distribution system has a capacity of 15,740,000 

cubic feet per month with a monthly demand of 2,884,000 cubic feet (MacDill AFB 2017a). 

Natural gas infrastructure is located within the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Liquid Fuel Supply. MacDill AFB receives, stores, and delivers liquid fuel by pipeline and 

commercial tanker truck, although pipeline delivery accounts for 98 percent of fuel delivery on 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-55

the installation. The Defense Fuel Supply Point consists of three aboveground storage tanks 

(ASTs) with a total capacity of 6.9 million gallons and the POL system consists of two ASTs and 

the Type III hydrant system. The POL system ASTs provide 2.4 million gallons of fuel to the 

Type III system, which is pressurized and services 12 hydrant pits. An additional three pits are 

planned for the future. Overall, the installation is operating at 48 percent capacity of the POL 

fuel storage and Type III hydrant system. It is estimated that approximately 17 million gallons of 

fuel will be used in FY 2018, or 1.4 million gallons fuel per month. The Defense Fuel Supply 

Point storage facilities were constructed in 1952 on the western side of the installation. The 

ASTs were refurbished in 1985 and are in good condition. The two POL ASTs were constructed 

in 2004 and are in great condition. The Type III hydrant system is also in good condition 

(MacDill AFB 2017a).

Stormwater Drainage System. All stormwater runoff from MacDill AFB is treated on the 

installation prior to discharge. The stormwater drainage system at MacDill AFB consists of 

drainage ditches, culverts, and storage ponds that connect to tidal creeks and canals or directly 

into Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay. The system includes 24.4 miles of culverts and 56.3 

miles of open ditches and canals with five drainage basins. The stormwater discharge and 

collection system has been updated over the years; however, some areas remain outdated. 

Stormwater management is a major consideration and design element for all new development 

at MacDill AFB, and the overall system improves as new development occurs and additional 

stormwater management improvements are made (MacDill AFB 2017a). 

The stormwater drainage system on the installation is permitted as an FDEP Phase II municipal 

separate storm sewer system (MS4). The MS4 receives both nonindustrial and industrial 

stormwater runoff. NPDES regulations require the installation to obtain authorization from 

FDEP for discharges of stormwater to any surface water (ditches, canals, ponds) and waters of 

the United States (Hillsborough Bay and Tampa Bay). MacDill AFB has two NPDES permits, 

including a MSGP for stormwater discharge associated with industrial activities and a general 

permit for stormwater discharges from Phase II MS4 (MacDill AFB 2011d). Details about the 

installation’s stormwater permits are provided in Section 3.12.2.2. Additionally, projects that 

disturb over 1 acre (or that contribute stormwater discharges to surface waters of the State of 

Florida or a MS4) must apply for a NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharge from 

Large and Small Construction Activities. Stormwater infrastructure is present within the areas of 

the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Communications System. Communications infrastructure at MacDill AFB consists of 

underground copper cable (15 percent) and fiber optic cable (85 percent). The communications 

system includes one core router and seven support routers that serve 250 buildings on the 

installation. The system is robust with only 12 percent of the system being utilized. The 

communications infrastructure is in good condition and upgraded every 5 years (MacDill AFB 

2017a).

Solid Waste Management. In accordance with AFI 32-7042, municipal solid waste at MacDill 

AFB is managed via an ISWMP. As part of the ISWMP, the installation maintains a recycling 

program to manage recyclable materials. Under the recycling program, the installation collects 

cardboard, glass, scrap metal, aluminum cans, steel cans, plastic bottles, newspapers, office 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-56

paper, universal waste, waste jet fuel, used oil, and used oil filters. Sea Coast Disposal, a 

contractor, is responsible for collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste and 

recyclable materials. DLA Disposition Services at MacDill AFB accepts materials for 

reutilization, transfer, donation, or sale. They process recyclable materials including scrap 

metals, electronics, automotive tires, and aircraft tires; and government-procured items such as 

car batteries, furniture, appliances, computers, paints, lubricants, and antifreeze (MacDill AFB 

2008b).

The installation generates approximately 5,500 tons of nonhazardous solid waste, including 

C&D debris. Approximately 44 percent of the nonhazardous waste and 59 percent of the C&D 

waste are diverted on average. Solid waste generated at the installation that is not diverted is 

typically disposed of at the McKay Bay Refuse-to-Energy Facility located off-installation in 

Tampa (MacDill AFB 2008b). This facility receives an average of more than 360,000 tons of 

waste annually. The McKay Bay Refuse-to-Energy Facility has a design capacity of 1,000 tons 

per day, although the operational capacity is 904 tons per day. 

Management of C&D waste generated from contractor-performed construction, renovation, and 

maintenance projects on the installation is the responsibility of the contractor. Contractors are 

required to comply with federal, state, local, and USAF regulations for the collection and 

disposal of municipal solid waste.

Transportation System. There are approximately 8 million ft2 of roadway surfaces throughout 

MacDill AFB. The roads on the installation are adequate and meet current mission needs. The 

on-installation transportation system consists of primary, secondary, and tertiary roadways that 

connect with the off-installation roadways through the four access gates. Primary roads include 

South Boundary Boulevard and Florida Keys Avenue, and portions of North Boundary 

Boulevard and Hillsborough Loop Drive. Secondary roads include Hangar Loop Drive, Marina 

Bay Drive, and Bayshore Boulevard as well as portions of North Boundary Boulevard and 

Hillsborough Loop Drive. The installation has implemented traffic control measures on most of 

the signaled intersections, which has alleviated most traffic congestion problems throughout the 

installation. With a daily population of just under 19,000, parking has remained a concern at 

many locations on the installation. Surface parking is provided in the areas of the MacDill AFB

Alternative (MacDill AFB 2017a). 

There are three general access gates for privately owned vehicles (POVs) and one commercial 

vehicle inspection (CVI) gate. The main gate, known as the Dale Mabry Gate, is located in the 

north-central portion of the installation and is fed by Dale Mabry Highway, the main north/south 

road to and from the installation from the north. The Dale Mabry Gate accounts for 

approximately 57 percent of the traffic accessing the installation. The two other POV gates are 

the Bayshore and MacDill gates. Bayshore Gate, fed by Bayshore Boulevard, is located on the 

northwestern corner of the installation. The MacDill Gate, fed by MacDill Avenue, is located 

between the Bayshore and Dale Mabry gates on the northern edge of the installation. The CVI 

gate is located at the western end of North Boundary Boulevard west of the Dal Mabry Gate and 

allows POV entry during the morning rush hour. These gates process 12,000 POVs per day 

(MacDill AFB 2017a). 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-57

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences

The analysis to determine whether impacts on infrastructure systems are significant primarily 

considers whether a proposed action would exceed capacity or place unreasonable demand on 

a specific utility. Impacts might arise from energy needs created by either direct or indirect 

workforce and population changes related to installation activities. It is assumed construction 

contractors would be informed on utility locations prior to any ground-disturbing activities that 

would result in unintended utility disruptions or human safety hazards. All construction would be 

conducted in accordance with federal and state safety guidelines. Any permits required for 

excavation and trenching would be obtained prior to the commencement of construction 

activities. Impacts on transportation systems would be considered significant if they significantly 

degrade the existing transportation infrastructure by creating unacceptable traffic on roadways, 

excessive delays at installation access gates, or shortfalls in parking.

3.6.3.1 PROPOSED ACTION

Electrical Supply. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the electrical distribution system 

would occur during facility construction, demolition, and renovation. Electrical service 

interruptions could be experienced should aboveground or underground electrical lines need to 

be rerouted, when new or renovated facilities are connected to the installation’s electrical 

distribution system, and when Building 1 is disconnected prior to demolition.

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the electrical distribution system at Fairchild AFB 

would occur from a slight increase in electrical power usage from the increase in personnel and 

new and expanded facilities and additional infrastructure. To conservatively estimate the 

increased electrical use of the Proposed Action, the residential electrical use associated with 

personnel and dependents that would be permanently stationed at Fairchild AFB under the 

Proposed Action was calculated. The most recent available data from U.S. Energy Information 

Administration (USEIA) in 2016 identified that residential customers (i.e., households) used an 

average of approximately 11.5 megawatt hours (MWh) per household per year in the State of 

Washington (USEIA 2017a). Using that number as a residential planning factor, the additional 

369 households at Fairchild AFB (one for each active duty military personnel including their 

dependents) would increase the state’s annual demand for electricity by approximately 4,244 

MWh per year. This would represent an increase of approximately 0.01 percent of total state 

usage in 2016. 

Assuming the additional population resides on Fairchild AFB and the population uses electricity 

at the 2016 residential average rate of 0.03 MWh per household per day, the Proposed Action 

would increase the daily use of electricity at the installation by approximately 11.1 MWh per day. 

This would increase the average daily demand at the installation by approximately 6.6 percent 

and represents an end result of approximately 69 percent of the total capacity at Fairchild AFB. 

Water Supply. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the water supply system would 

occur during facility construction, demolition, and renovation as existing water lines are 

connected to new buildings or capped as appropriate. The water supply line for Building 2048 

would be relocated to the northwest side of the building to accommodate the proposed flight 

simulator addition, which would be sited within the footprint of the building’s existing water 

supply line. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-58

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the water supply system would occur from the 

population increase associated with the Proposed Action. According to the most recent USGS 

data, the per capita domestic water consumption for the State of Washington is 111 gpd (USGS 

2014b). Based on the increase of 970 personnel and dependents at the installation, potable 

water usage would be expected to increase by approximately 107,700 gpd. Assuming that all 

new personnel and dependents reside on Fairchild AFB, the Proposed Action would increase 

the average daily demand at the installation from 1.73 mgd to 1.84 mgd, resulting in an increase 

of approximately 6.5 percent and remaining within available system capacity. 

Sanitary Sewer System. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the sanitary sewer system 

would occur during facility construction, demolition, and renovation as existing sanitary sewer 

lines are connected to new buildings or capped as appropriate.

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the sanitary sewer system would occur from the 

population increase associated with the Proposed Action. USEPA estimates that the average 

person generates approximately 100 gpd of wastewater (USEPA 2005). Using this amount as a 

planning factor, along with the increase in installation population by 970 people, the Proposed 

Action would increase wastewater discharge at the installation by approximately 97,000 gpd 

(approximately 0.1 mgd). This is an approximate 8 percent increase in the peak average daily 

wastewater discharge, and would be able to be accommodated by the existing sanitary sewer 

system. 

Natural Gas Supply. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on natural gas supply would 

occur during facility construction, demolition, and renovation as existing natural gas lines are 

connected to new buildings or capped as appropriate.

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the natural gas supply system would occur from the 

increase in personnel and new and expanded facilities and additional infrastructure at Fairchild 

AFB associated with the Proposed Action. For natural gas consumption estimates, USEIA 

identified that approximately 1,153,183 residential consumers (i.e., households) in the State of 

Washington used approximately 76,321 million cubic feet of natural gas in 2016 (USEIA 2017b). 

This equates to an average of approximately 0.07 million cubic feet per household. Using that 

amount as a planning factor along with the change in population at Fairchild AFB anticipated 

from the Proposed Action (369 households), natural gas usage would increase the state’s 

annual residential demand by 25.8 million cubic feet. This represents approximately 0.03 

percent of the total statewide usage in 2016. 

Liquid Fuel Supply. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the liquid fuel supply system at 

Fairchild AFB would occur. The addition of 12 KC-135s would result in a 16.3 percent increase 

in annual aircraft operations at the installation and a corresponding increase in liquid fuel 

demand. Fairchild AFB currently has the capacity to receive 480,000 gpd and store 4.6 million 

gallons of jet fuel, and the installation is currently utilizing approximately 75 percent of supply 

capacity and 39 percent of storage capacity with its current mission. As such, the existing liquid 

fuel infrastructure can accommodate the proposed increase in aircraft operations. Long-term, 

beneficial impacts would result from the proposed fuel line replacement and upgrade of the fuel 

hydrant system within the areas of the Proposed Action. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-59

Stormwater Drainage System. Short- and long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the 

stormwater drainage system at Fairchild AFB would occur. The proposed facility construction, 

demolition, and renovation would take place within existing developed areas such as the 

installation flightline and cantonment area. The total disturbed area associated with these 

projects would not exceed 717,245 ft2 and would result in an increase in impervious surfaces on 

the installation by 34,172 ft2

. All of the proposed facility construction, demolition, and renovation 

would occur in Drainage Basin 1.

During facility construction, demolition, and renovation, all contractors would be required to 

comply with applicable statutes, standards, regulations, and procedures regarding stormwater 

management. During the design phase, a variety of stormwater controls or BMPs would be 

incorporated into construction plans, which would include planting native vegetation in disturbed 

areas as soon as possible following construction activities; constructing retention facilities; and 

implementing structural controls such as interceptor dikes, swales (excavated depressions), silt 

fences, straw bales, and other storm drain inlet protection, as necessary, to prevent 

sedimentation in inlet structures. 

Update of the Fairchild AFB SWPPP may be required and requirements of Energy

Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 would be followed to maintain or restore, to the 

maximum extent practicable, the predevelopment hydrology of the collective project sites with 

respect to rate, volume, and duration of flow. Use of BMPs and guidance for maintaining and 

restoring areas of development outlined in the Fairchild AFB SWPPP would be followed to 

minimize or avoid adverse impacts.

Communications System. Short- and long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the 

communications system at Fairchild AFB would occur. Disruptions in communications service 

would be anticipated as new facilities are connected to the existing communications 

infrastructure and Building 1 is taken off the communications system prior to demolition. As 

discussed in Section 3.6.2.1, because components of the communications system on the 

installation are dated, as facilities are modernized, renovated, or constructed, they are upgraded 

with new fiber communications systems. 

Solid Waste Management. Short- and long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on solid waste 

management at Fairchild AFB would occur from the increased solid waste generated during 

facility construction, demolition, and renovation and by the increased installation population. All 

solid waste, both municipal and C&D debris, generated during the Proposed Action would be 

collected and transported off-site for disposal or recycling. Contractors would be required to 

comply with federal, state, and local regulations for the collection and disposal of municipal solid 

waste from the installation. Much of the debris would be recycled, reused, or otherwise diverted 

from landfills to the extent practicable. 

Contractors completing any facility construction, demolition, or renovation project would be 

responsible for disposing of waste generated from these activities. Using methodology 

developed by USEPA, the facility construction, demolition, and renovation supporting the 

Proposed Action would generate approximately 2,691 tons of C&D debris (USEPA 2009). 

Disposal of C&D debris would be through an integrated C&D debris diversion approach, which 

would include reuse, recycling, volume reduction/energy recovery, and similar diversion actions. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-60

The Fairchild AFB ISWMP requires up to 50 percent of C&D debris be diverted and DoD has a 

goal of 60 percent diversion (Fairchild AFB 2014a). Applying the DoD diversion goal rate to the 

potential amount of C&D debris would result in approximately 1,615 tons of C&D debris diverted 

for reuse or recycling, and approximately 1,076 tons being placed in the Graham Road 

Recycling and Disposal Center landfill.

Transportation System. Short-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on the transportation 

system would occur during facility construction, demolition, and renovation. These activities 

would require the delivery of materials to and removal of C&D debris from the project sites. 

Trucks associated with these activities would access the installation via the Rambo Gate. 

Construction crews would access the installation via the Main Gate or the Rambo Gate. 

Construction-related traffic would result in a small increase to the current traffic volume and 

would be temporary in nature. Intermittent traffic delays and temporary road closures could 

occur in the immediate vicinity of the areas of the Proposed Action. However, potential impacts 

would be avoided or minimized by scheduling truck deliveries outside the peak inbound traffic 

times and by construction workers using the Rambo Gate to access the installation during peak 

hours. Additionally, heavy construction equipment would be driven to the work sites and kept 

on the installation for the duration of construction activities. 

Long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on the Fairchild AFB transportation system 

would occur. Depending on the number of the 370 new personnel that reside off the installation, 

congestion and queuing, primarily at the Main Gate and the Thorpe Gate, could increase during 

peak travel times. To avoid significant impacts, the installation could adjust the schedule of 

operations to accommodate the expected increase, upgrade entry gates, or provide additional 

personnel at the gates to process security checks during peak hours as required.

3.6.3.2 MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

Electrical Supply. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the electrical distribution system 

would occur during facility construction, demolition, and renovation. Electrical service 

interruptions could be experienced should aboveground or underground electrical lines need to 

be rerouted, when new or renovated facilities are connected to the installation’s electrical 

distribution system, and when Building 44 is disconnected prior to demolition.

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the electrical distribution system at Fairchild AFB 

would occur from the MacDill AFB Alternative. These impacts would result from a slight 

increase in electrical power usage from the increase in personnel and new and expanded 

facilities and additional infrastructure. To conservatively estimate the increased electrical use of 

the MacDill AFB Alternative, the residential electrical use associated with personnel and the 

dependents being permanently stationed at MacDill AFB was calculated using the most recent 

avilable data from USEIA that identified in 2016, residential customers (i.e., households) used 

an average of approximately 13.5 MWh per household per year in the State of Florida (USEIA 

2017a). Using that number as a planning factor, the addition of 394 households at MacDill AFB 

(one for each active duty military personnel including their dependents) would increase the 

state’s annual demand for electricity by approximately 5,319 MWh per year. This would 

represent an approximate increase of less than 0.01 percent of total state usage in 2016.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-61

Assuming the change in population resides on MacDill AFB and the population uses electricity 

at the 2016 residential average rate of 0.04 MWh per household per day, the MacDill AFB 

Alternative would increase the daily use of electricity at the installation by approximately 15.8 

MWh per day. This would increase the average daily demand at the installation by 

approximately 2.7 percent. As discussed in Section 3.6.2.2, TECO is constructing an additional 

substation north of the installation that will provide an additional 35.2 MW, doubling current 

capacity.

Water Supply. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the water supply system occur 

during facility construction, demolition, and renovation as existing water lines are connected to 

new buildings or capped as appropriate.

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the water supply system would occur from the 

population increase associated with the MacDill AFB Alternative. According to the most recent 

USGS data, the per capita domestic water consumption for the State of Florida is 87 gpd 

(USEPA 2005). Based on the increase of 1,035 personnel and dependents at the installation, 

potable water usage would be expected to increase by approximately 90,045 gpd. The MacDill 

AFB Alternative would increase the average daily demand at the installation from 1.05 mgd to 

1.14 mgd, an increase of approximately 8.6 percent, which would remain within available 

system capacity. 

Sanitary Sewer System. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the sanitary sewer system 

would occur during facility construction, demolition, and renovation as existing sanitary sewer 

lines are connected to new buildings or capped as appropriate. 

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the sanitary sewer system would occur from the 

population increase associated with the MacDill AFB Alternative. USEPA estimates that the 

average person generates approximately 100 gpd of wastewater (USEPA 2005). Using this 

amount as a planning factor, along with the increase in installation population by 1,035, the 

MacDill AFB Alternative would increase wastewater discharge at the installation by 

approximately 103,500 (0.1 mgd). This represents an increase of approximately 26 percent in 

the average daily demand for a total demand of 503,500 gpd, but would be accommodated by 

the existing WWTP that has a capacity of 1.2 mgd. 

Natural Gas Supply. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on natural gas supply would 

occur during facility construction, demolition, and renovation as existing natural gas lines are 

connected to new buildings or capped as appropriate.

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the natural gas supply system would occur from the 

increase in personnel and new and expanded facilities and additional infrastructure at MacDill 

AFB. For natural gas consumption estimates, USEIA identified that approximately 731,744 

residential consumers (i.e., households) in the State of Florida used approximately 15,352 

million cubic feet of natural gas in 2016 (USEIA 2017b). This equates to an average of 

approximately 0.02 million cubic feet per household. Using that amount as a planning factor 

along with the change in population at the installation anticipated from the MacDill AFB 

Alternative (394 households), natural gas usage would increase the state’s annual residential 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-62

demand by 7.9 million cubic feet. This represents approximately 0.05 percent of the total 

statewide usage in 2016. 

Liquid Fuel Supply. Long-term, negligible, adverse and beneficial impacts on the liquid fuel 

supply system would occur. The addition of 12 KC-135s would result in a 29 percent increase 

in annual aircraft operations at the installation and a corresponding increase in liquid fuel 

demand. MacDill AFB currently operates at 48 percent capacity of the POL fuel storage and 

Type III hydrant system and can accommodate the increase in aircraft operations. Although the 

installation would have an adequate supply and storage of fuel for the increase in aircraft 

operations, the existing hydrant fuel system is not adequate to support the additional KC-135

aircraft. However, upgrade of the fuel hydrant system and addition of eight new hydrants would 

occur under this alternative. Therefore, the MacDill AFB Alternative would result in a long-term, 

beneficial impact on the liquid fuel system. 

Stormwater Drainage System. Short- and long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the 

stormwater drainage system would occur. The proposed facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation would occur within existing developed areas such as the installation flightline and 

cantonment area. The total disturbed area associated with these projects would not exceed 

1,699,440 ft2 and would result in an increase in impervious surfaces on the installation by 

104,500 ft2

. As discussed in Section 3.6.2.2, stormwater management is a major consideration 

and design element for all new development on the installation and the overall system would 

improve as new development occurs and additional stormwater management improvements are 

made.

During facility construction, demolition, and renovation, all contractors would be required to 

comply with applicable statutes, standards, regulations, and procedures regarding stormwater 

management. During the design phase, a variety of stormwater controls or BMPs would be 

incorporated into construction plans. A Notice of Intent for an NPDES Construction General 

Permit and SWPPP would be filed for construction activities disturbing 1 or more acres and all 

BMPs outlined therein would be adhered to during construction activities.

Communications System. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on the communications 

system at MacDill AFB would occur. Disruptions in communications service would be 

anticipated as new facilities are connected to the existing communications infrastructures and 

Building 44 is taken off the communications system prior to demolition. Because the 

communications system on MacDill AFB is robust and only 12 percent of the system is currently 

being used, no long-term impacts are expected. 

Solid Waste Management. Short- and long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on solid waste 

management at MacDill AFB would occur from the increased solid waste generated during 

facility construction, demolition, and renovation and by the increased installation population. All 

solid waste, both municipal and C&D debris, would be collected and transported off-site for 

disposal. Contractors completing any construction, demolition, or renovation project would be 

responsible for disposing of waste generated from these activities. Using methodology 

developed by the USEPA, the facility construction, demolition, and renovation supporting the 

MacDill AFB Alternative would generate approximately 1,192 tons of C&D debris (USEPA 

2009). Disposal of C&D debris would be through an integrated construction and demolition 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-63

debris diversion approach, which would include reuse, recycling, volume reduction/energy 

recovery, and similar diversion actions. 

Contractors would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations for the 

collection and disposal of municipal solid waste from the installation. Much of the debris would 

be recycled, reused, or otherwise diverted from landfills to the extent practicable. The MacDill 

AFB ISWMP requires up to 40 percent of C&D debris to be diverted and DoD has a goal of 60 

percent diversion (MacDill AFB 2008b). Applying the DoD diversion goal rate to the potential 

amount of C&D debris would result in approximately 474 tons of C&D debris diverted for reuse 

or recycling, and approximately 718 tons being disposed of at the McKay Bay Refuse-to-Energy 

Facility. Therefore, no significant impacts on solid waste management are expected from the 

MacDill AFB Alternative. 

Transportation System. Short-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on the transportation 

system would occur during facility construction, demolition, and renovation. These activities 

would require the delivery of materials to and removal of C&D debris from the project sites. 

Trucks associated with these activities would access the installation via the CVI gate. 

Construction crews would access the installation via the POV gates. Construction-related traffic 

would result in a small increase to the current traffic volume and would be temporary in nature. 

Intermittent traffic delays and temporary road closures could occur in the immediate vicinity of 

areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative. However, potential impacts would be avoided or 

minimized by scheduling truck deliveries outside the peak inbound traffic times. Additionally, 

heavy construction equipment would be driven to the work sites and kept on the installation for 

the duration of construction activities.

Long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on the MacDill AFB transportation system 

would occur from the MacDill AFB Alternative. Dependent upon the number of the 395 new 

personnel that reside off the installation, congestion and queuing, primarily at the POV gates 

could increase during peak travel times. To avoid significant impacts, the installation could 

adjust the schedule of operations to accommodate the expected increase, upgrade entry gates, 

or provide additional personnel at the gates to process security checks during peak hours as 

required. Although the proposed facility construction, demolition, and renovation would result in 

a net reduction of 22,500 ft2 of paved parking areas from the installation, the existing and 

proposed parking areas and the installation roadway network would be able to accommodate 

the increased personnel on a daily basis.

3.6.3.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

No impacts on infrastructure and transportation would occur under the No Action Alternative. 

No additional aircraft, personnel and dependents, or operations and maintenance activities 

would occur at either installation. No facility construction, demolition, or renovation would occur. 

Existing conditions described in Sections 3.6.2.1 and 3.6.2.2 would remain unchanged.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-64

3.7 Noise

3.7.1 Definition of the Resource

Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of vibrations that travel through a medium, such as 

air, and are sensed by the human ear. Noise is defined as any sound that is undesirable 

because it interferes with communication, is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise 

intrusive. Human response to noise varies depending on the type and characteristics of the 

noise, distance between the noise source and the receptor, receptor sensitivity, and time of day. 

Noise is often generated by activities essential to a community’s quality of life, such as aircraft 

operations, construction, or vehicular traffic.

Sound varies by both intensity and frequency. Sound pressure level, described in decibels (dB), 

is used to quantify sound intensity. The dB is a logarithmic unit that expresses the ratio of a 

sound pressure level to a standard reference level. Hertz are used to quantify sound frequency. 

The human ear responds differently to different frequencies. “A-weighing,” measured in dBA,

approximates a frequency response expressing the perception of sound by humans. Sounds 

encountered in daily life and their sound levels are provided in Table 3-17. 

Table 3-17. Common Sounds and Their Levels

Outdoor Sound Level

(dBA) Indoor

Jet flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Rock band

Gas lawnmower at 3 feet 90 Food blender at 3 feet

Downtown (large city) 80 Garbage disposal

Heavy traffic at 150 feet 70 Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet

Normal conversation 60 Normal speech at 3 feet

Quiet urban daytime 50 Dishwasher in next room

Quiet urban nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room

Source: CALTRAN 2013

The sound pressure level noise metric describes steady noise levels, although few noises are, 

in fact, constant. Therefore, additional noise metrics such as the following have been 

developed to describe noise:

Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) – Leq is the average sound level in dB of a given event or 

period of time.

DNL – DNL is the average sound energy in a 24-hour period with a penalty added to the 

nighttime levels. Due to the potential to be particularly intrusive, noise events occurring 

between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. are assessed a 10 dB penalty when calculating DNL. DNL 

is a useful descriptor for aircraft noise because it: (1) averages ongoing yet intermittent 

noise, and (2) measures total sound energy over a 24-hour period. DNL provides a 

measure of the overall acoustical environment, but it does not directly represent the 

sound level at any given time. For well-distributed sound, which is sound not focused at 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-65

a particular location such as an aircraft overflight, Leq is approximately 6.4 dBA lower 

than DNL.

Annoyance – Annoyance is a subjective response that is often triggered by interference 

of activities with noise. Although the reaction of an individual to noise depends on a 

wide variety of factors, surveys have found a correlation between the time-averaged 

noise level as measured in DNL and the percentage of the affected population that is 

highly annoyed. It is widely accepted that 65 dBA DNL is the noise level at which a 

substantial percentage of the population can be expected to be annoyed by noise.

Regulatory Review and Land Use Planning. The Noise Control Act of 1972 directs federal 

agencies to comply with applicable federal, state, and local noise control regulations. The Noise 

Control Act specifically exempts both aircraft operations and military training activities from state 

and local noise ordinances. There are no federal, state, or local noise regulations directly 

applicable to the Proposed Action or the MacDill AFB Alternative. Both Fairchild AFB and 

MacDill AFB have noise abatement procedures that are described in the following sections. 

USAF’s land use guidelines for noise exposure are outlined in AFI 32-7063, Air Installations 

Compatible Use Zones Program. Table 3-18 provides a general overview of recommended 

noise limits from aircraft operations for land use planning purposes. 

Table 3-18. Recommended Noise Limits for Land Use Planning

General Level of 

Noise

Percent Highly 

Annoyed

Aircraft Noise 

(DNL)

General Recommendation for Noise 

Sensitive Land Use

Low < 15 < 65 dBA Acceptable

Moderate 15 to 39 65 to 75 dBA Normally not recommended

High > 39 > 75 dBA Not recommended

Source: USAF 2015

3.7.2 Affected Environment 

3.7.2.1 FAIRCHILD AFB

Background Noise. Existing sources of noise on and adjacent to Fairchild AFB include military 

and civilian aircraft overflights, road traffic, and other noises such as lawn maintenance 

equipment, construction, and bird and animal vocalizations. Background noise levels without 

aircraft operations (Leq and DNL) were estimated for the areas surrounding the installation using 

the techniques specified in the American National Standards Institute - Quantities and 

Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound Part 3: Short-term 

measurements with an observer present. Areas surrounding the installation are primarily quiet 

rural areas and have estimated background noise levels of less than 40 dBA in the daytime, 34 

dBA at night, and 42 dBA DNL overall (ANSI 2013). Table 3-19 outlines the estimated 

background noise levels for the land uses surrounding Fairchild AFB. DNL is greater than the 

Leq because the noise occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. is assessed a 10 dB penalty.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-66

Table 3-19. Estimated Background Noise Levels Surrounding Fairchild AFB

Direction General Land Use 

Characterization

Leq (dBA) DNL (dBA) Daytime Nighttime

South Rural 40 34 42

North/East/West Remote/Rural 38 32 40

Source: ANSI 2013

Aircraft Noise. The existing mission and aircraft operations at Fairchild AFB are described in 

Section 2.1. The USAF adopted the NOISEMAP computer program to describe noise impacts

from aircraft operations (USAF 2016a). NOISEMAP is a suite of computer programs and 

components developed by the USAF to predict noise exposure near an airfield due to aircraft 

flight, maintenance, and ground run-up operations. NOISEMAP accounts for all aircraft 

activities, including landings, take-offs, in-flight operations, maintenance activities, and engine 

run-ups. NOISEMAP Version 7.3 was used to calculate the existing DNL noise contours at 

Fairchild AFB. 

Figure 3-3 shows the existing DNL noise contours plotted in 5 dB increments ranging from 65 to 

75 dBA DNL. The noise contours depict 2014 operational conditions at Fairchild AFB (USAF 

2014b). There have been no substantial changes in operations or mission at the installation

since these noise contours were developed; therefore, they have been carried forward as a 

comparative baseline to determine the level of impacts under NEPA. The existing 65 dBA DNL 

noise contour extends approximately 0.5 mile from both ends of the installation’s runway. 

The 65 dBA DNL is the noise level below which generally all land uses are compatible with 

noise from aircraft operations. It should be emphasized that these noise levels, which are often 

shown graphically as contours on maps, are not discrete lines that sharply divide louder areas 

from land largely unaffected by noise. Instead, they are part of a planning tool that depicts the 

general noise environment around the installation based on typical aviation activities. Areas 

beyond 65 dBA DNL can also experience levels of appreciable noise depending upon training 

intensity or weather conditions. In addition, DNL noise contours may vary from year to year due 

to fluctuations in operational tempo due to unit deployments, funding levels, and other factors.

Table 3-20 presents the existing land acreage exposed to noise levels 65 dBA DNL or greater

near Fairchild AFB. Areas exposed to sound levels greater than 65 dBA DNL are predominantly 

within the installation boundary with 83 acres off the installation and 1,535 acres on the 

installation that are within the 65 dBA DNL contour. There are no schools, churches, hospitals, 

or noise sensitive areas within the existing 65 dBA DNL contour. Based on aerial photography 

interpretation, there are no residences within the 65 dBA DNL contour.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-67

Sources: USAF 2016a, USAF 2014b

Figure 3-3. Existing Noise Contours for Fairchild AFB
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-68

Table 3-20. Area within Noise Contours at Fairchild AFB – Existing Conditions

Noise Contour 

(dBA DNL)

Area Under Contours (Acres)

On-Installation Off-Installation Total

65 to 69 583 82 665

70 to 74 463 1 464 

75 to 79 325 0 325

80 to 84 136 0 136

≥85 28 0 28

Total 1,535 83 1,618

Sources: Interpreted from data from USAF 2014b, USAF 2016a

Noise Abatement Procedures. Aircraft noise abatement procedures at Fairchild AFB have 

been designed to minimize impacts on the surrounding community while maximizing operational 

capacity and flexibility. The installation's aircraft noise abatement procedures restrict overflights 

over Eastern Washington State Hospital, Sunset Elementary School, and housing areas on the 

installation. Overflights are not permitted below 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) over

Airway Heights Correctional Facility (USAF 2014b). Overflights over the City of Spokane are 

not permitted below 5,000 feet above MSL (i.e., approximately 3,200 feet AGL) for fixed-wing 

aircraft or below 500 feet AGL for helicopters. Noise complaints in the community around 

Fairchild AFB are infrequent. Complaints range from general noise complaints to complaints of 

low-flying aircraft and noise from exploding ordnance.

3.7.2.2 MACDILL AFB

Background Noise. Existing sources of noise on and adjacent to MacDill AFB include military 

and civilian aircraft overflights, road traffic, and other noises such as lawn maintenance 

equipment, construction, and bird and animal vocalizations. Background noise levels without 

aircraft operations (Leq and DNL) were estimated for areas surrounding MacDill AFB using the 

techniques specified in Section 3.7.2.1 for Fairchild AFB. Areas surrounding the installation are 

primarily quiet suburban residential and have estimated background noise levels of less than 45 

dBA in the daytime, 39 dBA at night, and 48 dBA DNL overall (ANSI 2013). Table 3-21 outlines

the estimated background noise levels for the land uses surrounding MacDill AFB. 

Table 3-21. Estimated Background Noise Levels Surrounding MacDill AFB

Direction General Land Use

Characterization

Leq (dBA) DNL (dBA) Daytime Nighttime

North Suburban 45 39 48

South/East/West Rural/Over Water 38 32 40

Source: ANSI 2013

Aircraft Noise. The existing mission and aircraft operations at MacDill AFB are described in 

Section 2.2.2.1. NOISEMAP Version 7.3 was used to calculate the existing DNL noise 

contours at MacDill AFB (USAF 2016a). Figure 3-4 shows the existing DNL noise contours 

plotted in 5 dB increments ranging from 65 to 75 dBA DNL. The existing 65-dBA DNL noise 

contour extends approximately 1 mile from both ends of the installation’s runway. The noise 

contours depict 2013 operational conditions at MacDill AFB and also reflect eight additional 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-69

Sources: USAF 2016a, USAF 2017b

Figure 3-4. Existing Noise Contours for MacDill AFB
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-70

KC-135s (i.e., 24 total) added to MacDill AFB in FY 2018 and 23 U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) 

Black Hawk helicopters proposed for beddown on MacDill AFB in the near future under 

separate actions (USAF 2017b, USAF and USAR 2017). No other substantial changes in 

operations or mission at the installation have occurred since these noise contours were 

developed; therefore, they have been carried forward as a comparative baseline to determine 

the level of impacts under NEPA. 

Table 3-22 presents the existing land acreage exposed to noise levels 65 dBA DNL or greater

near MacDill AFB. There are 553 areas off the installation and 1,342 acres on the installation 

within the existing 65 dBA DNL contour. Except for residential areas immediately north of 

MacDill AFB, all the contours are over the water or the installation itself. There are no schools, 

churches, or hospitals within the existing 65 dBA DNL contour.

Table 3-22. Area within Noise Contours at MacDill AFB – Existing Conditions

Noise Contour 

(dBA DNL)

Area Under Contours (Acres)

On-Installation Off-Installation Total

65 to 69 469 512 981 

70 to 74 373 41 414

75 to 79 213 0 213

80 to 84 211 0 211

≥85 76 0 76

Total 1,342 553 1,895

Sources: Interpreted from data from USAF 2017b, USAF 2016a

Noise Abatement Procedures. Aircraft noise abatement procedures at MacDill AFB have 

been designed to minimize impacts on the surrounding community while maximizing operational 

capacity and flexibility. The high population density of the area surrounding the installation

requires strict use of noise abatement procedures for arriving and departing aircraft. To reduce 

the impacts of noise, MacDill AFB limits transient aircraft to one approach and a full stop landing 

between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Fighter aircraft are restricted to straight-in/full-stop

approaches/landings after 9 p.m. Additionally, the installation controls and schedules missions

to keep noise levels low, especially at night. Flight patterns specific to MacDill AFB have 

resulted from the following considerations:

 Takeoff patterns routed to avoid noise-sensitive areas as much as possible

 Arrivals and departures routed to avoid restricted airspace

 Criteria governing the speed, rate of climb, and turning radius for each type of aircraft

 Efforts to control and schedule missions to keep noise levels low, especially at night

 Coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration to minimize conflict with civil 

aircraft operations (USAF 2017b).

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences

This section discusses noise from construction, noise from individual aircraft, potential changes 

to land use compatibility from noise, and potential noise impacts on human health and safety 

due to implementing the Proposed Action or MacDill AFB Alternative. A discussion of the 

impacts of noise on biological resources, land use compatibility as a whole, and environmental 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-71

justice and sensitive receptors is provided in Sections 3.2.3, 3.8.3, and 3.11.3, respectively. 

Changes in noise would be considered significant if they would lead to a violation of any federal, 

state, or local noise ordinance, or substantially increase areas of incompatible land use outside 

the installation.

3.7.3.1 PROPOSED ACTION

The Proposed Action would result in short- and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts

on the noise environment. Short-term impacts would be from noise generated by heavy 

equipment during facility construction, demolition, and renovation. Long-term impacts would be 

from an increase in aircraft noise in areas surrounding Fairchild AFB. The Proposed Action 

would not lead to a violation of any federal, state, or local noise ordinances, and would not 

substantially increase areas of incompatible land use on and adjacent to Fairchild AFB.

Facility Construction, Demolition, and Renovation. The proposed facility construction, 

demolition, and renovation at Fairchild AFB would require the use of heavy equipment that 

would generate short-term increases in noise near the areas of the Proposed Action. 

Table 3-23 presents typical noise levels (dBA at 50 feet) for the main phases of outdoor 

construction. Individual pieces of heavy equipment typically generate noise levels of 80 to 90 

dBA at a distance of 50 feet (USAF 2014b, ANSI 2013). With multiple items of equipment 

operating concurrently, noise levels can be high within several hundred feet of active 

construction sites. 

Table 3-23. Noise Levels Associated with Outdoor Construction

Construction Phase Leq (dBA at 50 feet)

Ground clearing 84

Excavation, grading 89

Foundations 78

Structural 85

Finishing 89

Sources: USEPA 1971, FHWA 2006

All facility construction, demolition, and renovation would be within the Fairchild AFB property 

boundary, collocated with other existing noise-compatible activities, and end with completion of 

such activities. The nearest off-installation residential area to an area of the Proposed Action is 

approximately 4,300 feet to the north, and heavy equipment noise would be barely audible at 

this distance. Some people living or working near the areas of the Proposed Action may notice 

or potentially be annoyed by the noise. However, these activities would be conducted in the 

context of an active AFB where aircraft and other types of noise are typical. Given the 

temporary nature of the proposed construction activities, distance to nearby noise-sensitive 

areas; and the existing noise environment, these impacts would be minor. The following BMPs

would be performed to reduce further any realized noise impacts: 

Heavy equipment use would occur primarily during normal weekday business hours in 

areas near to noise-sensitive land uses such as residential and recreational areas. 

Heavy equipment mufflers would be maintained properly and in good working order. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-72

Personnel, particularly equipment operators, would wear adequate personal hearing 

protection to limit exposure and ensure compliance with federal health and safety 

regulations.

Individual Aircraft. Aircrews operating the additional KC-135 aircraft would use similar flight 

procedures to those used by existing KC-135 aircrews currently based at Fairchild AFB. 

Aircrews would conduct operations primarily during daytime hours, with approximately 10 

percent of their operations between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Depending on the aircraft altitude and 

timing, individual overflights could interfere with communication, disrupt sleep, and intermittently 

annoy individuals. With the addition of 12 KC-135 at the installation, there would be a 33 

percent increase in these events when compared to current conditions. As with existing 

conditions, overflights could continue to annoy some nearby individuals from time to time; 

however, the overall noise environment would be comparable to the existing KC-135 mission. 

Therefore, these impacts would be minor. Aircraft noise abatement procedures currently in 

place at Fairchild AFB would continue to be implemented to reduce these already limited 

impacts. 

Land Use Compatibility. Noise levels on and adjacent to Fairchild AFB following the addition 

of the proposed KC-135 aircraft were calculated using the NOISEMAP 7.3 (USAF 2016a). The 

addition of the 12 proposed KC-135s and associated air operations would produce a negligible 

increase in the noise levels surrounding Fairchild AFB. Figure 3-5 shows the installation-wide 

DNL noise contours with and without the Proposed Action. Table 3-24 presents the land 

acreage exposed to noise levels 65 dBA DNL or greater with and without the Proposed Action. 

The 65 dBA DNL noise contour would continue to extend approximately 0.5 mile from both ends 

of the runway. However, the Proposed Action would increase the off-installation areas exposed 

to 65 dBA DNL or greater from 83 to 100 acres. The additional 17 acres would be primarily on 

the east side of the runway over undeveloped and agricultural areas and not in any 

concentrated location or residential area. Changes in the overall noise environment at and 

surrounding Fairchild AFB would be minute and indistinguishable from existing conditions. 

There would continue to be no schools, churches, or hospitals within the new 65-dBA DNL 

contour. Based on aerial photography analysis, there would not be any residences within the 

65-dBA DNL contour under Proposed Action. Therefore, impacts on land use compatibility from 

the Proposed Action would be negligible.

Human Health and Safety. Equivalent sound level 80 dBA is the noise level below which 

generally there are negligible impacts to human hearing (USAF 2016b). Implementation of the 

Proposed Action would not expose off-installation areas to noise levels greater than 80 dBA 

DNL. Approximately 167 acres on Fairchild AFB would be exposed to noise levels of 80 dBA 

DNL or greater, an increase of 3 acres when compared to existing conditions (see Table 3-24). 

Other than aircraft support structures and hangers, no on-installation buildings would be 

exposed to noise levels of 80 dBA DNL or greater. The Fairchild AFB occupational hearing 

program would continue to be implemented in accordance with AFI 48-127, Occupational Noise 

and Hearing Conservation Program, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) regulations regarding occupational noise exposure (USAF 2016b); therefore, these 

impacts would be negligible.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-73

Sources: USAF 2016a, USAF 2014b

Figure 3-5. Noise Contours for Proposed Action
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-74

Table 3-24. Area within Noise Contours at Fairchild AFB – Proposed Action

Noise Contour 

(dBA DNL)

Area Under Contours (Acres)

Existing Conditions Proposed Action

OnInstallationOffInstallation Total OnInstallationOffInstallation Total

65 to 69 583 82 665 587 99 686

70 to 74 463 1 464 466 1 467

75 to 79 325 0 325 326 0 326

80 to 84 136 0 136 138 0 138

≥85 28 0 28 29 0 29

Total 1,535 83 1,618 1,546 100 1,646

Sources: Interpreted from data from USAF 2014b, USAF 2016a

In residential areas, long-term exposure to aircraft-induced Leq of 60 dBA has been associated 

with an increased incidence of hypertension (Kaltenbach et al. 2008). For well-distributed 

sound, Leq is approximately 6.4 dBA lower than DNL; therefore, 65 dBA DNL is a conservative 

surrogate for the 60 dBA Leq threshold. The Proposed Action would not expose any residences 

to the 65 dBA DNL contour under Proposed Action. No adverse impacts would result from 

potential increased incidence of hypertension.

3.7.3.2 MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

The MacDill AFB Alternative would result in short-term, minor and long-term, minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on the noise environment. Short-term impacts would be from noise generated 

by heavy equipment during facility construction, demolition, and renovation. Long-term impacts

would be from an increase in aircraft noise in areas surrounding MacDill AFB. The MacDill AFB 

Alternative would not lead to a violation of any federal, state, or local noise ordinances, and 

would not substantially increase areas of incompatible land use on and adjacent to MacDill AFB.

Facility Construction, Demolition, and Renovation. The proposed facility construction, 

demolition and renovation under the MacDill AFB Alternative would be similar in nature and 

overall level of noise as that described in Section 3.7.3.1 for the Proposed Action. All facility 

construction, demolition, and renovation would be within the MacDill AFB property boundary, 

collocated with other existing noise-compatible activities, and end with completion of such 

activities. 

The nearest off-installation residential area to an area of the MacDill AFB Alternative is 

approximately 2,500 feet north, and heavy equipment noise would be barely audible at this 

distance. Some people living or working near the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative may 

notice or potentially be annoyed by the noise. However, these activities would be conducted in 

the context of an active AFB where aircraft and other types of noise are typical. Given the 

temporary nature of proposed facility construction, demolition, and renovation; distance to 

nearby noise sensitive areas; and the existing noise environment, these impacts would be 

minor. BMPs identical to those outlined in Section 3.7.3.1 for the Proposed Action would be 

implemented for the MacDill AFB Alternative to further reduce any realized noise impacts. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-75

Individual Aircraft. Aircrews operating the additional KC-135 aircraft would use similar flight 

procedures to those used by existing KC-135 aircrews currently based at MacDill AFB. 

Depending on the aircraft altitude and timing, individual overflights could interfere with 

communication, disrupt sleep, and intermittently annoy individuals. With the addition of 12 

KC-135 at the installation, there would be a 50 percent increase in these events when 

compared to current conditions. As with existing conditions, overflights could continue to annoy 

some nearby individuals from time to time; however, the overall noise environment would be 

comparable to the existing KC-135 mission. Therefore, these impacts would be minor. Aircraft 

noise abatement procedures at MacDill AFB would continue to be implemented to reduce these 

already limited impacts. 

Land Use Compatibility. Noise levels on and adjacent to MacDill AFB following the addition of 

the proposed KC-135 aircraft were calculated using NOISEMAP 7.3 (USAF 2016a). The 

addition of the 12 proposed KC-135s and associated air operations would produce a moderate 

increase in the noise levels surrounding MacDill AFB. Figure 3-6 shows the installation-wide 

DNL noise contours with and without the MacDill AFB Alternative. Table 3-25 presents the land 

acreage exposed to noise levels 65 dBA DNL or greater with and without the MacDill AFB 

Alternative. The 65 dBA DNL noise contour would continue to extend approximately 1 mile from 

both ends of the runway but would be extended slightly farther than existing conditions. The 

area off-installation exposed to 65 dBA DNL or greater would increase from 553 to 720 acres 

with approximately 56 percent of that amount being over the water. Excluding acreage over 

water, approximately 52 additional acres containing 80 residences north of the base would be 

within the 65 to 69 dBA DNL noise contour, and approximately 21 additional acres containing 55 

residences that were within the 65 to 69 dBA DNL noise contour would be within the 70 to 74 

dBA DNL noise contour. Residential use is normally not recommended for areas within the 65

dBA to 74 dBA DNL noise contours. This would constitute a moderate increase in areas of 

incompatible land use outside the installation. These areas are currently situated 1 mile from 

the end of the runway and are currently exposed to persistent aircraft noise. With the addition 

of the aircraft, some individuals within these areas may sense the increase in aircraft and 

become highly annoyed. Therefore, impacts on land use compatibility would be moderate.

Table 3-25. Area within Noise Contours at MacDill AFB – MacDill AFB Alternative 

Noise Contour 

(dBA DNL)

Area Under Contours (Acres)

Existing Conditions MacDill AFB Alternative

OnInstallationOffInstallation Total OnInstallationOffInstallation Total

65 to 69 469 512 981 464 638 1,102

70 to 74 373 41 414 389 82 471 

75 to 79 213 0 213 217 0 217

80 to 84 211 0 211 211 0 211

≥85 76 0 76 80 0 80

Total 1,342 553 1,895 1,361 720 2,081

Sources: Interpreted from data from USAF 2017b; USAF 2016a
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-76

Sources: USAF 2016a, USAF 2017b

Figure 3-6. Noise Contours for MacDill AFB Alternative
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-77

Human Health and Safety. Equivalent sound level 80 dBA is the noise level below which 

generally there are negligible impacts to human hearing (USAF 2016b). Implementation of the 

MacDill AFB Alternative would not expose off-installation areas to noise levels greater than 80

dBA DNL. Approximately 291 acres on MacDill AFB would be exposed to noise levels of 80

dBA DNL or greater, an increase in 4 acres when compared to existing conditions (see Table 

3-25). Other than aircraft support structures and hangers, no buildings would be exposed to 

noise levels of 80 dBA DNL or greater. The MacDill AFB occupational hearing program would 

continue to be implemented in accordance with AFI 48-127 and OSHA regulations regarding 

occupational noise exposure (USAF 2016b); therefore, these impacts would be negligible.

In residential areas, long-term exposure to aircraft-induced Leq of 60 dBA has been associated 

with an increased incidence of hypertension (Kaltenbach et al. 2008). For well-distributed 

sound, Leq is approximately 6.4 dBA lower than DNL; therefore, 65 dBA DNL is a conservative 

surrogate for 60 dBA Leq. The MacDill Alternative would expose approximately 80 additional 

residences off-installation to long-term noise levels greater than 60 dBA Leq (i.e., 65 dBA DNL) 

when compared to existing conditions. Minor, adverse impacts would result from the potential 

increased incidence of hypertension.

3.7.3.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

No impacts on the noise environment would occur under the No Action Alternative. No facility 

construction, demolition, and renovation would occur, and there would be no increases in 

support personnel or aircraft operations. Noise conditions would remain unchanged when 

compared to existing conditions at both installations as identified in Sections 3.7.2.1 and

3.7.2.2. 

3.8 Land Use

3.8.1 Definition of the Resource

Land Use. Land use refers to real property classifications that indicate either natural conditions 

or the types of human activity occurring on a parcel. In many cases, land use descriptions are 

codified in local zoning laws. Two main objectives of land use planning are to ensure orderly 

growth and compatible uses among adjacent property parcels or areas. However, there is no 

nationally recognized convention or uniform terminology for describing land use categories. As 

a result, the meanings of various land use descriptions, labels, and definitions vary among 

jurisdictions. Natural conditions of property can be described or categorized as unimproved, 

undeveloped, conservation or preservation area, and natural or scenic area. There is a wide 

variety of land use categories resulting from human activity. Descriptive terms for human 

activity land uses often used include residential, commercial, industrial, military, agricultural, 

institutional, transportation, communications and utilities, and recreational. 

In appropriate cases, the location and extent of a proposed action needs to be evaluated for its 

potential impacts on a project site and adjacent land uses. The foremost factor affecting a

proposed action in terms of land use is its compliance with any applicable land use or zoning 

regulations. Other relevant factors include matters such as existing land use at the project site, 

the types of land uses on adjacent properties and their proximity to a proposed action, the 

duration of a proposed activity, and its permanence.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-78

Coastal Zone Consistency Review. The federal Coastal Zone Management Program 

comprehensively addresses the nation’s coastal issues through a voluntary partnership between 

the federal government and coastal states and territories. Authorized by the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (16 USC § 1451 et seq., as amended), the program aims to 

protect, restore, and responsibly develop the nation’s diverse coastal communities and 

resources. The coastal zone refers to the coastal waters and the adjacent shorelines, including 

islands, transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches. The National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) administers the program.

Section 307 of the CZMA, called the “federal consistency” provision, provides a state with input 

authority in federal agency decision making for activities that may affect a state’s coastal uses 

or resources. The state would not otherwise have such authority through other federal 

programs. Generally, federal consistency requires that federal actions, within and outside the 

coastal zone, which have reasonably foreseeable impacts on any coastal use (land or water) or 

natural resource of the coastal zone, be consistent with the enforceable policies of a state’s 

federally approved coastal management program. Federal actions include federal agency 

activities, federal license or permit activities, and federal financial assistance. Federal agency 

activities must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of 

a state’s coastal management program.

3.8.2 Affected Environment 

3.8.2.1 FAIRCHILD AFB

Installation Land Use. The 2014 Fairchild AFB Installation Development Plan (IDP) describes

physical development on the installation and includes a long-range development plan. The IDP 

details 11 land use categories and 6 planning districts. Existing and future land use categories 

include administrative, airfield (or airfield pavements), aircraft operations and maintenance, 

community commercial, community service, housing accompanied, housing unaccompanied, 

industrial, medical/dental, open space, and outdoor recreation. The six planning districts 

(i.e., administrative, community center, operations and maintenance, training, munitions, and 

residential) define the primary focus of planning for long-term future growth for that area’s 

specific character. In general, military housing, administrative facilities, aircraft operations and 

maintenance facilities, commercial facilities, community services facilities, and outdoor 

recreation areas at Fairchild AFB are north of the airfield while the areas south of the airfield are 

primarily industrial and open space. Existing airfield operations and installation land uses are 

compatible with adjacent land uses and do not have any notable compatibility issues either 

internally or outside the installation boundary (Fairchild AFB 2014a).

The proposed facility construction, demolition, and renovation areas primarily fall within the 

aircraft operations and maintenance land use category; however, portions of these project areas 

are within the airfield, community commercial, industrial, and open space land use categories 

(see Table 3-26). Land use categories adjacent to the proposed construction areas include 

administrative and outdoor recreation. Most of the proposed construction areas fall within the 

operations and maintenance planning district, but the proposed renovation and construction of 

an addition to Building 2379 occurs within the community center planning district (Fairchild AFB 

2014a). The operations and maintenance planning district includes the airfield, runway, and 

most of the mission-support functions. The community center planning district is characteristic 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-79

of a town center area that supports the adjacent residential areas and mission/work areas. 

Table 3-26 lists the existing and proposed future land use categories and planning districts 

associated with the proposed construction areas at Fairchild AFB. 

Table 3-26. Existing Land Use, Future Land Use, and Planning Districts Associated with the 

Proposed Action

Proposed Construction, Demolition, and 

Renovation Projects

Existing Land 

Use Category

Future Land Use 

Category

Planning 

District

Base and Squadron Operations Facility

construction 

Open space Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Operations and 

maintenance 

Building 1 (Base and Squadron Operations 

Facility) and parking lot demolition

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Operations and 

maintenance

Building 1007 (Primary Fuel Cell)

renovation 

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Operations and 

maintenance

Building 1017 (Central Tool Kit) renovation, 

awning construction, and pavement 

replacement

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Operations and 

maintenance

Building 2005 (Refueling Squadron and 

Aircraft Maintenance Personnel) renovation

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Operations and 

maintenance

Building 2007 (Aircraft Maintenance Unit)

renovation

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Operations and 

maintenance

Building 2045 (Flightline Warehouse)

renovation, addition construction, and 

Flightline Gate relocation

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Industrial Operations and 

maintenance

Building 2045 (Flightline Warehouse) 

parking lot construction

Airfield Industrial Operations and 

maintenance

Building 2048 (Flight Simulator) addition 

construction

Industrial Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Operations and 

maintenance

Building 2050 (Hangar Bay) renovation Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Operations and 

maintenance

Building 2379 (Fitness Center) renovation 

and addition construction

Community 

commercial

Community 

service

Community 

center

Parking ramp renovation (pavement 

replacement) and fuel line replacement

Airfield Airfield Operations and 

maintenance

Source: Fairchild AFB 2014a

The Fairchild AFB ERP Land Use Control Management Plan documents the processes used to 

implement, monitor, maintain and enforce remedies that protect human health and the 

environment from ERP sites in accordance with the CERCLA and the National Contingency 

Plan. Three ERP sites coincide with the proposed facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation areas. ERP Site SS-26 is immediately adjacent to Building 1017; ERP Site SS-39 

may coincide with Buildings 1, 2048, and 2050; and ERP Site TU-504 coincides with the 

proposed fuel line replacement. Additionally, contamination resulting from historic PFOA and 

PFOS releases may coincide with Building 1, its associated parking lot, and the proposed base 

and squadron operations facility. 

Specific land use controls (LUCs) in place for ERP sites SS-26 and SS-39 include restrictions 

controlling access to the sites, restrictions against the use of contaminated groundwater, and 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-80

implementation of a dig permit system limiting access and exposure to contaminated soils and 

groundwater (Fairchild AFB 2007b). LUCs for ERP Site TU-504 are not included in the ERP 

Land Use Control Management Plan; however, the first 12 feet of surface soils have been 

remediated to industrial standards and further investigation and appropriate corresponding 

remediation would be completed should excavation reach 12 feet bgs. Refer to Section 3.5.2.1

for additional details on these ERP sites and their associated LUCs. 

Land use restrictions are also associated with the airfield and aircraft operations on Fairchild 

AFB. The USAF Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) program provides guidelines for 

compatible use and recommended land uses around airfields based on DoD-recommended 

uses. Land use guidelines set forth in the AICUZ program reflect recommendations for clear 

zones (CZs), accident potential zones (APZs) I and II, and noise contours. CZs and APZs are 

areas where nonairfield development is constrained or discouraged for airfield safety. All 

development is prohibited within CZs. APZs use density development requirements to 

discourage development. The Fairchild AFB noise contours around the airfield range from 65 to 

greater than 85 dBA DNL (i.e., the existing noise contours). According to USAF recommended 

land use compatibility guidelines presented in the Fairchild AFB AICUZ Study, land uses are 

generally compatible with noise levels at or below 65 dBA DNL (Fairchild AFB 2007a). No oninstallation residences, schools, churches, hospitals, or other noise sensitive land uses are 

within the CZ, APZs, or 65-dBA DNL noise contour. Refer to Section 3.7.2.1 for more 

information on the existing noise environment at Fairchild AFB. 

Surrounding Area Land Use. Fairchild AFB is located in Spokane County, Washington. The 

lands immediately surrounding the installation comprise the unincorporated (i.e., not selfgoverned) communities and lands of the West Plains. The West Plains are defined as the 

plateaued areas north of Medical Lake, west of Latah Creek and the Spokane River, south of 

Deep Creek ravine, and the eastern boundary of Fairchild AFB (City of Spokane 2014). 

Agriculture is the dominant land use within Spokane County’s unincorporated areas and the 

West Plains area adjacent to Fairchild AFB with vast areas west and southeast of the

installation devoted to grain production or maintained as open rangeland. Land uses 

surrounding the installation are also primarily agricultural with a few commercial, industrial, and 

residential areas. Residential land uses adjacent to the installation consist of very low-density

residential parcels that are 3 to 10 acres in size (Fairchild AFB 2014a). 

Comprehensive land use planning for the West Plains is currently achieved via the 

Comprehensive Plans established for the cities of Spokane, Airway Heights, Medical Lake, and 

Cheney; the 2014 West Plains Transportation Subarea Plan; the West Plains Development 

Code; and the 2009 Fairchild Joint Land Use Study (JLUS). These plans were developed in 

part to identify compatible land uses and growth management guidelines near the installation 

(City of Spokane 2014). As recommended in the JLUS and in the Spokane Tribe of Indians’ 

West Plains Mixed-Use Development Project EIS, the Tribe enacted the West Plains 

Development Code to implement measures for restricted building heights; reduced density, 

noise, light, and glare; and limitation of wildlife attractants for the Spokane Tribe of Indians hotel 

and casino that is located immediately northeast of the installation (Spokane County 2009, 

Spokane Tribe of Indians 2017, USBIA and the Spokane Tribe of Indians 2013, USAF 2014b). 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-81

Spokane County, the City of Spokane, and the City of Airway Heights similarly revised their land 

use ordinances to implement JLUS recommendations (Spokane Tribe of Indians 2017).

As discussed in the 2007 Fairchild AFB AICUZ Study, USAF provides recommendations and 

guidelines for compatible land uses to local jurisdictions through the AICUZ program. USAF 

has restrictive easements on privately and publicly owned land adjacent to Fairchild AFB within 

the CZs to protect against incompatible uses, and existing land uses within the northern and 

southern APZ I areas are compatible. The Fairchild AFB AICUZ Study identified incompatible 

residential and public use lands within the northern APZ II area off the installation (Fairchild AFB 

2014a, USAF 2014b). No off-installation residences or other noise sensitive land uses exist 

within the existing 65-dBA DNL noise contour. Refer to Section 3.7.2.1 for more information on 

the existing noise environment of the area surrounding Fairchild AFB. 

Additionally, the Spokane County Zoning Code, Chapter 14.700, Airport Overlay Zones (AOZs)

as amended January 2008, implements development restrictions near airports through 

identification of AOZs. The AOZ Program is similar in design and intent to the AICUZ Program. 

The Spokane County Zoning Code effectively implements Federal Aviation Administrationregulated APZs to identify areas and restrict land uses within Spokane County communities 

immediately proximal to Fairchild AFB and other airports where the greatest potential for aircraft 

accidents exists (Spokane County 2008, Spokane County 2009). 

Coastal Zone Consistency Review. Fairchild AFB is not within the coastal zone of 

Washington state; therefore, potential impacts on the coastal zone from the proposed facility 

construction, demolition, and renovation areas at Fairchild AFB is not discussed further (WA 

DOE 2010).

3.8.2.2 MACDILL AFB

Installation Land Use. The 2017 MacDill AFB IDP describes physical development on the 

installation and includes a long-range development plan. The IDP details 11 existing and future 

land use categories and 6 planning districts. Existing and future land use categories include 

administrative, airfield (or airfield pavements), aircraft operations and maintenance, community 

commercial, community service, housing accompanied, housing unaccompanied, industrial, 

medical, open space, and outdoor recreation. Compatible land uses have generally been 

developed within close proximity to one another to achieve functional areas (e.g., aircraft 

facilities are adjacent to the airfield). The six planning districts (i.e., accompanied housing, 

administration core, front gate, recreation, south airfield, and west & central airfield) are 

identified by their character, land use, intensity of development, or the type of activities 

occurring within them. In general, military housing, administrative facilities, airfield operations 

and maintenance facilities, commercial facilities, and community services are within the 

northeastern portion of the installation; the airfield comprises the central and western portions of 

the installation; open space and industrial areas comprise the northwestern, southwestern, and 

southern portions of the installation; and a large recreational area is within the southeastern 

portion of the installation (MacDill AFB 2017a). 

The proposed facility construction, demolition, and renovation areas primarily fall within the 

aircraft operations and maintenance land use category; however, portions of these project areas 

are within the airfield, community service, housing unaccompanied, and industrial land use 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-82

categories (see Table 3-27). Land use categories adjacent to the proposed construction areas 

are administrative, community commercial, housing accompanied, industrial, and outdoor 

recreation. Most of the proposed construction areas fall within the administration core planning 

district, but construction of the fuel cell hangar occurs within the front gate planning district. The 

administration core planning district includes most of the operational facilities on MacDill AFB, 

and the front gate planning district provides a variety of functions from community commercial 

uses to high-profile DoD mission facilities (MacDill AFB 2017a). Table 3-27 lists the existing 

and proposed future land use categories and planning districts associated with the proposed 

facility construction, demolition, and renovation areas at MacDill AFB.

Table 3-27. Existing Land Use, Future Land Use, and Planning Districts Associated with the 

MacDill AFB Alternative

Proposed Construction, Demolition, 

and Renovation Projects

Existing Land Use 

Category

Future Land Use 

Category

Planning 

District

Hangar 2 (Hangar Bay) renovation Aircraft operations and 

maintenance

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Administration 

core

Building 55 (Aircraft Maintenance 

Squadrons) renovation

Aircraft operations and 

maintenance

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Administration 

core

Building 56 (Aircraft Maintenance 

Squadrons) renovation

Aircraft operations and 

maintenance

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Administration 

core

Building 303 (Fitness Center) addition 

construction

Community service Community service Administration 

core

Building 378 (Dormitory) renovation Housing 

unaccompanied

Housing 

unaccompanied

Administration 

core

Fuel Cell Hangar construction Airfield Airfield Front gate

North Ramp renovation (hard stand 

repair and fuel hydrant system 

installation)

Airfield Airfield Administration 

core

Squadron Operations Facility

construction, Building 44 demolition, and 

parking lot expansion

Aircraft operations and 

maintenance

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Administration 

core

Warehouse Facility construction Aircraft operations and 

maintenance

Aircraft operations 

and maintenance

Administration 

core

Source: MacDill AFB 2017a

The MacDill AFB Land Use Control Implementation Plan, in accordance with the CERCLA and

National Contingency Plan, details the 23 LUCs in place for most of the ERP sites on the 

installation (MacDill AFB 2017a). Three ERP sites coincide with the proposed facility 

construction, demolition, and renovation areas. Site 57, Former Pumphouse 76 and Fuel Pits 

5-12, coincides with the proposed Fuel Cell Hangar; Solid Waste Management Unit 61 

coincides with portions of the North Ramp; and Solid Waste Management Unit 76 coincides with

the proposed squadron operations facility, proposed warehouse facility, Hangar 2, Building 44, 

Building 55, Building 56, and portions of the North Ramp. Specific LUCs in place for Site 57

and Solid Waste Management Unit 76 prohibit residential uses on the site and require long-term 

groundwater monitoring. The LUC in place for Solid Waste Management Unit 61 requires longterm groundwater monitoring (MacDill AFB 2018b). Refer to Section 3.5.2.2 for additional 

details on these ERP sites and their associated LUCs.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-83

Similar to Fairchild AFB, MacDill AFB’s AICUZ program provides guidelines for compatible land 

use within CZs, APZs I and II, and areas within noise contours ranging from 65 to greater than 

85 dBA DNL. No on-installation residences, schools, churches, hospitals, or other noisesensitive land uses fall within the CZs, APZs, or noise contours (MacDill AFB 2017a). Refer to 

Section 3.7.2.2 for more information on the existing noise environment at MacDill AFB. 

Surrounding Area Land Use. The northern boundary of MacDill AFB lies adjacent to the 

municipal boundary of the City of Tampa, and water surrounds the installation to the east 

(Hillsborough Bay), south (Tampa Bay), and west (Old Tampa Bay) (MacDill AFB 2017a). Land 

use north of the installation is varied consisting predominantly of single and multifamily 

residential areas, public/quasi-public space (e.g., recreational facilities and open space), 

industrial areas, and mixed commercial use. Land use immediately adjacent to the north of the 

installation boundary is predominantly industrial, public/quasi-public space, and residential 

(Hillsborough County 2017). 

The City of Tampa has planning and zoning jurisdiction over land directly north of MacDill AFB’s 

northern boundary. It does not have zoning jurisdiction over federal lands. A JLUS was 

completed in 2006 by the City of Tampa and MacDill AFB. The JLUS aimed to review and 

recommend compatible land uses adjacent to MacDill AFB to protect the health, safety, and 

welfare of the surrounding community (City of Tampa and MacDill AFB 2006). The City of 

Tampa continues to implement compatible land use policies in its planning efforts (MacDill AFB 

2017a). The following policies are some of those included in the latest Comprehensive Plan for 

the City of Tampa, which includes policies and objectives meant to support and strengthen the 

role of MacDill AFB: 

All new residential development within the MacDill AFB flight path shall be limited to 10 

dwelling units per acre.

Prohibit new construction and redevelopment which inhibits the safe and efficient 

operation of airport facilities within the flight path of MacDill AFB. 

Include MacDill AFB in the Development Review process to maintain open 

communication regarding all petitions for rezoning and special use requests generally 

within the MacDill AFB flight path.

Continue to consult MacDill AFB AICUZ Report and Compatibility Use District 

recommendations when addressing proposed land use changes within the MacDill AFB 

flight path.

Continue to promote compatible development within the MacDill AFB flight path through 

maintenance of reduced densities. 

The City of Tampa shall amend the City of Tampa Code of Ordinances to include noise 

attenuation measures to achieve a maximum outdoor to indoor noise level of 30 dB for 

residential development within the 70 dBA DNL noise contour or a lesser dB for any

portion of the property located in a lower dBA DNL noise contour. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-84

Prohibit future noise sensitive development that does not provide the required noise 

attenuation features within the noise contours adjacent to MacDill AFB (City of Tampa 

2016).

MacDill AFB conducted an AICUZ Study in 2008 that recommended land use guidelines for land 

surrounding the installation in the City of Tampa to assist in preparing their local land use plans. 

CZs and APZs at the south end of the runway do not have any adjacent conflicting land uses 

because they overlay water, but at the north end of the runway, private acreage and residences

lie within the CZs and APZs. No noise-sensitive land uses occur within the 70 dBA DNL noise 

contours; however, a residential area to the northeast of the installation is within the 65 dBA 

DNL noise contour (MacDill AFB 2017a). Refer to Section 3.7.2.2 for more information on the 

existing noise environment in the areas surrounding MacDill AFB.

Coastal Zone Consistency Review. The Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP), 

approved by NOAA in 1981 and codified at Florida Statutes Chapter 380 Part II, consists of a 

network of nine state agencies and five regional water management districts. These agencies 

and districts implement 24 statutes that protect and enhance the state’s natural, cultural, and 

economic coastal resources. The FDEP directs implementation of the FCMP, and the Florida 

State Clearinghouse coordinates federal agency consistency reviews (except for proposed 

actions requiring permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act [CWA] and Section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act, and offshore activities, which are coordinated by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers). The coastal zone in Florida is defined as the 67 counties and adjacent territorial 

seas. MacDill AFB is within the coastal zone. A project must be shown to be consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the FCMP. In accordance with the 

CZMA, MacDill AFB maintains consistency with the FCMP to the maximum extent practicable. 

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences

The significance of potential land use impacts is based on the level of land use sensitivity in 

areas affected by a proposed action and compatibility of proposed actions with existing 

conditions. In general, a land use impact would be significant if any of the following apply to a 

proposed action: 

 Inconsistent or in noncompliance with existing land use plans or policies

 Precludes the viability of existing land use

 Precludes continued use or occupation of an area

 Incompatible with adjacent land use to the extent that public health or safety is 

threatened

 Conflicts with planning criteria established to ensure the safety and protection of human 

life and property

 Noncompliant with requirements of the CZMA and FCMP.

3.8.3.1 PROPOSED ACTION

No impacts on land use from the additional KC-135 airframes and associated maintenance, the 

addition of personnel and dependents, or the proposed 33.3 percent increase in KC-135 annual 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-85

operations at Fairchild AFB would occur. The additional airframes would be kept within 

appropriate areas associated with the airfield or aircraft operations and maintenance. 

Personnel and dependents would be housed in existing residential areas both on- and offinstallation. The additional aircraft operations would use existing airspace and would be 

consistent with the constraint areas and associated land use guidelines identified by the

Fairchild AFB AICUZ Study including CZs, APZs, and noise contours. 

The noise contours within the installation boundary would remain roughly the same as current 

noise contours. Therefore, the proposed facility construction, demolition, and renovation areas

(except for the proposed fitness center addition, flight simulator addition, and flightline 

warehouse parking lot) would fall between the 65 and 75 dBA DNL noise contours. These 

buildings would be associated with aircraft operations and maintenance activities and their uses 

would be compatible with these noise levels. The proposed 65-dBA DNL noise contour would 

extend farther east and west off the installation; however, no noise sensitive land uses would fall 

within the extended noise contours. Therefore, noise contours that would result from the 

increase in operations would not result in areas of incompatible land use or impact noisesensitive land uses on- or off-installation. Section 3.7.3.1 includes additional information on 

potential operational noise impacts from the Proposed Action.

Facility construction, demolition, and renovation would have short-term, negligible, adverse and 

long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on land use. Adverse impacts would result from temporary 

increases in noise levels during construction activities; however, the associated noise levels

would not result in areas of incompatible land use or preclude the viability of the existing land 

uses. Section 3.7.3.1 includes additional information on potential construction noise impacts 

from the Proposed Action. No impacts on land use from ground disturbance in ERP sites or the 

PFOA and PFOS plume would occur because Fairchild AFB would adhere to the appropriate 

LUCs during construction, demolition, and operation. Section 3.5.3.1 includes additional 

information on potential impacts from ERP sites and the PFOA and PFOS plume. 

Beneficial impacts would occur because the facilities proposed for construction, renovation, and 

demolition would result in an efficient use of installation land and would not conflict with existing

or future uses on- or off-installation. Facility construction and renovation would consolidate like 

functions and increase efficiency, while facility demolition would remove outdated and 

underused facilities. Facilities would remain in use during the renovations. Additionally, the 

facilities proposed for construction and renovation would be consistent with the land use 

categories and planning districts identified in the IDP. Although buildings with administrative 

uses would be constructed or renovated within existing or future aircraft operations and 

maintenance land uses (i.e., the proposed squadron operations facility, flight simulator addition, 

refueling squadron building, aircraft maintenance unit building, and the hangar bay), aircraft 

maintenance units and squad operations buildings with administrative functions are common 

within the aircraft maintenance and operations land uses on Fairchild AFB and are necessary to 

support these uses. Additionally, construction of the squadron operations facility would not 

eliminate the open space buffer between the airfield and other land uses (Fairchild AFB 2014a).
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-86

3.8.3.2 MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

Land Use. No impacts on land use from the additional KC-135 airframes and associated 

maintenance or the addition of personnel and dependents at MacDill AFB would occur. The 

additional airframes would be kept within appropriate areas associated with the airfield or 

aircraft operations and maintenance. Personnel and dependents would be housed in existing 

residential areas both on- and off-installation. 

The proposed 50 percent increase in KC-135 annual operations at MacDill AFB could have a 

long-term, moderate, adverse impact on off-installation land use compatibility. Although these 

additional aircraft operations would use existing airspace and would not change the existing 

CZs or APZs, the 65 and 70 dBA DNL noise contours that would result from the proposed 

increase in operations would extend farther into the areas northeast and northwest of the 

installation. The Tampa Comprehensive Plan 2025 Future Land Use map depicts these areas 

as a mix of residential, industrial, community mixed-use, and recreational/open space (City of 

Tampa 2016). New residential uses would be permitted within the 65 to 69 dBA DNL noise 

contour; however, residential uses in these areas are discouraged. An evaluation should be 

conducted indicating that a community need for new residential use would not be met if 

development were prohibited in the area, and that there are no viable alternative locations. 

Residential uses would also be permitted within the 70 to 74 dBA DNL noise contour; however, 

residential uses in these areas are strongly discouraged and measures to achieve outdoor to 

indoor noise level reduction would be implemented per City of Tampa Code of Ordinances. 

New mobile home parks or courts would not permitted within the 65 to 74 dBA DNL noise 

contours under any circumstances. New industrial and community mixed-use areas would be 

permitted within the 65 to 74 dBA DNL noise contours; however, measures to achieve outdoor 

to indoor noise level reduction should be included in building designs if within the 70 to 74 dBA 

DNL noise contour. Parks would be permitted within the 65 to 74 dBA DNL noise contours; 

however, localities may have different noise level concerns or goals to consider (MacDill AFB 

2008a). 

The MacDill AFB Alternative would constitute a moderate increase in areas of incompatible land 

use outside the installation. However, the policies and objectives included in the Tampa 

Comprehensive Plan (see Section 3.8.2.2) would reduce the potential for future adverse 

impacts on land use compatibility by limiting the future development of additional noise-sensitive 

land uses in these areas and requiring noise attenuation measures in the development of new 

residential and other noise sensitive uses. No impacts from the proposed increase in KC-135

annual operations would occur on the proposed facility construction, demolition, and renovation 

areas or on-installation noise sensitive land uses because these areas would be outside the 

proposed 65 dBA DNL noise contour. Section 3.7.3.2 includes additional information on 

potential operational noise impacts from the MacDill AFB Alternative.

Facility construction, demolition, and renovation would have short-term, negligible, adverse and 

long-term, minor, beneficial impacts on land use. Adverse impacts would result from temporary 

increases in noise levels during construction; however, the associated noise levels would not 

result in areas of incompatible land use or preclude the viability of the existing land uses. 

Section 3.7.3.2 includes additional information on potential construction noise impacts from the 

MacDill AFB Alternative. No impacts on land use from ground disturbance in ERP sites would 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-87

occur because MacDill AFB would adhere to the appropriate LUCs during construction, 

demolition, and operation. Section 3.5.3.2 includes additional information on potential impacts 

from ERP sites.

Beneficial impacts would occur because the facilities proposed for construction, renovation, and 

demolition would result in an efficient use of installation land and would not conflict with existing 

or future uses on- or off-installation. Facility construction and renovation would consolidate like 

functions and increase efficiency, while facility demolition would remove outdated and 

underused facilities. Facilities would remain in use during the renovations. Additionally, the 

facilities proposed for construction and renovation would be consistent with the land use 

categories and planning districts identified in the MacDill AFB IDP (MacDill AFB 2017a). 

Coastal Zone Consistency Review. The MacDill AFB Alternative would be consistent with the 

FCMP. USAF has prepared a Federal Consistency Determination (Appendix C) and provided 

it to FDEP for their review concurrent with the Draft EA public review period. Prior to project 

implementation, USAF would obtain an Environmental Resource Permit, as required, to ensure 

consistency with the FCMP.

3.8.3.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

No impacts on land use would occur under the No Action Alternative. No facility construction, 

demolition, and renovation would occur, and there would be no increases in support personnel 

or aircraft operations. Land use conditions at Fairchild AFB and MacDill AFB would remain the 

same as existing conditions identified in Sections 3.8.2.1 and 3.8.2.2, respectively. 

3.9 Safety

3.9.1 Definition of the Resource

A safe environment is one in which there is no, or an optimally reduced, potential for serious 

bodily injury or illness, death, or property damage. Safety addresses the well-being, safety, and 

health of members of the public, contractors, and USAF personnel during the various aspects of 

the Proposed Action and alternatives.

Safety and accident hazards can often be identified and reduced or eliminated. Necessary 

elements for an accident-prone situation or environment include the presence of the hazard 

itself together with the exposed (and possibly susceptible) population. The degree of exposure 

depends primarily on the proximity of the hazard to the population. Hazardous activities can 

include construction, demolition, and many military activities. This EA addresses the safety 

implications from construction, mission, and flight operations associated with the Proposed 

Action and alternatives. 

Construction Safety. All contractors performing construction activities on USAF installations 

are responsible for following federal OSHA regulations and are required to conduct these 

activities in a manner that does not increase risk to workers or the public. OSHA regulations 

address the health and safety of people at work and cover potential exposure to a wide range of 

chemical, physical, and biological hazards, and ergonomic stressors. The regulations are 

designed to control these hazards by eliminating exposure to the hazards via administrative or 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-88

engineering controls, substitution, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and availability 

of Safety Data Sheets. 

Occupational health and safety is the responsibility of each employer, as applicable. Employer 

responsibilities are to review potentially hazardous workplace conditions; monitor exposure to 

workplace chemical (e.g., asbestos, lead, hazardous substances), physical (e.g., noise 

propagation, falls), and biological (e.g., infectious waste, wildlife, poisonous plants) agents, and 

ergonomic stressors; and recommend and evaluate controls (e.g., prevention, administrative, 

engineering, PPE) to ensure exposure to personnel is eliminated or adequately controlled. 

Additionally employers are responsible for ensuring a medical surveillance program is in place 

to perform occupational health physicals for those workers subject to the use of respiratory 

protection, engaged in hazardous waste work, asbestos, lead, or other work requiring medical 

monitoring.

Mission Safety. Mission safety on USAF installations is maintained through adherence to DoD 

and USAF safety policies and plans. The USAF safety program ensures the safety of personnel 

and the public on the installation by regulating mission activities. AFI 91-202, The USAF 

Mishap Prevention Program, implements Air Force Policy Directive 91-2, Safety Programs, and 

provides guidance for implementing the safety program on all activities that occur on USAF 

installations.

Fairchild AFB and MacDill AFB are secure military installations with access limited to military 

personnel, civilian employees, military dependents, and approved visitors. Aircraft operations 

and maintenance activities conducted on these installations, including at the facilities utilized by 

KC-135s, are performed in accordance with applicable USAF safety regulations, published 

USAF Technical Orders, and standards prescribed by USAF occupational safety and health 

requirements. Adherence to industrial-type safety procedures and directives ensures safe 

working conditions. 

Safety constraints such as explosive safety quantity-distance (ESQD) arcs and UXO probability

areas (known munitions test/training areas) partially determine the suitability of areas for various 

land uses and, therefore, minimize safety hazards associated with mission activities. Although 

exposure of susceptible populations to safety hazards outside the safety constraints is unlikely, 

these constraints do not guarantee an absolute absence of risk. ESQD arcs are buffers around 

facilities that contain high-explosive munitions or flammable elements. The size and shape of 

an ESQD arc depends on the facility and the net explosive weight of the munitions being 

housed. Separations set by ESQD arcs establish the minimum distances necessary to prevent 

the exposure of USAF personnel and the public to potential safety hazards. USAF protects 

personnel from the risks associated with UXO by controlling access to areas of concern; 

managing programs to remove UXO; and maintaining records of expenditures, range clearance 

operations, explosive ordnance disposal incidents, and areas of known or suspected UXO. 

Flight Safety. The primary safety concerns regarding military flights is the potential for aircraft 

mishaps (i.e., crashes or crash landings), including those caused by adverse weather events 

and bird-aircraft strikes. Aircraft mishaps are classified as A, B, C, or D. Class A mishaps are 

the most severe with total property damage of $2 million or more or a fatality or permanent total 

disability.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-89

Restrictions on land uses are intended to protect the public from exposure to flight operations 

hazards. The AICUZ program is used to protect public and USAF personnel health and safety, 

as it relates to aircraft noise, accident potential, and the intersection with land use. Each 

installation’s AICUZ study identifies CZs and APZs to protect the public from aircraft mishaps 

and noise contours to protect from aircraft noise. USAF policy requires privately owned land 

located within CZs to be acquired by USAF via a fee simple easement or a restrictive land 

easement. APZs identify areas and restrict land use where the greatest potential for aircraft 

accidents exist.

Bird and wildlife strikes are a flight safety concern due to the potential damage that a strike 

might have on the aircraft or injury to aircrews. AFI 91-202 establishes mishap prevention 

program requirements (including those for BASH), assigns responsibilities for program 

elements, and contains program management information. 

3.9.2 Affected Environment 

3.9.2.1 FAIRCHILD AFB

Construction Safety. Construction contractors at Fairchild AFB follow standard OSHA and 

USAF safety practices as discussed in Section 3.9.1. 

Mission Safety. ESQD arcs cover a substantial portion of Fairchild AFB, primarily on land 

already undevelopable because of its location within primary airfield surfaces or CZs. Fairchild 

AFB aggressively manages its development program to ensure that it meets explosive safety 

requirements (Fairchild AFB 2014a).

The 92d Civil Engineering Squadron Fire and Emergency Services Flight provides 24-hour 

crash, structural, and emergency medical first response; technical rescue; hazardous material 

and weapons-of-mass-destruction incident response; and fire prevention, safety, and 

training/education services to Fairchild AFB. 

Flight Safety. Fairchild AFB has established easements for all off-installation land within the

CZs at both ends of the installation’s runway. Currently, no incompatible developments are 

located within Fairchild AFB’s CZs; however, incompatible developments do exist within the 

APZs. Portions of a 168.8-acre surface mining operation, located 1 mile east of the installation, 

are within the APZs, including 23.1 acres within APZ I and 99.4 acres within APZ II. There are 

also approximately 23.8 acres of residential developments east of the installation in APZ II. 

These developments were constructed prior to DoD’s creation of the AICUZ program to address 

encroachments. A total of 146.3 acres of developed land, or 17 percent of the APZs (825.8 

acres), have incompatible uses (Fairchild AFB 2014a). 

Spokane County has implemented AOZs to reduce the potential for airport hazards that apply to 

all four airfields in the county including Fairchild AFB, as presented in Section 3.8.2.1. The 

AOZ program is similar in design and intent to the DoD’s AICUZ program. The AOZ establishes 

guidelines for development around the four designated airfields and has a process for how 

applications for development are handled. 

Three total Class A aircraft mishaps involving KC-135s have occurred on or near Fairchild AFB 

in 1962, 1967, and 1987. A fourth Class A mishap occurred on the installation in 1994, when a 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-90

B-52 assigned to Fairchild AFB crashed near the runway as a result of pilot error while 

rehearsing maneuvers for an air show (ASN 2018a). 

The Spokane, Washington, area receives approximately 4 feet of snow and has several months 

of freezing temperatures every year (U.S. Climate Data 2018). Therefore, deicing aircraft is 

essential to maintaining operational success and personnel safety on Fairchild AFB. The 92d 

Logistics Readiness Squadron stores the installation’s current deicing fluid volume requirement 

in four 12,000-gallon tanks. Deicing fluid storage tanks are located adjacent to the jet fuel bulk 

storage area. 

Fairchild AFB Instruction 13-201, Airfield Operations Instruction, and the 92d Air Refueling Wing 

Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Reduction Plan, which is implemented in two phases, 

provides specific guidance and assigns responsibilities in developing an effective bird strike 

hazard reduction program for the Fairchild AFB local flying area. Phase I concentrates on bird 

control and dispersal and is in effect year round. Phase II, which concentrates on bird 

avoidance through scheduling and airfield operating restrictions, is typically implemented during 

the spring and fall seasonal migration periods (i.e., May through October; when the potential for 

and frequency of bird strikes is greatest). Historical bird strike data provide the basis for when 

Phase II is to be implemented. The 92d ARW implements and terminates Phase II upon 

notification from 92d ARW Flight Safety that the bird hazard has significantly increased or 

decreased during the period of implementation of Phase I (Fairchild AFB 2010). 

Most bird strikes at Fairchild AFB occur between May and October, and the majority occur in the 

traffic pattern. Between 2002 and 2007, the 92d ARW experienced an average low of less than 

one strike in January to more than nine in September. Gulls, hawks, ducks, and geese are the 

bird species most commonly involved in wildlife aircraft strikes at Fairchild AFB. The nearest 

migration route passes west of Fairchild AFB. Coyotes and deer are the most common mammal 

species involved in terrestrial wildlife aircraft strikes on the installation (Fairchild AFB 2010). 

3.9.2.2 MACDILL AFB

Construction Safety. Construction contractors at MacDill AFB follow standard OSHA and 

USAF safety practices as discussed in Section 3.9.1.

Mission Safety. ESQD arcs cover a substantial portion of the airfield and a small tract of land 

south of the airfield surrounding the munitions storage area. However, there are not many 

munitions stored at the installation nor are the munitions highly explosive. Most of the land that 

is encompassed by ESQD arcs is undevelopable because of its location on the airfield or its 

designation as a wetland (MacDill AFB 2017a).

The 6th Civil Engineer Squadron Fire Emergency Services Flight provides fire and emergency 

services on MacDill AFB. In March 2017, MacDill AFB became the first USAF installation to 

partner with a local government to provide advanced life support and transportation services. 

While the installation has a clinic, serious medical situations require services that Tampa Fire 

Rescue is trained to provide. The agreement was designed to ensure that the installation meets 

the Pentagon rule requiring response times within 12 minutes. MacDill AFB opened a new 

ambulance bay and bunkhouse to house Tampa Fire Rescue personnel and a dedicated 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-91

ambulance. Tampa Fire Rescue provides eight personnel during the three shifts it operates 

each day at the installation (Altman 2017). 

Flight Safety. There are approximately 738 acres of off-installation land area in the MacDill 

AFB CZs and APZs. Of that acreage, 268 acres are recreational, open space, agriculture or low 

density; 429 acres are residential; 15 acres are commercial; 5 acres are industrial; and 21 acres

are public or quasi-public. The City of Tampa has included the installation’s AICUZ data and 

recommendations in its comprehensive planning and zoning process since the late 1980s 

(MacDill AFB 2017a).

No Class A aircraft mishaps involving KC-135s have occurred on or near MacDill AFB. One 

Class A mishap occurred on the installation in 2012 when a Canadian Armed Forces CC-144A 

Challenger 600 jet suffered a bird strike while on approach (ASN 2018b).

MacDill AFB Instruction 91-212, Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Program, provides guidance for 

reducing the incidents of bird strikes in and around areas where MacDill AFB flying operations 

occur. The plan establishes provisions to disperse information on specific bird hazards and 

procedures for reporting hazardous bird activity. As a tropical, coastal installation, bird strikes at 

MacDill AFB is a substantial concern. The installation has a 5-year Memorandum of 

Understanding with the U.S. Department of Agriculture for bird and wildlife control at the 

installation. Bird populations at the installation spike during late fall and early spring in

conjunction with migratory patterns (MacDill AFB 2017a).

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences

Any increase in safety risks is considered an adverse impact on safety. Significant impacts on 

safety would occur if the Proposed Action or MacDill AFB Alternative does either of the 

following:

Substantially increase risks associated with the safety of USAF personnel or the general 

public. 

Introduce a new safety risk for which USAF is not prepared or does not have adequate 

management and response plans in place.

3.9.3.1 PROPOSED ACTION

Construction Safety. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts on contractor health and safety 

would occur during facility construction, demolition, and renovation associated with the 

Proposed Action. Contractors performing construction work would be exposed to an 

environment containing slightly greater health and safety risks than a non-construction 

environment. To minimize health and safety risks, construction contractors would be required to 

use appropriate PPE and establish and maintain site-specific health and safety programs for 

their employees. Contractor health and safety programs would follow all applicable federal 

OSHA regulations, and would be reviewed by Fairchild AFB personnel prior to work beginning 

to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to reduce the potential exposure of workers and 

installation personnel to health and safety risks. Safety Data Sheets for all hazardous materials 

and chemicals stored at the worksite would be kept on site and be available for immediate 

review.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-92

As discussed in Section 3.5.3.1, some of the proposed facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation would occur within active ERP sites. Prior to the start of any construction and 

demolition, contractors would coordinate with the Fairchild AFB ERP office to ensure that these 

sites do not present safety hazards to construction workers.

Mission and Flight Safety. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on health and safety are 

anticipated from the increased KC-135 operations at Fairchild AFB. Impacts from adding 12 

KC-135s and increasing total annual flight operations at the installation by approximately 16 

percent would be negligible because airfield and airspace operations would continue to follow all 

applicable safety guidelines and regulations. The proposed increase in aircraft operations 

would not be expected to increase the risk of Class A mishaps. As presented in Section 

3.9.2.1, aircraft mishaps are rare at the installation and the number would not be expected to 

increase from the Proposed Action. All aircraft flight operations would continue to be conducted 

in accordance with standard flight rules and local operating procedures and policies.

The proposed increase in aircraft operations would result in an increased potential for bird or 

wildlife strikes. However, the overall potential for bird/wildlife-aircraft strikes is not expected to 

be significantly greater than current levels because all safety programs in place for existing 

KC-135 operations would continue and flight operations would be similar to those currently 

conducted at the installation. The new air refueling squadron would follow the 92d ARW BASH 

Plan and incorporate the use of existing bird avoidance technologies and practices to minimize 

the potential for bird/wildlife-aircraft strikes. Additionally, during periods of increased potential 

for bird/wildlife strikes, such as the migratory bird season, 92d ARW would institute limits on 

low-altitude flight and some types of training activities (e.g., multiple approaches, closed-pattern 

pattern work) at the airfield and local airspace environments. Special briefings would also 

continue to be provided to pilots when the potential for bird strikes within the airspace is high.

3.9.3.2 MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

Construction Safety. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts on contractor health and safety 

would occur during facility construction, demolition, and renovation associated with the MacDill

AFB Alternative. Contractors performing construction work would be exposed to an 

environment containing slightly greater health and safety risks than a non-construction 

environment. To minimize health and safety risks, construction contractors would be required to 

use appropriate PPE and establish and maintain site-specific health and safety programs for 

their employees. Contractor health and safety programs would follow all applicable federal 

OSHA regulations, and would be reviewed by MacDill AFB personnel prior to work beginning to 

ensure that appropriate measures are taken to reduce the potential exposure of workers and 

installation personnel to health and safety risks. Safety Data Sheets for all hazardous materials 

and chemicals stored at the worksite would be kept on site and be available for immediate 

review.

As discussed in Section 3.5.3.2, some of the proposed facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation would occur within active ERP sites. Prior to the start of any construction and 

demolition, contractors would coordinate with the MacDill AFB ERP office to ensure that these 

sites do not present safety hazards to construction workers.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-93

Mission and Flight Safety. Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on health and safety are 

anticipated from the increased KC-135 operations at MacDill AFB. Impacts from adding 12 

KC-135s and increasing total annual flight operations by approximately 29 percent would be 

negligible because airfield and airspace operations would continue to follow all applicable safety 

guidelines and regulations. The proposed increase in aircraft operations would not be expected 

to increase the risk of Class A mishaps. As presented in Section 3.9.2.2, aircraft mishaps are 

rare at the installation and the number would not be expected to increase from the MacDill AFB 

Alternative. All aircraft flight operations would continue to be conducted in accordance with 

standard flight rules and local operating procedures and policies.

The proposed increase in aircraft operations would result in an increased potential for bird or 

wildlife strikes. However, the overall potential for bird/wildlife-aircraft strikes is not expected to 

be significantly greater than current levels because all safety programs in place for existing 

KC-135 operations would continue and flight operations would be similar to those currently 

conducted at the installation. The new air refueling squadron would follow the MacDill AFB 

BASH Plan and incorporate the use of existing bird avoidance technologies and practices to 

minimize the potential for bird/wildlife-aircraft strikes.

3.9.3.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative would not impact safety. No facility construction, demolition, or 

renovation would occur, and there would be no changes in aircraft operations. Construction, 

mission, and flight safety conditions at both installations would remain unchanged when 

compared to existing conditions identified in Sections 3.9.2.1 and 3.9.2.2. 

3.10 Socioeconomics

3.10.1 Definition of the Resource

Socioeconomics encompasses economies and social elements such as population levels and 

economic activity. Factors that describe the socioeconomic environment represent a composite 

of several interrelated and nonrelated attributes. Indicators of economic conditions for a 

geographic area include demographics, median household income, unemployment rates, 

employment, and housing data. Data on employment identify employment by industry or trade 

and unemployment trends. Data on personal income in a region are used to compare the 

before and after effects of any jobs created or lost as a result of a proposed action. Data on 

industrial, commercial, and other sectors of the economy provide baseline information about the 

economic health of a region. Changes in demographic and economic conditions are typically 

accompanied by changes in other community components, such as housing availability, 

education, and the provision of installation and public services, which are also discussed in this 

section.

For the purpose of this analysis, the socioeconomics region of influence (ROI) includes the 

areas near Fairchild AFB or MacDill AFB within which potential impacts from the Proposed 

Action or the MacDill AFB Alternative, respectively, could occur. The ROI is the county where 

each installation is located. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-94

3.10.2 Affected Environment 

3.10.2.1 FAIRCHILD AFB

The socioeconomics ROI for the Proposed Action is Spokane County. Data for the SpokaneSpokane Valley, Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and the State of Washington 

are provided for additional information and areas of comparison.

Population. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated the population of Spokane County in 2016 

was 485,859, which represents a 16.3 percent increase since 2000. The population of the 

Spokane-Spokane Valley, Washington MSA increased at a slightly lower percentage (15.5 

percent) than Spokane County from 2000 to 2016, while Washington had a greater percentage 

increase (20.0 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2010b, U.S. Census Bureau 2016b). Table 3-28

shows the total populations for 2000 and 2010, and total population estimates for 2016. 

Table 3-28. Total Population in the Vicinity of Fairchild AFB

Geographic Area 2000 2010 2016 a Percent Change

(2000-2016) 

Spokane County 417,939 471,221 485,859 16.3

Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA MSA 469,737 b 527,753 b 542,604 15.5

Washington 5,894,121 6,724,540 7,073,146 20.0

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2000, U.S. Census Bureau 2010b, U.S. Census Bureau 2016b

Notes:

a. The 2016 total population data are estimates from the 2012-2016 American Community Survey.

b. The Spokane-Spokane Valley, Washington MSA consists of Pend Oreille, Spokane, and Stevens Counties in 

Washington. This MSA did not exist during the 2000 and 2010 Censuses; therefore, the total population for the MSA 

in 2000 and 2010 was calculated by adding the individual 2000 and 2010 populations of the three counties.

The current workforce population of Fairchild AFB is 7,565, including military and civilian 

personnel and dependents. Total employment at Fairchild AFB consists of 5,248 personnel, 

including 2,875 full-time military personnel, 957 part-time Guardsmen, 577 government civilian 

personnel, and 839 other installation personnel. The installation supports 2,317 dependents 

(AMC 2016). Additionally, Fairchild AFB supports 13,000 retirees living within 130 miles of the 

installation, and 18,000 retirees in the greater inland northwest area of eastern Washington, 

northern Idaho, and western Montana (Fairchild AFB 2014a).

Economic Activity (Employment and Earnings). In 2016, the percentage of persons in the 

armed forces in the Spokane County labor force was 1.1 percent. Persons in the armed forces 

made up similar percentages of the labor forces of the Spokane-Spokane Valley, Washington 

MSA and Washington (see Table 3-29) (U.S. Census Bureau 2016c).

Table 3-29 shows the regional employment by industry near Fairchild AFB. The total number of 

employed people in the civilian labor force in Spokane County in 2016 was 215,413. The 

industry employing the highest percentage of the civilian labor force in Spokane County; 

Spokane-Spokane Valley, Washington MSA; and Washington was the educational services, 

and health care and social assistance industry. This industry employed more than 25 percent of 

the labor force in Spokane County and the Spokane-Spokane Valley, Washington MSA, but 

slightly less of the labor force in Washington (U.S. Census Bureau 2016c). The top private 

employers in Spokane County are Providence Healthcare, Kalispel Tribal Economic 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-95

Table 3-29. Employment by Industry in the Vicinity of Fairchild AFB

Spokane 

County

Spokane-Spokane 

Valley, WA MSA Washington

Population 16 years and over in the labor force 234,727 257,217 3,623,304

Percent of labor force in the Armed Forces 1.1% 1.0% 1.3%

Population of employed persons in the civilian 

labor force

215,413 235,879 3,331,321

Percent Employed Persons in Civilian Labor Force (by Industry)

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and 

mining

1.1% 1.5% 2.7%

Construction 5.6% 5.9% 6.1%

Manufacturing 8.4% 8.6% 10.5%

Wholesale Trade 3.5% 3.3% 2.9%

Retail Trade 12.7% 12.7% 11.8%

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 4.8% 4.9% 5.2%

Information 1.7% 1.6% 2.3%

Finance and insurance, and real estate and 

rental and leasing

6.8% 6.5% 5.4%

Professional, scientific, and management, and 

administrative and waste management services

9.4% 9.2% 12.5%

Educational services, and health care and social 

assistance

25.9% 25.6% 21.4%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and 

accommodation and food services

10.1% 10.0% 9.2%

Other services, except public administration 5.1% 5.1% 4.7%

Public administration 5.0% 5.2% 5.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2016c

Note: The data presented in this table are estimates from the 2012–2016 American Community Survey.

Authority/Northern Quest Resort and Casino, and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., while the top public 

employers are Fairchild AFB, State of Washington, and Spokane Public Schools (GSI 2017).

The total economic impact of Fairchild AFB during FY 2015 was approximately $420 million. 

This includes payroll for military and civilian personnel of more than $232 million, creation of 

2,314 jobs with an estimated value of approximately $100 million, and local expenditures of 

approximately $88 million (Fairchild AFB 2015b).

The per capita income in Spokane County; Spokane-Spokane Valley, Washington MSA; and 

Washington was $26,860, $26,463, and $32,999, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2016c).

As of December 2017, the unemployment rate (not seasonally adjusted) in Spokane County; 

Spokane-Spokane Valley, Washington MSA; and Washington was 5.7 percent, 5.9 percent, and 

4.9 percent, respectively (BLS 2018).
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-96

Housing. Three housing options are available for Fairchild AFB personnel, including oninstallation privatized military family housing and unaccompanied housing, and off-installation 

housing.

According to USAF, Fairchild AFB has 641 privatized military family housing units located in four 

neighborhoods on the installation with a current occupancy rate of 98 to 99 percent. There are 

10 on-installation dormitories with 472 total rooms for unaccompanied personnel (Fairchild AFB 

2014a). In June 2018, Fairchild AFB’s dormitory occupancy rate was 95 percent, and a building 

currently used for billeting could be converted into a dormitory to provide additional 

unaccompanied housing, if needed (Lohman 2018). 

The U.S. Census Bureau estimated there were 207,008 housing units in Spokane County in 

2016, of which approximately 15,800 units were vacant. The Spokane-Spokane Valley, 

Washington MSA, which includes Spokane County, had 236,197 total housing units of which 

22,124 were vacant. The homeowner vacancy rates in Spokane County and Spokane-Spokane 

Valley, Washington MSA were 1.6 percent and 1.8 percent, respectively, while the rental 

vacancy rates were 4.9 percent and 5.0 percent, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2016d).

Education. Spokane County is within Washington State Educational Service District 101, and 

includes all or part of 18 school districts. Five school districts are within approximately 5 miles 

of Fairchild AFB, including Medical Lake (5 schools), Cheney (10 schools), Reardan-Edwall 

(2 schools), Great Northern (1 school), and Spokane (47 schools). Additionally, there are 3 

private schools in the Reardan-Edwall School District with 99 total students, and 17 private 

schools within Spokane Public Schools district boundaries with 3,818 total students (OSPI 

2018a). Spokane Public Schools is the largest of these districts with 30,828 students in prekindergarten through grade 12 during the 2017–2018 school year (OSPI 2018a). Fairchild AFB 

is within Medical Lake School District. During the 2017–2018 school year, the district’s total 

student enrollment was 1,895 students. The district has two elementary schools, including 

Michael Anderson Elementary School on Fairchild AFB; one middle school; one high school; 

and one alternative high school. Michael Anderson Elementary School serves pre-kindergarten 

through grade 5, and as of January 2018 had a total of 434 students (OSPI 2018a).

Installation and Public Services. Law enforcement services (police) at Fairchild AFB are 

provided by the 92d Security Forces Squadron, and fire protection and emergency services 

through the 92d Civil Engineer Squadron (Fairchild AFB Fire Department). The fire department 

also assists with emergencies in the surrounding community. The 92d Medical Group operates 

the outpatient medical treatment facility (clinics) at Fairchild AFB for active-duty personnel, 

dependents, and retirees. The 92d Medical Group offers primary/family health care, pediatrics, 

flight medicine, dental, pharmacy, physical therapy, and mental health, and laboratory services, 

as well as 24-hour ambulance service on the installation (Fairchild AFB 2014a). Other 

installation services are under the direction of the 92d Force Support Squadron, including

operation of two on-installation dining facilities and a fitness/aquatic center, and provision 

community and family support services to installation personnel.

Public services in Spokane County consist of law enforcement, fire protection, emergency 

medical services, and medical services. The Spokane County Sheriff’s Office provides law 

enforcement services for the county and has civil and patrol divisions, as well as an air support 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-97

unit. Other law enforcement agencies in the area include the City of Airway Heights Police 

Department. Spokane County contains 11 fire districts and 7 municipal fire departments, 

including the cities of Airway Heights, Medical Lake, and Spokane, which provide fire protection 

services in the county (Spokane County 2016). Additionally, Spokane International Airport has 

a fire department. Emergency medical services are provided by the county fire districts and 

municipal fire departments, as well as a few private entities. There are eight hospitals in 

Spokane County (Spokane Cares 2018). The closest emergency rooms to Fairchild AFB are at 

Providence Sacred Heart Medical Center and Deaconess Medical Center in Spokane, which are 

approximately 11 to 12 miles from the installation. 

3.10.2.2 MACDILL AFB

The socioeconomics ROI for the MacDill AFB Alternative is Hillsborough County. Data for the 

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida MSA and the State of Florida are provided for 

additional information and areas of comparison.

Population. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated the population of Hillsborough County in 2016 

was 998,948, which represents a 32.4 percent increase since 2000. During this time, the 

populations of the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida MSA and Florida also increased, 

but at lower percentages (22.2 percent and 24.7 percent, respectively) than Hillsborough 

County (U.S. Census Bureau 2010b, U.S. Census Bureau 2012, U.S. Census Bureau 2016b). 

Table 3-30 shows the total populations for 2000 and 2010, and total population estimates for 

2016.

Table 3-30. Total Population in the Vicinity of MacDill AFB

Geographic Area 2000 2010 2016 a Percent Change

(2000-2016)

Hillsborough County 998,948 1,229,226 1,323,059 32.4

Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA2,395,997 2,783,243 2,927,714 22.2

Florida 15,982,378 18,801,310 19,934,451 24.7

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2000, U.S. Census Bureau 2010b, U.S. Census Bureau 2012, 

U.S. Census Bureau 2016b

Note: a The 2016 total population data are estimates from the 2012–2016 American Community Survey.

The current workforce population of MacDill AFB is 42,023, including military and civilian 

personnel and dependents. There are approximately 18,853 military and civilian personnel 

employed at MacDill AFB consisting of 9,885 active-duty personnel, 5,224 Non-Extended Active 

Duty/Air National Guard/Reserve, and 3,744 civilians. The installation supports 23,170 

dependents. Additionally, MacDill AFB supports more than 73,000 retirees and spouses of 

military retirees residing within 50 miles of the installation (MacDill AFB 2014).

Economic Activity (Employment and Earnings). In 2016, the percentage of persons in the 

armed forces in Hillsborough County labor force was 0.8 percent. Persons in the armed forces 

made up similar percentages of the labor forces of the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, 

Florida, MSA (0.5 percent) and Florida (0.6 percent) (see Table 3-31) (U.S. Census Bureau 

2016c). 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-98

Table 3-31. Employment by Industry in the Vicinity of MacDill AFB

Hillsborough 

County

Tampa-St. 

PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA

Florida

Population 16 years and over in the labor force 686,086 1,430,907 9,613,594

Percent of labor force in the Armed Forces 0.8% 0.5% 0.6%

Population of employed persons in the civilian 

labor force

627,149 1,311,353 8,755,427

Percent Employed Persons in Civilian Labor Force (by Industry)

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and 

mining

1.3% 0.9% 1.1%

Construction 6.7% 6.4% 6.8%

Manufacturing 5.0% 5.7% 5.2%

Wholesale Trade 2.9% 2.7% 2.8%

Retail Trade 11.9% 12.9% 13.3%

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 4.6% 4.4% 5.1%

Information 2.5% 2.3% 2.0%

Finance and insurance, and real estate and 

rental and leasing

10.4% 9.6% 7.7%

Professional, scientific, and management, and 

administrative and waste management services

14.2% 13.7% 12.8%

Educational services, and health care and social 

assistance

21.7% 22.4% 21.1%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and 

accommodation and food services

10.2% 10.4% 12.3%

Other services, except public administration 4.6% 4.8% 5.3%

Public administration 4.0% 4.0% 4.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2016c

Note: The data presented in this table are estimates from the 2012–2016 American Community Survey.

Table 3-31 shows the regional employment by industry in the vicinity of MacDill AFB. The total 

number of employed people in the civilian labor force in Hillsborough County in 2016 was 

627,149. The industry employing the highest percentage of the civilian labor force in 

Hillsborough County; the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida, MSA; and Florida was

educational services, and health care and social assistance industry. This industry employed 

the similar percentages of the labor force in each of these areas, between 21.1 and 22.4 

percent. The top private employers in Hillsborough County are HCA West Florida (hospital 

network), Tampa International Airport, and Tampa General Hospital, while the top public 

employers are School District of Hillsborough County, MacDill AFB, and Hillsborough County 

Government (Suncoast Jobs 2018).

The total economic impact of MacDill AFB during FY 2014 was approximately $2.9 billion. This 

includes payroll for military and civilian personnel of more than $1 billion, creation of 

approximately 24,500 jobs with an estimated value of approximately $1.1 billion, and local 

expenditures of approximately $1.8 billion (MacDill AFB 2014).
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-99

The per capita income in Hillsborough County; Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida MSA; 

and Florida was $28,727, $28,504, and $27,598, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2016c).

As of December 2017, the unemployment rate (not seasonally adjusted) in Hillsborough County; 

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida MSA; and Florida was 3.3 percent, 3.4 percent, and 

3.7 percent, respectively (BLS 2018). 

Housing. Three housing options are available for MacDill AFB personnel, including oninstallation privatized military family housing and unaccompanied housing, and off-installation 

housing.

MacDill AFB has 572 privatized military family housing units located in five neighborhoods on 

the installation with a current occupancy rate of 98 percent. There are five on-installation 

dormitories with 375 beds for unaccompanied personnel. The dormitory occupancy rate is 97 

percent (MacDill AFB 2017a).

The U.S. Census Bureau estimated there were 554,762 housing units in Hillsborough County in 

2016, of which approximately 59,000 were vacant. The Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, 

Florida MSA, which includes Hillsborough County, had 1,376,984 total housing units of which 

215,145 were vacant. The homeowner vacancy rates in Hillsborough County and Tampa-St. 

Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida MSA were 2.0 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively, while the 

rental vacancy rates were 6.9 percent and 7.1 percent, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 

2016d).

Education. The School District of Hillsborough County has 151 elementary schools, 50 middle 

schools, 33 senior high schools, and 31 combination schools (Florida DOE 2017). In the 2017-

2018 school year, the total student enrollment (pre-kindergarten through grade 12) was 217,072 

students (Florida DOE 2018). Public school options for children living on MacDill AFB include 

Tinker K-8 School, which is on-installation, and Robinson High School. Both of these schools 

are part of the School District of Hillsborough County. In the 2017-2018 school year, Tinker K-8 

School had 723 students and Robinson High School had 1,637 students (Florida DOE 2018).

Installation and Public Services. Law enforcement services (police) at MacDill AFB are 

provided by the 6th Security Forces Squadron, and fire protection and rescue services through 

the 6th Civil Engineer Squadron, which is part of the 6th Mission Support Group. The 6th

Medical Group operates the medical clinic at MacDill AFB and a satellite clinic (Brandon Clinic) 

in Brandon, Florida, for active-duty personnel, dependents, and retirees. The 6th Medical 

Group offers primary/family health care, pediatrics, general surgery, flight medicine, dental, 

pharmacy, physical therapy, and mental health, and laboratory services (6th Medical Group 

2017). Tampa Fire and Rescue provides 24-hour ambulance service on the installation. Other 

installation services are under the direction of the 6th Force Support Squadron, including 

operation of a dining facility and other on-installation dining establishments and a fitness center

and other recreational facilities, and provision community and family support services to 

installation personnel.

Public services in Hillsborough County consist of law enforcement, fire protection, emergency 

medical services, and medical services. The Tampa Police Department provides law 

enforcement services for the City of Tampa and has criminal investigations, special operations,
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-100

and support services divisions. Other law enforcement agencies in the area include the 

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office. Tampa Fire Rescue provides fire prevention, fire 

protection, fire suppression, and emergency medical services as well as hazardous materials 

response, aircraft rescue, and marine firefighting. There are several hospitals in the Tampa Bay 

region. The closest emergency room to MacDill AFB is at Memorial Hospital of Tampa, which is

approximately 5.5 miles from the installation.

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences

Socioeconomic impacts are assessed in terms of direct impacts on the local economy and 

related impacts on other socioeconomic resources (e.g., housing). The magnitude of potential 

impacts can vary greatly, depending on the location of a proposed action. A proposed action 

could have a significant impact with respect to the socioeconomic conditions if it were to result 

in at least one of the following:

 Substantial change in the local or regional economy, employment, or business volume

 Substantial change in the local or regional population; and in housing, education, 

installation services, or public services from the increased or decreased demands of the 

population change. 

3.10.3.1 PROPOSED ACTION

Short-term, minor, beneficial impacts on the local economy would occur from the proposed 

facility construction, demolition, and renovation at Fairchild AFB. These activities would 

stimulate the local economy through the employment of construction workers and the purchase 

of construction-related materials and other goods and services, as well as secondary purchases 

of goods and services. Due to the short-term nature of construction, the economic benefits 

would be temporary. According to USAF, it is estimated that approximately $73 million in 

military construction and facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization expenditures would 

occur from FY 2019 through FY 2021 due to the Proposed Action. The proposed construction 

and associated expenditures could generate additional jobs, most likely in the construction 

industry, but also in other industries, such as retail, that would generate additional indirect and 

induced income in Spokane County. In 2016, Spokane County had a civilian labor force of 

232,211 people, including 12,020 people employed in the construction industry (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2016c). It is expected that the local labor force would be sufficient to meet the demand 

for new jobs in the construction and other industries without a migration of workers into the area. 

Therefore, no impacts on population would occur during construction of the Proposed Action 

because it is expected that all construction workers would be from the local or regional area.

Long-term, negligible, beneficial impacts on the local economy would occur from the increase of 

personnel and dependents stationed at Fairchild AFB. The Proposed Action would result in an 

increase of installation personnel (i.e., jobs) by 7.1 percent (370 personnel) and of installation 

population by 12.8 percent (970 people, including 369 active duty military personnel and their 

600 dependents, and 1 civilian personnel). Assuming the one civilian personnel would be from 

Spokane County, the Proposed Action would potentially increase the 2016 Spokane County 

population by 0.2 percent (969 people). The increase of jobs at Fairchild AFB and the 

associated expansion of the installation and county populations would result in increased sales 

volumes due to more purchases of goods and services (e.g., retail, restaurants, hospitals) in the 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-101

local community. These increases could in turn generate indirect and induced jobs in affected 

industries, resulting in long-term, beneficial impacts on the local economy. With a December 

2017 unemployment rate of 5.7 percent in Spokane County amounting to approximately 13,800 

unemployed people (BLS 2018), it is expected that the local labor force would be able to fill 

these new secondary jobs without a migration of workers into the area.

The Proposed Action would include an increase of 369 active duty military personnel and 600 

dependents that would require housing. Assuming that each restationed personnel would 

require one housing unit, the demand for housing within Spokane County, either on- or offinstallation, would increase by approximately 369 units. All unaccompanied USAF personnel in 

the ranks of E-1 to E-4 with less than 3 years of service would be housed in dormitories at 

Fairchild AFB. Fairchild AFB has approximately 20 dormitory rooms available as of June 2018, 

and a building currently used for billeting could be converted into a dormitory, if needed. The 

remainder of the personnel would be housed on- or off-installation. Based on the off-installation 

homeowner and rental vacancy rates of 1.6 percent and 4.9 percent, respectively, and 

approximately 15,800 vacant off-installation housing units in Spokane County, and the current 

and projected inventories of on-installation housing and dormitories, there would be sufficient 

capacity to accommodate the 369 active duty military personnel and their dependents that 

would be stationed at Fairchild AFB as part of the Proposed Action. No impacts on housing 

would occur during construction because it is expected that all construction workers would be 

from the local or regional area. The Proposed Action would have a negligible impact on 

housing. 

Using the assumption that 1.5 times 65 percent of active duty military personnel are school-age

dependents and all attend public schools, there would be an increase of approximately 360

students. If it is assumed that all 360 of the estimated incoming students attend either Spokane 

Public Schools or Medical Lake School District, it would represent a 1.2 percent or 19.0 percent 

increase of the current total enrollment of each district, respectively. However, the incoming 

students would be of varying ages and would be expected to live in different parts of Spokane 

County and, therefore, attend public schools in various school districts and private schools. 

Based on the number of school districts and schools in Spokane County, it is anticipated that 

the existing schools in the county would have sufficient capacity to support the incoming student 

population. Therefore, it is unlikely that the increase in the population of school-age children 

would result in adverse impacts on education.

Although the Proposed Action would result in a small increase of the population of Fairchild AFB 

and Spokane County, it is anticipated that installation and public services could accommodate 

the increase of people. The change in population would slightly increase demand for installation

and public services, but is not expected to adversely affect off- or on-installation law 

enforcement, fire protection, emergency medical services, and medical services. The Proposed 

Action includes the construction of an addition and renovations to the fitness center to 

accommodate the increased installation population.

3.10.3.2 MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

Short-term, minor, beneficial impacts on the local economy would occur from the proposed 

facility construction, demolition, and renovation at MacDill AFB. These activities would stimulate 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-102

the local economy through the employment of construction workers and the purchase of 

construction-related materials and other goods and services, as well as secondary purchases of 

goods and services. Due to the short-term nature of construction activities, the economic 

benefits would be temporary. According to USAF, approximately $81 million in military 

construction and facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization expenditures would occur 

from FY 2019 through FY 2021 because of the MacDill AFB Alternative. The proposed 

construction activities and associated expenditures could generate additional jobs, most likely in 

the construction industry, but also in other industries, such as retail, that would generate 

additional indirect and induced income in Hillsborough County. In 2016, Hillsborough County 

had a civilian labor force of 680,902 people, including 42,059 people employed in the 

construction industry (U.S. Census Bureau 2016c). It is expected that the local labor force 

would be sufficient to meet the demand for new jobs in the construction and other industries 

without a migration of workers into the area. Therefore, no impacts on population would occur 

during construction of the MacDill AFB Alternative because it is expected that all construction 

workers would be from the local or regional area.

Long-term, negligible, beneficial impacts on the local economy would occur from the increase of 

personnel and dependents stationed at MacDill AFB. The MacDill AFB Alternative would result 

in an increase of installation personnel (i.e., jobs) by 2.1 percent (395 personnel) and of 

installation population by 2.5 percent (1,035 people, including 394 active duty military personnel 

and their 640 dependents, and 1 civilian personnel). Assuming the one civilian personnel would 

be from Hillsborough County, the MacDill AFB Alternative would potentially increase the 2016 

Hillsborough County population by 0.08 percent (1,034 people). The increase of jobs at MacDill

AFB and the associated expansion of the installation and county populations would result in 

increased sales volumes due to more purchases of goods and services (e.g., retail, restaurants, 

hospitals) in the local community. These increases would in turn generate indirect and induced 

jobs in affected industries, resulting in long-term, beneficial impacts on the local economy. With 

a December 2017 unemployment rate of 3.3 percent in Hillsborough County amounting to 

approximately 24,100 unemployed people (BLS 2018), it is expected that the local labor force 

would be able to fill these new secondary jobs without a migration of workers into the area.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would include an increase of 394 active duty military personnel and 

640 dependents that would require housing. Assuming that each restationed personnel would 

require one housing unit, the demand for housing within Hillsborough County, either on- or offinstallation, would increase by approximately 394 units. All unaccompanied USAF personnel in 

the ranks of E-1 to E-4 with less than 3 years of service would be housed in dormitories at 

MacDill AFB. The MacDill AFB Alternative includes the proposed renovation of Building 378 to 

provide 68 new dormitory rooms for these added personnel. The remainder of the personnel 

would be housed on- or off-installation. The off-installation homeowner and rental vacancy 

rates are 2.0 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively. In addition, there are approximately 59,000

vacant off-installation housing units in Hillsborough County, and there is availability in the

current and projected inventories of on-installation housing and dormitories. Therefore,

sufficient capacity is available to accommodate the 394 active duty military personnel and their 

dependents that would be stationed at MacDill AFB as part of the MacDill AFB Alternative. No 

impacts on housing would occur during construction because it is expected that all construction 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-103

workers would be from the local or regional area. The MacDill AFB Alternative would be a 

negligible impact on housing. 

Using the assumption that 1.5 times 65 percent of active duty military personnel are school-age

dependents and all attend public schools, there would be an increase of approximately 384 

students, which represents a 0.2 percent increase of the School District of Hillsborough County 

student enrollment. However, the incoming students would be of varying ages and would be 

expected to live in different parts of Hillsborough County and, therefore, attend various public 

schools and private schools. A 0.2 percent increase in school enrollment would be readily 

absorbed into the local elementary and secondary schools, and it is anticipated that the existing 

schools in the county would have sufficient capacity to support the incoming student population. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that the increase in the population of school-age children would result in 

adverse impacts on education.

Although the MacDill AFB Alternative would result in a small increase of the population of 

MacDill AFB and Hillsborough County, it is anticipated that installation and public services could 

accommodate the increase of people. The change in population would slightly increase 

demand for installation and public services, but is not expected to adversely affect off- or oninstallation law enforcement, fire protection, emergency medical services, and medical services. 

The MacDill AFB Alternative includes the construction of an addition onto the fitness center to 

accommodate the increased installation population.

3.10.3.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Impacts on socioeconomics would not transpire under the No Action Alternative. Facility 

construction, demolition, and renovation would not occur, and there would be no increases in 

support personnel or aircraft operations. Socioeconomic conditions at Fairchild AFB and 

MacDill AFB would remain unchanged when compared to existing conditions identified in 

Sections 3.10.2.1 and 3.10.2.2, respectively. 

3.11 Environmental Justice and Sensitive Receptors

3.11.1 Definition of the Resource

Analysis of environmental justice evaluates impacts on environmental justice populations (i.e., 

minority and low-income populations) and is directed by EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations. The USAF Guide 

for Environmental Justice Analysis under the Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP)

(USAF 2014c) also provides guidance on how to fulfill the requirement for environmental justice 

analysis. EO 12898 was created to ensure the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair 

treatment means that no groups of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, 

should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting 

from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, tribal, 

and local programs and policies. EO 12898 requires each federal agency to identify and 

address whether their proposed action results in disproportionately high and adverse 

environmental and health impacts on low income or minority populations.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-104

Although not specifically identified as environmental justice populations, children and the elderly 

are considered sensitive receptors due to their inherent vulnerabilities. Analysis of potential 

impacts on children is directed by EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. EO 13045 states that each federal agency “(a) shall make it a high 

priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may 

disproportionately impact children; and (b) shall ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and 

standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health risks 

or safety risks.” Activities occurring near areas that could have higher concentrations of children 

during any given time, such as schools and childcare facilities, might further intensify potential 

impacts on children. To the extent to which children might be impacted, disproportionate impact 

on children is inherent due to their inherent vulnerabilities. There are no standard procedures or 

regulatory requirements for including the elderly in the impact analysis process; however, the 

USEPA stresses the importance of addressing environmental issues that may adversely impact 

them (USEPA 2014b). 

Consideration of concerns related to environmental justice and sensitive receptor populations

includes the race, ethnicity, poverty status, and age of populations near a proposed action. 

Such information aids in evaluating whether or not a proposed action would render vulnerable 

any of the groups targeted for protection.

For purposes of this EA, minority, low-income, child, and elderly populations are defined as 

follows:

Minority Population: Minority populations are defined as members of the following 

population groups: Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, 

Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and multi race that includes one of 

the aforementioned races; and Hispanic or Latino (CEQ 1997, USAF 2014c). The U.S. 

Census Bureau considers race and Hispanic or Latino origin (ethnicity) as two separate 

concepts, and these data are recorded separately.

Low-income Population: Low-income populations are defined as individuals whose 

income is below the federal poverty threshold based on income data collected in the 

2012-2016 American Community Survey. In 2016, the federal poverty threshold for an 

individual was $12,228 (U.S. Census Bureau 2016a).

Child Population: Children are defined as all people 17 years of age and under.

Elderly Population: Elderly persons are defined as all people 65 years of age and over.

For the purpose of this analysis, the environmental justice and sensitive receptors ROI includes 

the areas near MacDill AFB within which potential impacts from the MacDill AFB Alternative 

could occur. The proposed activity most likely to disproportionately affect environmental justice 

populations and adversely affect sensitive receptor populations would be KC-135 operations. 

Therefore, the ROI includes the census tracts within the proposed 65 dBA DNL noise contour 

for MacDill AFB that might contain people that could be affected by the MacDill AFB Alternative. 

Demographic data for the ROI provides key insights into environmental justice and sensitive 

receptor populations. The community of comparison for the ROI is the smallest set of U.S. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-105

Census data encompassing the ROI and is used to establish appropriate thresholds for 

comparison analysis (USAF 2014c).

3.11.2 Affected Environment

3.11.2.1 MACDILL AFB

The environmental justice and sensitive receptors ROI for the MacDill AFB Alternative consists 

of census tracts 69, 70.02, and 72 (see Figure 3-7). No portions of MacDill AFB were included 

in the ROI because the installation land under the proposed 65 dBA DNL noise contour consists 

of land uses that are functionally related to the airfield (e.g., airfield, aircraft operations and 

maintenance, open space [undeveloped buffer space], industrial), and generally off limits to all 

non-military and non-DoD civilian personnel. Additionally, there are no other on-installation

areas under the proposed 65 dBA DNL noise contour where environmental justice and sensitive 

receptor populations might congregate. The community of comparison is Hillsborough County, 

and data for the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida MSA and Florida are provided for 

additional areas of comparison. 

Table 3-32 presents characteristics of the minority, low-income, child, and elderly populations in 

the ROI, including census tracts; Hillsborough County; Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, 

Florida MSA; and Florida.

Table 3-32. Minority, Low-Income, Child, and Elderly Populations in the Vicinity of MacDill AFB

Geographic Area

Total Population

(for which 

Minority, Child, 

and Elderly 

Populations are 

Calculated) a

Percent 

Minority a

Percent 

Children a

Percent 

Elderly a

Total 

Population

(for which 

Low-Income

is Calculated) 

b

Percent 

LowIncome b

ROI 13,796 43.8 22.9 8.3 13,750 15.9

Census Tract 69 6,021 32.2 18.9 10.0 6,012 5.5

Census Tract 

70.02

3,615 70.7 33.9 5.4 3,605 39.8

Census Tract 72 4,160 37.3 19.1 8.2 4,133 10.2

Hillsborough County 1,323,059 48.8 23.2 13.1 1,302,724 16.4

Tampa-St. 

PetersburgClearwater, FL MSA

2,927,714 35.0 20.5 18.7 2,881,758 15.1

Florida 19,934,451 44.4 20.4 19.1 19,514,334 16.1

Sources: a U.S. Census Bureau 2016b, b U.S. Census Bureau 2016e

Note: The data presented in this table are estimates from the 2012-2016 American Community Survey.

Table 3-32 provides the percent of children and elderly persons within the ROI and other areas 

for general characterization purposes. No schools, childcare centers, hospitals, or retirement 

communities are located under the proposed 65 dBA DNL noise contour. There are three parks 

(e.g., Gadsden Park, Skyview Park, and MacDill 48 Park [also known as ELAPP Forty Eight 

Park]) under the proposed 65 dBA DNL noise contour.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-106

Figure 3-7. Environmental Justice and Sensitive Receptors ROI for the MacDill AFB Alternative
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-107

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences

For the purposes of analysis of potential impacts on environmental justice populations in this 

EA, the race, ethnicity, and poverty status of the ROI are examined to determine if a minority or

low-income population could be disproportionately affected by the potential noise level increase 

resulting from the MacDill AFB Alternative. Populations affected by potential noise level

increase are those within areas that would be exposed to the 65 to 69 dBA DNL and 70 to 74 

dBA DNL noise contours during the MacDill AFB Alternative but not under existing conditions 

(see Figure 3-6). The potential for disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income 

populations are determined by comparing the percentage of each population in the ROI with the 

percentage of each population in the community of comparison. If the percentage of minority or 

low-income population within the ROI is greater than or equal to the percentages within the 

community of comparison, then disproportionate impacts on that population could be present if 

the MacDill AFB Alternative has a potential to impact that population. However, if the 

percentage of minority or low-income population within the ROI is less than the percentages 

within the community of comparison, there would be no disproportionate impacts (USAF 2014c).

For all child and elderly populations, disproportionate impacts are inherent. The extent to which 

child and elderly populations would be impacted is disproportionate due to their vulnerabilities 

from age-related physiological differences in types and levels of exposure and, therefore, the 

evaluation of environmental impacts on these populations is different from the evaluation of 

environmental impacts on adults and other populations.

3.11.3.1 MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

In 2016, the percentages of minority and low-income populations within the ROI were lower than 

those of Hillsborough County (the community of comparison). The percentage of minority 

persons within the ROI (43.8 percent) was lower than Hillsborough County (48.8 percent) and 

Florida (44.4 percent), but higher than the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida MSA (35.0

percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2016b). Low-income persons made up 15.9 percent of the 

population of the ROI, which was lower than Hillsborough County (16.4 percent) and Florida

(16.1 percent) but slightly higher than the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida MSA (15.1 

percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2016e). Within the ROI, census tract 70.02 had larger 

percentages of minority and low-income populations (70.7 percent and 39.8 percent, 

respectively) than Hillsborough County (U.S. Census Bureau 2016b, U.S. Census Bureau 

2016e).

Facility construction, demolition, and renovation would occur within discrete areas of MacDill 

AFB in land uses that are functionally related to the airfield where access is generally restricted 

to military and DoD civilian personnel. Therefore, there would be no impacts on environmental 

justice or sensitive receptor populations within the ROI as a result of construction, demolition, 

and renovation. Additionally, there would be little to no impacts on on-installation populations 

during construction, demolition, and renovation. Standard construction safety BMPs (e.g., 

fencing and other security measures) would reduce potential risks to on-installation populations 

to minimal levels. Therefore, construction, demolition, and renovation of the MacDill Alternative

would not result in disproportionate impacts on any populations, including minority and lowincome populations, or increased exposure of children and elderly persons to environmental 

health risks or safety risks.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-108

The MacDill AFB Alternative would result in an average of 29.3 additional KC-135 operations 

per day. Noise resulting from the increase of KC-135 operations would have potential to cause 

adverse impacts on populations within the ROI because approximately 167 acres outside of 

MacDill AFB would be exposed to increased noise levels, although approximately 94 acres of 

this area would be over water (see Figure 3-6). As compared to existing conditions, 

approximately 52 additional acres of land in the ROI would be exposed to noise within the 65 to 

69 dBA DNL noise contour, and approximately 21 additional acres of land would be exposed to 

the 70 to 74 dBA DNL noise contour (see Table 3-33). Of the 73 acres of land area within the 

ROI that would be exposed to increased noise levels, most (approximately 65 acres) are in 

census tract 69. This area of census tract 69 consists of residential, recreational/open space, 

urban and community mixed use, and light industrial land uses. The approximately 6 acres of 

census tract 70.02 that would be exposed to increased noise levels consists of open space and 

light industrial uses (i.e., no residences). Approximately 2 acres within census tract 72 would be 

exposed to increased noise levels; this area consists of residential and open space uses. 

However, the 0.8-acre portion that would be exposed to the proposed 70 to 74 dBA DNL noise 

contour within census tract 72 is undeveloped and does not contain residences.

Table 3-33. Additional Land Area within the ROI Exposed to Increased Noise Levels under MacDill 

AFB Alternative

Proposed Noise 

Contour 

(dBA DNL)

Census Tract 69 Census Tract 

70.02 Census Tract 72 Total

65 to 69 45.1 acres 5.7 acres 1.3 acres 52.1 acres

70 to 74 19.8 acres 0.2 acres 0.8 acres 20.8 acres

75 to 79 N/A N/A N/A N/A

80 to 84 N/A N/A N/A N/A

≥85 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total 64.9 acres 5.9 acres 2.1 acres 72.9 acres

Sources: Interpreted from data from USAF 2017b; USAF 2016a

Key: N/A = Not applicable

Census tract 69 (i.e., census tract in the ROI with most land area exposed to increased noise 

levels) has lower percentages of minority and low-income populations than Hillsborough County 

(the community of comparison). Additionally, the percentage of minority and low-income 

populations within census tract 69 are lower than the ROI as a whole. Therefore, there would 

be no significant or disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental impacts on 

minority or low-income populations near MacDill AFB during construction activities or during 

aircraft operation.

As stated in Section 3.7.3.2, changes in noise contours at MacDill AFB would constitute a 

minor impact from noise from individual aircraft overflights and a moderate impact from the 

noise increase in areas of incompatible land use. The proposed noise contours would overlap 

with additional areas of three parks and residential areas. However, there are no schools, 

childcare centers, hospitals, retirement communities, or other areas where sensitive receptors 

might congregate within the proposed 65 dBA DNL and 70 dBA DNL noise contours near

MacDill AFB. Because there would be adverse noise impacts that could affect children and 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-109

elderly persons, the impact on these populations would be considered disproportionate. 

However, the impact would not be significant because the effect from individual overflight is 

considered an annoyance that would not be a significant environmental health or safety risk. 

Additionally, the areas exposed to increased noise would be small and do not contain any childor elderly-specific uses or land uses.

3.11.3.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Impacts on environmental justice and sensitive receptor populations would not transpire under 

the No Action Alternative. Facility construction, demolition, and renovation would not occur, and 

there would be no increases in support personnel or aircraft operations. Environmental justice 

and sensitive receptor conditions at and surrounding MacDill AFB would remain unchanged 

when compared to existing conditions identified in Section 3.11.2.1. 

3.12 Water Resources

3.12.1 Definition of the Resource

Water resources are natural and man-made sources of water that are available for use by and 

for the benefit of humans and the environment. Water resources relevant to Fairchild AFB and 

MacDill AFB include groundwater, surface water, floodplains, and wetlands. Evaluation of water 

resources examines the quantity and quality of the resource and its demand for various 

purposes. 

Groundwater. Groundwater is water that collects or flows beneath the Earth’s surface, filling 

the porous spaces in soil, sediment, and rocks. A deposit of subsurface water that is large 

enough to tap via a well is referred to as an aquifer. Groundwater originates from precipitation, 

percolates through the ground surface, and is often used for potable water consumption, 

agricultural irrigation, and industrial applications. Groundwater can typically be described in 

terms of its depth from the surface, aquifer or well capacity, water quality, surrounding geologic 

composition, and recharge rate. 

Surface Water. Surface water includes natural, modified, and constructed water confinement 

and conveyance features above groundwater that may or may not have a defined channel and 

discernable water flows. These features are generally classified as streams, springs, wetlands, 

natural and artificial impoundments (e.g., ponds, lakes), and constructed drainage canals and 

ditches. 

Stormwater is surface water generated by precipitation events that may percolate into 

permeable surficial sediments or flow across the top of impervious or saturated surficial areas, a 

condition known as runoff. Stormwater is an important component of surface water systems 

because of its potential to introduce sediments and other contaminants that could degrade 

lakes, rivers, and streams. Stormwater flows, which can be exacerbated by high proportions of 

impervious surfaces associated with buildings, roads, and parking lots, are important to the 

management of surface water. Stormwater systems reduce sediments and other contaminants 

that would otherwise flow directly into surface waters. 

The CWA (33 USC §1251 et seq., as amended) establishes federal limits, through the NPDES,

on the amounts of specific pollutants that are discharged to surface waters to restore and 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-110

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the water. An NPDES permit would 

be required for any change in the quality or quantity of wastewater discharge or stormwater 

runoff from construction sites where 1 or more acres would be disturbed. The permit mandates 

use of BMPs to ensure that soil disturbed during construction does not pollute nearby water 

bodies. 

The NPDES stormwater program requires construction site operators engaged in activities that 

disturb 1 acre or more to obtain coverage under a Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge 

from Large and Small Construction Activities for their stormwater discharges. Construction or 

demolition that necessitates a permit requires preparation of a Notice of Intent to discharge 

stormwater and a SWPPP that is implemented during construction. 

The issuance of stormwater NPDES permits is conducted by either a USEPA regional office or 

a state regulatory office depending on which organization has primacy. In the State of 

Washington, USEPA has primacy over federal facilities. In Florida, FAC Chapters 62-621 and 

62-346 address NPDES permitting and environmental resource permits, respectively. 

Section 438 of the EISA (42 USC § 17094) establishes stormwater design requirements for 

federal construction projects that disturb a footprint greater than 5,000 square feet. Additional 

guidance is provided in the USEPA Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater 

Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the EISA. UFC 3-210-10 Low 

Impact Development also provides technical criteria, technical requirements, and references for 

the planning and design of applicable DoD projects to comply with stormwater requirements 

under EISA Section 438. Per these requirements, any increase in surface water runoff as a 

result of the proposed construction would be attenuated through the use of temporary and/or 

permanent drainage management features. The integration of low impact development design 

concepts incorporates site design and stormwater management to maintain the site’s predevelopment runoff rates and volumes to minimize further potential adverse impacts associated 

with increases in impervious surface area. 

Water Quality Standards. Water quality standards are regulated by USEPA, under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (42 USC §§ 201, 300 et seq.) and the CWA. Section 303(d) of the CWA 

requires states to identify and develop a list of impaired water bodies where technology based 

and other required controls have not provided attainment of water quality standards. Section 

305(b) of the CWA requires states to assess and report the quality of their water bodies. 

Water quality standards for surface waters at Fairchild AFB are specified in Chapter 173-201A 

of the WAC. In addition, sediment management standards for the state are established in 

Chapter 173-204 of the WAC.

Water quality standards at MacDill AFB are regulated by the FDEP under the following FAC 

Chapters:

62-302 (Surface Water Quality Standards)

62-4 (Antidegradation policy in Rule 62-4.242)

62-303 (Impaired Waters Rule)
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-111

62-55 and 62-550 (Drinking Water Quality Standards)

62-604 (Wastewater).

Floodplains. Floodplains are areas of low-level ground present along rivers, stream channels, 

large wetlands, or coastal waters. Such lands might be subject to periodic or infrequent 

inundation due to rain or melting snow. Floodplain ecosystem functions include natural 

moderation of floods, flood storage and conveyance, groundwater recharge, and nutrient 

cycling. 

The risk of flooding typically depends on local topography, the frequency of precipitation events, 

and the size of the watershed above the floodplain. Flood potential is evaluated by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which defines 100-year and 500-year floodplains. 

The 100-year floodplain is an area that has a 1 percent chance of inundation by a flood event in 

a given year, while 500-year floodplains have a 0.2 percent chance of inundation in a given 

year. Certain facilities inherently pose too great a risk to be in either the 100- or 500-year 

floodplain, such as hospitals, schools, or storage buildings for irreplaceable records. To reduce 

the risks to human health and safety, federal, state, and local regulations often limit floodplain 

development to passive uses such as recreational and preservation activities.

EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to determine whether a proposed 

action would occur within a floodplain. This determination typically involves consultation of 

FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which contain enough general information to determine the 

relationship of the project area to nearby floodplains. EO 11988 directs federal agencies to 

avoid floodplains unless the agency determines that no practicable alternative exists. Where 

the only practicable alternative is to site in a floodplain, the agency should develop measures to 

reduce impacts and mitigate unavoidable impacts. 

Wetlands. Wetlands are an important natural system and habitat because of the diverse 

biologic and hydrologic functions they perform. These functions include water quality 

improvement, groundwater recharge and discharge, pollution mitigation, nutrient cycling, wildlife 

habitat provision, and erosion protection.

Sections 404 and 401 (through water quality certification) of the CWA regulate the discharge of 

dredged or fill materials into the waters of the United States. The term “waters of the United 

States” has a broad meaning under the CWA and incorporates deepwater aquatic habitats and 

special aquatic habitats (including wetlands). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines 

wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated with ground or surface water at a 

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 CFR 328.3(c)(4)).

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands (24 May 1977), directs agencies to consider alternatives to 

avoid adverse impacts and incompatible development in wetlands. Federal agencies are to 

avoid new construction in wetlands, unless the agency finds there is no practicable alternative to 

construction in the wetland and the proposed construction incorporates all possible measures to 

limit harm to the wetland. Agencies should use economic and environmental data, agency 

mission statements, and any other pertinent information when deciding whether or not to build in 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-112

wetlands. EO 11990 directs each agency to provide for early public review of plans for 

construction in wetlands. 

USAF policy is to avoid construction of new facilities within areas containing wetlands or within 

floodplains, where practicable. A FONPA must be prepared and approved by the applicable 

USAF major command for all projects involving construction in a wetland or action within 

floodplain areas.

3.12.2 Affected Environment 

3.12.2.1 FAIRCHILD AFB

Groundwater. There are several regional aquifers supplying water to the Fairchild AFB area 

including: the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, the Latah (Hangman) Creek Aquifer, 

and the West Plains Aquifer. Perched groundwater can occur 5 to 20 feet bgs. Shallow

aquifers below Fairchild AFB are correlated with bedrock fractures filled with gravel or deep 

deposits of stratified sands and gravels, whereas deeper confined aquifers are correlated with 

basalt layers with major aquifers at 100 to 200 feet and 400 feet bgs. Subsurface groundwater 

trends easterly and southeasterly from the installation (Fairchild AFB 2012b). 

Fairchild AFB obtains potable water from the Fort George Wright Annex groundwater well 

complex located off-installation. Potable water is drawn from the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum 

Prairie Aquifer and the Latah (Hangman) Creek Aquifer. Fairchild AFB operates a potable water 

storage and distribution system that provides water for various uses at all the facilities on the 

installation (see Section 3.6 for a discussion on water infrastructure).

Surface Water. Fairchild AFB is located within the Deep Creek, Upper Hog Canyon Creek, and 

the Nine Mile Reservoir-Spokane River hydrologic unit code watersheds (USEPA 2018d). 

There are no defined, natural stream courses on Fairchild AFB; however, there are wetlands 

with seasonal or persistent ponding and stormwater catchments or conveyances (Fairchild AFB 

2012b). Surface hydrology on Fairchild AFB can generally be described as isolated from freeflowing surface waters within the watersheds; the nearest substantial water bodies to Fairchild 

AFB are the Spokane River, approximately 13 miles to the east, and several lakes (i.e., Medical, 

West Medical, Silver, Clear, Otter, and Granite) immediately south of the installation (USAF 

2014b). According to USEPA, there are water bodies listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of 

the CWA approximately 4 miles south of Fairchild AFB (USEPA 2018d).

Stormwater runoff flows across the flat landscape and ponds in depressional areas before 

infiltrating, evaporating, or being collected in man-made drains in the developed areas of the 

installation. The stormwater system is divided into eight drainage basins, with Drainage Basin 1 

being the largest basin that drains approximately one-third of Fairchild AFB and contains the 

most industrial activities. All of the proposed facility construction, demolition, and renovation 

would occur within Drainage Basin 1. Fairchild AFB has been issued a NPDES MSGP to 

manage stormwater runoff and to protect the quality of surface water on and near the 

installation (Fairchild AFB 2012b). An NPDES permit is also required for construction activities 

disturbing greater than 1 acre to ensure that sedimentation due to erosion does not impact local 

surface water quality. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-113

Fairchild AFB was issued an NPDES Storm Water MSGP 2000 by USEPA on 13 December 

2000 (WAR05A52F), on 17 September 2009 (WAR05B94F) for coverage under MSGP 2008, 

and again in 2015 for coverage under MSGP 2015 (WAR05F302) (Fairchild AFB 2015c). 

Floodplains. According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Numbers 53063C0675D and 

53063C0500D, effective July 6, 2010, all areas of the Proposed Action are within Flood Zone X, 

which includes “Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain” (i.e., the 

500-year floodplain) (FEMA 2010).

Wetlands. There are approximately 215 acres of disturbed and semi-natural wetlands on 

Fairchild AFB. Wetlands and associated fringe communities occur around potholes and vernal 

pools in the southern portion of the installation. The southeastern edge of the installation 

supports a large wetland complex consisting of Russian olive scrub-shrub habitat and an 

assortment of grasses and grass-like plants. All wetlands on Fairchild AFB have been 

determined to be “isolated” and are therefore not regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. 

However, under state laws and regulations, Washington maintains regulatory authority over all 

wetlands in that state. Most wetlands on the installation are significantly disturbed, primarily 

from agricultural and other land use practices prior to the establishment of Fairchild AFB 

(Fairchild AFB 2012b).

No wetlands are within the areas of the Proposed Action. The closest wetland is more than 

0.25 miles away on the south side of runway. 

3.12.2.2 MACDILL AFB

Groundwater. MacDill AFB has two aquifer systems: a shallow, surficial aquifer and the 

underlying regional Floridan aquifer. The surficial aquifer system (composed of sand, clayey 

sand, and shell) is approximately 20 feet thick and is used to supply small irrigation systems offinstallation and is not used by MacDill AFB. This shallow aquifer ranges from the surface to 

approximately 5 feet bgs at inland locations. The surficial aquifer is highly susceptible to 

groundwater contamination, primarily due to shallow water table depth and permeable 

sediments. Underground storage tanks, landfills, and golf courses (i.e., through fertilizer 

applications) are the primary sources of its contamination. Recharge of the surficial aquifer 

primarily occurs through precipitation percolation (MacDill AFB 2017c).

The surficial aquifer is generally underlain by heterogeneous calcareous clays and limestone 

with varying permeability. The Floridan aquifer underlies the clay and limestone barrier. The 

Floridan aquifer is not significantly recharged from the surface at MacDill AFB or the surficial 

aquifer. The installation is primarily a discharge zone for the Floridan aquifer because of the 

upward flow of groundwater. The groundwater quality of the Floridan aquifer has not been fully 

defined due to a lack of monitoring wells. This aquifer is rated as moderately susceptible to 

contamination. There is slight contamination of this aquifer but it is not contaminated to the 

extent that remediation is required (MacDill AFB 2017c). 

No potable water wells are on the installation, and MacDill AFB obtains potable water from the 

City of Tampa (MacDill AFB 2017c). The City of Tampa obtains potable water from several 

different sources including the Floridan aquifer. MacDill AFB operates a potable water storage 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-114 

and distribution system that provides water for various uses at all the facilities on the installation 

(see Section 3.6 for a discussion on water infrastructure). 

Surface Water. MacDill AFB is within an independent drainage area with no surface waters 

entering or leaving the installation prior to discharge to Tampa and Hillsborough bays. The 

installation is surrounded by Hillsborough Bay (to the east), Tampa Bay (to the southwest), and 

Old Tampa Bay (to the northwest). Raccoon Hammock and Broad Creek are the main natural 

drainage features on MacDill AFB and are in the southern portion of the installation. Surface 

water flows on the installation are primarily stormwater runoff. Ditches and pipes have been 

constructed to drain the developed portions of the installation. The drainage system is 

composed of approximately 24 miles of culverts and 56 miles of open ditches and canals. The 

drainage systems ultimately discharge into either Tampa Bay or Hillsborough Bay. Multiple 

artificial impoundments exist on MacDill AFB. The two largest impoundments, Lake McClelland 

and Lewis Lake, total approximately 20 acres and are situated on the eastern side of the 

installation. Another 35 acres of small, unnamed impoundments occur throughout the 

installation. The coastal plain at MacDill AFB is crisscrossed with drainage canals that are 

primarily mangrove swamps. Most of these canals are interconnected and influenced by tides 

(MacDill AFB 2017c).

The State of Florida in 62-302.40 FAC classifies all surface waters according to their designated 

use. Tampa Bay is a Class III water body, with portions of the bay south and southwest of 

MacDill AFB classified as Class II waters. Class III is designated for fish consumption, 

recreation, propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and 

wildlife. Class II is designated for the same uses as Class III and includes shellfish propagation 

or harvesting. According to USEPA, the Lower Hillsborough Bay, in the Tampa Bay watershed,

is listed as impaired due to the presence of mercury, elevated chlorophyll a, and low dissolved 

oxygen (USEPA 2010). 

MacDill AFB has two NPDES permits: a MSGP for stormwater discharge associated with 

industrial activity (Permit No. FLR05E128) and a Phase II MS4 general stormwater permit 

(Permit No. FLR04E059). The MSGP primarily covers flightline areas, such as the runway and 

the airfield aprons at MacDill AFB, including activities such as aircraft refueling, vehicle 

maintenance, and materials handling. As a component of the MSGP, MacDill AFB maintains 

and follows a SWPPP that documents existing stormwater management practices and guides 

personnel who are responsible for ensuring that potential stormwater pollution is minimized. 

MacDill AFB also maintains a number of documents that provide guidance for handling 

hazardous materials appropriately and detailed procedures to follow in the event of a spill (see 

Section 3.5). 

The proposed squadron operations facility parking lot coincides with a small drainage ditch. 

The installation’s geographic information system data identifies this ditch as almost never 

containing water and if so, only holds water during storm events. No other surface water 

features coincide with the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative; however, several surface water 

features are within this portion of the installation (see Figure 3-8).
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-115

Figure 3-8. Water Resources Associated with the MacDill AFB Alternative 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-116

Floodplains. Most of MacDill AFB is within the 100-year floodplain (see Figure 3-8); therefore, 

the installation must comply with the National Flood Insurance Program’s floodplain 

management regulations. According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Number

12057C0476H, effective August 28, 2008, all areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative are within 

Flood Zone AE (FEMA 2008). In this zone, properties have a greater than 1 percent chance of 

experiencing flooding in any given year (i.e., the 100-year floodplain). The installation is also 

entirely within Tampa’s Coastal High Hazard Area, which is an area threatened by tropical 

storms and hurricanes. Any hurricane, particularly those of higher intensity, could cause major 

damage to facilities in the region.

Wetlands. More than 20 percent of the MacDill AFB installation area is wetlands, including 

more than 500 contiguous acres of prime mangrove community along the southern installation 

coastline. A wetland delineation study in 1998 identified, delineated, and classified 

approximately 1,195 acres of wetlands on the installation. This included 880 acres of estuarine 

scrub/shrub emergent wetlands, 200 acres of palustrine wetlands, and 115 acres of needleleaved forested wetlands (MacDill AFB 2017c). Figure 3-8 shows the wetland areas near the 

areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative. 

The proposed addition to the fitness center (Building 303) is the only part of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative in close proximity to wetlands. This construction project would entail an addition 

onto an already existing facility located approximately 100 feet north of the wetlands. All other 

portions of the MacDill AFB Alternative are more than 500 feet away from wetlands. In addition, 

the drainage ditch that coincides with the proposed squadron operations facility parking lot 

might be a Waters of the United States thereby potentially regulated under Sections 401/404 of 

the CWA.

3.12.3 Environmental Consequences

A proposed action could have significant impacts with respect to water resources if any of the 

following were to occur:

Substantially reduce water availability or supply to existing users. 

Overdraft groundwater basins. 

Exceed safe annual yield of water supply sources. 

Substantially affect water quality. 

Endanger public health or safety by creating or worsening health or flood hazard 

conditions. 

Threaten or damage unique hydrologic characteristics. 

Violate established laws or regulations adopted to protect water resources.

Determination of the significance of wetland impacts is based on (1) the function and value of 

the wetland, (2) the proportion of the wetland that would be affected relative to the occurrence of 

similar wetlands in the region, (3) the sensitivity of the wetland to proposed activities, and (4) the 

duration of ecological ramifications. Impacts on wetland resources are considered significant if 

high-value wetlands would be adversely affected.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-117

3.12.3.1 PROPOSED ACTION

Groundwater. No sensitive groundwater resources are known to occur in any areas planned 

for the proposed facility construction, demolition, or renovation projects. There are also no 

existing or proposed groundwater wells near these areas. Excavation associated with the 

proposed construction would not intersect the local groundwater table. 

Groundwater recharge to the aquifer system would be impacted if new impervious surfaces 

increase runoff to nearby water bodies, thereby decreasing infiltration to the soil and bedrock. 

The Proposed Action would result in a net increase of 34,172 ft2 of impervious surfaces. 

Following the guidance provided by Section 438 of the EISA, Fairchild AFB would ensure that 

post-project hydrology mirrors pre-project hydrology on and around the areas of the Proposed 

Action to the maximum extent technically feasible with respect to temperature, rate, volume, and 

duration of flow. The quality and quantity of groundwater on and adjacent to Fairchild AFB is

not anticipated to be adversely affected; therefore, impacts to groundwater would not be 

significant. 

Accidental spills or leaks of substances such as fuels, oils, and other lubricants could 

contaminate soils and groundwater aquifers. All equipment would be maintained according to 

manufacturer’s specifications and all fuels and potentially hazardous materials would be 

contained and stored appropriately. The potential for contamination to occur would be 

minimized through implementation of the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan, 

and the use of secondary containment for the temporary storage of any hazardous materials 

and other BMPs would prevent or minimize spills or leaks.

The Proposed Action would cause a long-term increase in the consumption of groundwater for 

potable water purposes. This increase would result from the 13 percent increase in the 

installation’s population. Fairchild AFB obtains potable water from off-installation groundwater 

wells, and the increase in groundwater consumption from the Proposed Action would not 

appreciably reduce regional groundwater availability. Impacts on potable water infrastructure 

are discussed in Section 3.6. 

Surface Water. There is a potential for erosion and associated sedimentation to flow into 

surface water features during facility construction and demolition. All ground-disturbing 

activities would be conducted in accordance with the applicable stormwater discharge permit to 

control erosion and prevent sediment, debris, or other pollutants from entering the stormwater 

system. Construction such as clearing, grading, trenching, and excavating could displace soils 

and sediment. If not managed properly, disturbed soils and sediments can easily be washed 

into nearby water bodies during stormwater events and reduce water quality. However, erosion 

and sediment controls and stormwater management practices implemented consistent with the 

project-specific SWPPP would minimize the potential for adverse impacts associated with 

erosion and sedimentation. Protection measures could include the use of silt fences and 

covering of soil stockpiles. Fairchild AFB would be required to obtain coverage under the 

NPDES General Permit for all construction activities over 1 acre to minimize impacts from 

sedimentation on water quality. 

New construction and facility additions could result in a potential increase in surface runoff due 

to an increase in impervious surfaces (i.e., 34,172 ft2

). The predevelopment hydrology would be 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-118

maintained or restored, to the maximum extent practical, with regard to rate, volume and 

duration of flow. All of the proposed facility construction, demolition, and renovation would 

occur within Drainage Basin 1, which drains into two small ponds. These retention ponds help 

attenuate the stormwater flow from Drainage Basin 1 prior to discharge off-installation. 

Stormwater controls and BMPs implemented consistent with a SWPPP would avoid the 

potential for adverse impacts on surface waters. Based on the installation’s distance from freeflowing surface waters, it is unlikely that stormwater discharges from the installation would reach 

any impaired water bodies. 

Floodplains. The areas of the Proposed Action would not occur within the 100- or 500-year 

floodplains. As such, there would be no impacts on floodplains.

Wetlands. No known wetlands exist in the areas of the Proposed Action. Therefore, the 

Proposed Action is not anticipated to directly or indirectly impact wetlands.

3.12.3.2 MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

Groundwater. No sensitive groundwater resources are known to occur in any areas planned 

for the proposed facility construction, demolition, or renovation projects. There are also no 

existing or proposed groundwater wells near these areas. Excavation associated with the 

proposed construction is not anticipated to intersect the local groundwater table. 

Groundwater recharge to the aquifer system would be impacted if new impervious surfaces 

increase runoff to nearby water bodies, thereby decreasing infiltration to the soil and bedrock. 

The MacDill AFB Alternative would result in a net increase of 104,500 ft2 of impervious surfaces. 

Following the guidance provided by Section 438 of the EISA, MacDill AFB would ensure that 

post-project hydrology mirrors pre-project hydrology on and around the areas of the MacDill 

AFB Alternative to the maximum extent technically feasible with respect to temperature, rate, 

volume, and duration of flow. The quality and quantity of groundwater on and adjacent to 

MacDill AFB would not be adversely affected; therefore, impacts to groundwater would not be 

significant. 

Accidental spills or leaks of substances such as fuels, oils, and other lubricants could 

contaminate soils and groundwater aquifers. All equipment would be maintained according to 

manufacturer’s specifications and all fuels and potentially hazardous materials would be 

contained and stored appropriately. The potential for contamination to occur would be 

minimized through the implementation of the MacDill AFB Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasures Plan (MacDill AFB 2012b) and the use of secondary containment for the 

temporary storage of any hazardous materials and other BMPs would prevent or minimize spills 

or leaks. 

The MacDill AFB Alternative would cause a long-term increase in the consumption of 

groundwater for potable water purposes. This increase would result from the 2.5 percent 

increase in the installation’s population. MacDill AFB obtains potable water from the City of 

Tampa, which uses several different sources including groundwater. The increase in 

groundwater consumption from the MacDill AFB Alternative would not appreciably reduce 

regional groundwater availability. Potable water infrastructure is discussed in Section 3.6. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-119

Surface Water. There is a potential for erosion and associated sedimentation to flow into 

surface water features during facility construction and demolition. All ground-disturbing

activities would be conducted in accordance with the applicable stormwater discharge permit to 

control erosion and prevent sediment, debris, or other pollutants from entering the stormwater 

system. Construction activities such as clearing, grading, trenching, and excavating could 

displace soils and sediment. If not managed properly, disturbed soils and sediments can easily 

be washed into nearby water bodies during stormwater events and reduce water quality. 

However, erosion and sediment controls and stormwater management practices implemented 

consistent with the project-specific SWPPP would minimize the potential for adverse impacts 

associated with erosion and sedimentation. Protection measures could include the use of silt 

fences and covering of soil stockpiles. MacDill AFB would be required to obtain coverage under 

the NPDES General Permit for all construction activities over 1 acre to minimize impacts from 

sedimentation on water quality. 

New construction and facility additions could result in a potential increase in surface runoff due 

to an increase in impervious surfaces (i.e., 104,500 ft2

). The predevelopment hydrology would 

be maintained or restored, to the maximum extent practical, with regard to rate, volume and 

duration of flow. Stormwater controls and BMPs implemented consistent with a SWPPP would 

avoid the potential for adverse impacts on surface waters.

Impacts on surface water would be further reduced by adhering to state stormwater rules 

governed by Part IV of Chapter 373 Florida Statues. These rules are administered by the 

Southwest Florida Water Management District and require the treatment of stormwater to avoid 

adverse impacts on water quality and to attenuate stormwater to control adverse flooding 

conditions. At a minimum, the Southwest Florida Water Management District requires that 

MacDill AFB treat 0.5 inch of stormwater runoff from new construction or redevelopment 

projects on the installation. Because MacDill AFB discharges to impaired water bodies, it must 

demonstrate that post-project pollutant loads show a net improvement of discharges. 

Floodplains. All of the proposed facility construction, demolition, and renovation would occur 

within the 100-year floodplain. Direct impacts from construction within the 100-year floodplain 

are unavoidable because less than three percent of MacDill AFB’s land mass is outside the 100-

year floodplain and is suitable for development, and the installation’s cantonment area, where 

the MacDill Alternative would occur, is entirely within the floodplain (see Figure 3-8). The 

proposed facility construction, demolition, and renovation would be designed to avoid and 

minimize floodplain impacts and flood damage to facilities to the extent possible. The resulting

floodplain displacement would be expected to have no impacts on flooding potential in the area. 

Wetlands. No direct impacts on wetlands would occur. Construction of the proposed addition 

onto the fitness center would have no direct impacts on wetlands and proper implementation of 

construction BMPs would minimize potential indirect impacts on nearby wetlands. Examples of 

such construction BMPs include using stabilized construction entrances, silt fencing, berms and 

swales, check dams, vegetated channels, basins and traps, stabilization, erosion control 

blankets, inlet protection, outlet protection, and level spreaders to reduce soil erosion and 

stormwater runoff. The use of these BMPs would limit the intensity, duration, and extent of 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

July 2018 | 3-120

indirect impacts on wetlands. The high quality mangrove wetlands located on the southern 

installation coastline would not be impacted by the MacDill AFB Alternative. 

The proposed squadron operations facility parking lot would be constructed on the site of a 

drainage ditch, and it has not yet been determined whether this ditch is a Waters of the United 

States. A jurisdictional determination would be made as to whether this ditch is considered

waters of the United States and thereby regulated under Sections 401/404 of the CWA. MacDill 

AFB would correspond with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to commencing any 

groundbreaking activities to obtain the necessary jurisdictional determination.

3.12.3.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

No impacts on water resources would occur under the No Action Alternative. No facility 

construction, demolition, and renovation would occur, and there would be no increases in 

support personnel or aircraft operations. Water resources at Fairchild AFB and MacDill AFB 

would remain the same as existing conditions identified in Sections 3.12.2.1 and 3.12.2.2, 

respectively. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-1 

4. Cumulative Impacts

Federal regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR §§ 1500–1508) require that the cumulative 

impacts of a proposed action be assessed. CEQ regulations implementing the procedural 

provisions of NEPA define cumulative impacts as follows (40 CFR 1508.7):

“The impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes 

such other actions.”

Cumulative impacts can be additive (i.e., the net adverse cumulative impacts are strengthened 

by the sum of individual impacts), countervailing (i.e., the net adverse cumulative impacts are 

less because of the interaction between beneficial and adverse individual impacts), or 

synergistic (i.e., the net adverse cumulative impacts are greater than the sum of the individual 

impacts). Cumulative impacts could result from individually minor, but collectively significant, 

actions that take place over time. Accordingly, a cumulative impacts analysis identifies and 

defines the scope of other actions and their interrelationship with a proposed action if there is an 

overlap in space and time.

Cumulative impacts may occur when there is a relationship between a proposed action and 

other actions expected to occur in a similar location (i.e., overlapping geographic location) or 

during a similar time period (i.e., coincidental or sequential timing of events). This relationship 

may or may not be obvious. The impacts may then be incremental and may result in cumulative 

impacts. Actions overlapping with or in close proximity to a proposed action can reasonably be 

expected to have more potential for cumulative impacts on “shared resources” than actions that 

may be geographically separated. Similarly, actions that coincide in the same timeframe tend to 

offer a higher potential for cumulative impacts.

This section discusses the potential for cumulative impacts caused by the Proposed Action and 

MacDill AFB Alternative when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions.

4.1 Fairchild AFB Cumulative Impacts

4.1.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

This section evaluates the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action by determining the 

incremental contribution of the Proposed Action together with past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable actions. Table 4-1 summarizes the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions within the region where interaction with the Proposed Action might occur. The table

briefly describes each action and presents the proponent, location, and the timeframe 

(e.g., past, present/ongoing, future) of the action.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-2 

Table 4-1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions at Fairchild AFB and Associated Region

Action Location Timeframe Description

Military Actions

Beddown KC-46As at up 

to four installations 

nationwide

Fairchild AFB, 

Grand Forks 

AFB, Joint 

Base McGuireDix Lakehurst, 

and Travis 

AFB

Future As part of a separate basing process, align 24 or 36 KC-46A to up to four installations. 

Associated facility construction, demolition, and renovation would also occur. USAF’s

decision on this beddown will be made subsequent to independent NEPA analysis 

(USAF 2018). 

Programmed Construction 

Projects

Fairchild AFB Future Implement various construction projects including a recreational vehicle storage lot; 

renovate/consolidate Buildings 2245, 2248, and 2249; addition to Security Forces 

Squadron Building 4206 at Main Gate; site enhancements at KC-135 display; new entry 

control facility; outdoor track (and repair grass infield); expanded parking lot at Building 

610 (theater); automated gate; water survival training facility; addition to satellite fire 

station; pest management facility; and Joint Personnel Recovery Agency command and 

control/mission support facility (Fairchild AFB 2018d). 

Programmed 

Infrastructure Projects

Fairchild AFB Future Repair electrical distribution switches installation-wide; repair sewer lines and install 

wastewater metering installation-wide; bury electrical lines at the munitions storage 

area; add heating, ventilation, and air conditioning and water infrastructure to Building 

2012; repair North Substation; install irrigation systems at several locations; and move 

open water ditch in clear zone to underground (Fairchild AFB 2018d). 

Programmed 

Transportation Projects

Fairchild AFB Future Implement various transportation infrastructure improvement projects including Bong 

Street repaving, various road maintenance and sealing, and road and parking lot repair

in the civil engineering area (Fairchild AFB 2018d). 

Programmed Demolition 

of Underground Storage 

Tanks 

Fairchild AFB Future Demolish abandoned underground storage tanks in four locations (Fairchild AFB 

2018d). 

Programmed Airfield 

Projects

Fairchild AFB Future Implement various projects at the airfield including repair of Taxiways G, J, and P; 

repair Taxiway E shoulder; repair/replace/relocate taxiway guidance signage; maintain 

airfield striping; and install drainage for runway lights (Fairchild AFB 2018d). 

Relevant State and Local Actions

Airway Heights Recreation 

Complex 

Airway Heights Future Construct indoor pools, athletic courts, fitness areas, and meeting rooms within a 70-

acre recreational complex with multiple outdoor sport fields north of Spokane County 

Raceway Park (Bjerkin 2018). 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-3 

Action Location Timeframe Description

Relevant State and Local Actions (continued)

Spokane Tribe Economic 

Project (STEP) Mixed Use 

Development 

West Plains of 

Spokane 

County

Past, 

Present, 

Future

The STEP mixed use development is being constructed in phases and consists of retail 

and commercial development, casino, resort hotel, entertainment, and Tribal Cultural 

Center and wellness center (STEP 2018). 

Washington State 

Department of 

Transportation 2017 to 

2020 State Transportation 

Improvement Program/ 

Spokane Regional 

Transportation Council 

Horizon 2040 Spokane 

Metropolitan 

Transportation Plan

Washington 

State – 

specifically 

Spokane 

County near 

Fairchild AFB

Present, 

Future

Implement the following actions:

Construct a 0.26-mile multiuse pathway along the southern edge of U.S. 2 between 

Hayford Road and Deer Heights Road (3 miles east of Fairchild AFB).

Modify the West Plains Transit Center at I-90 and State Route 902 by including 

parking stalls, bus-only parking lanes, and a pedestrian bridge.

Reconstruct the I-90 interchanges for Medical Lake and Geiger Field (WA DOT 2018, 

SRTC 2018).
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-4 

Past activities are those actions that occurred within the geographic scope of cumulative 

impacts and have shaped the current environmental conditions of Fairchild AFB and the 

surrounding area. Fairchild AFB was established in 1942 and named the Spokane Air Depot 

while it served as a repair depot for damaged aircraft during World War II. The installation has 

increased more than three times in size since its initial construction, and the facilities and 

infrastructure have undergone several major periods of construction and reconstruction to 

accommodate student training loads and new missions and commands (USAF 2014b). For 

most resource areas—such as biological resources, geological resources, infrastructure and 

transportation, hazardous materials and wastes, and water resources—the impacts of past 

actions are now part of the existing environment and are incorporated in the description of the 

affected environment in Section 3. 

4.1.2 Cumulative Impacts at Fairchild AFB

The following analysis qualitatively examines the cumulative impacts that would result from the 

incremental impacts of the Proposed Action when combined with the past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in Table 4-1. 

Air Quality. The State of Washington takes into account the impacts of all past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable emissions during the development of the State Implementation Plan. 

The state accounts for all significant stationary, area, and mobile emission sources in the 

development of this plan. Emissions generated by the Proposed Action would be completely 

within an attainment area, and activities of this size and nature would not contribute significantly 

to adverse cumulative impacts on air quality. If the Proposed Action were implemented 

concurrently with the beddown of 24 or 36 KC-46A at the installation, flight operations would 

increase by more than 50 percent, resulting in long-term, moderate, adverse increases in air 

pollutant emissions on and near the installation. 

Cumulatively, the facility construction, demolition, and renovation associated with the Proposed 

Action and the cumulative development projects (e.g., Airway Heights recreation complex and 

STEP mixed-use development) would result in short-term, intermittent increases in air pollutant 

levels on or near the installation during those phases of construction. Additionally, concurrent 

construction of the Proposed Action combined with the on- and off-installation development

projects would result in minor, cumulative increases in vehicle emissions from the increase in 

traffic. 

Biological Resources. Short- and long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impacts would occur

on vegetation and the associated habitats from facility construction and demolition associated 

with the Proposed Action and cumulative projects including the programmed installation 

development projects and support facilities for the KC-46A mission. Short- and long-term, 

minor, adverse cumulative impacts would occur from noise during construction and demolition. 

Long-term cumulative noise impacts on wildlife, including ESA- and MBTA-protected species,

would occur from the increase in air operations associated with the Proposed Action and 

KC-46A program operating out of Fairchild AFB and in the local airspaces. Long-term, minor 

cumulative adverse impacts on wildlife could occur from the mortality of small less-mobile 

terrestrial species (e.g., reptiles and small mammals) because of collision with heavy equipment 

associated with facility construction, demolition, and renovation used for the Proposed Action 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-5 

and cumulative projects involving development. Additionally, the increase in aircraft operations 

associated with the KC-135 and KC-46A programs would increase the potential for on-ground 

and in-air collisions with wildlife such as deer and birds. To minimize this potential for impacts, 

airfield and flight operations would be conducted in accordance with the existing Fairchild AFB 

BASH Plan. 

Cultural Resources. Construction of the proposed facilities for the Proposed Action and 

cumulative projects on the installation would have no cumulative impacts on cultural resources. 

Facility development actions would implement architectural and historical design features to 

ensure new buildings maintain the existing aesthetic. The aircraft operations component of the 

Proposed Action also would not impact cultural resources; therefore, cumulative impacts on 

cultural resources from similar operations would not occur.

Geological Resources. The Proposed Action and cumulative projects involving construction, 

demolition, and renovation would result in temporarily disturbed ground surfaces and short- and 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts from soil compaction, disturbance, and erosion. Although 

soils would be disturbed by earthmoving and other construction activities, impacts would not 

exceed individual project boundaries and would not result in significant cumulative impacts on 

soil resources because BMPs, erosion and sediment controls, and other measures would be 

implemented. 

Hazardous Materials and Wastes. The Proposed Action and reasonably foreseeable 

cumulative construction, demolition, and renovation within Fairchild AFB would result in 

short-term cumulative increases in the volume of hazardous wastes generated at the 

installation. Additionally, because some facility construction, demolition, and renovation for the 

Proposed Action and cumulative projects would coincide with active ERP sites, cumulative 

short-term, minor, adverse environmental contamination impacts might occur. If implemented 

concurrently, the increase in air operations and fueling and maintenance activities associated 

with the Proposed Action and the KC-46A program could increase the potential for minor spills 

and releases. Operations and maintenance teams would implement BMPs to reduce the 

potential for spills and ensure quick clean ups. Hazardous materials and wastes would be 

handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations and approved plans. 

Therefore, no significant cumulative adverse impacts on the hazardous materials and wastes 

management system would occur. 

Infrastructure and Transportation. The Proposed Action would have short- and long-term, 

adverse impacts on utilities from increased consumption during the construction and operations 

timeframes. However, even when considered with the cumulative projects on the installation, 

there would be sufficient capacity with the existing utility supplies. Therefore, cumulative 

impacts from concurrent implementation of these projects would be minor over both the short 

and long terms. In many cases, newly constructed infrastructure would replace older facilities. 

Newer, more energy-efficient construction methods would also likely contribute to long-term, 

minor, beneficial cumulative impacts on electrical supply. Beneficial impacts would also occur 

from the newly constructed supplemental parking areas and roadway improvements that would 

support the Proposed Action and cumulative projects. Likewise, more efficient potable water 

supply and sanitary sewer infrastructure would be implemented in newly constructed or 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-6 

renovated facilities. Cumulatively, growth on the installation would result in long-term, minor 

increases in liquid fuel consumption to support KC-135 and KC-46A aircraft flight operations. 

Short- and long-term, negligible to minor, cumulative impacts on the communications, sanitary 

sewer, stormwater drainage, transportation, and solid waste management systems would occur 

from the increase in operations and personnel associated with the Proposed Action when 

combined with cumulative actions such as the KC-46A program. 

Noise. Short- and long-term, minor, adverse, cumulative impacts would occur from noise 

generated from construction, demolition, and renovation and increases in aircraft operations. 

The KC-46A program is the cumulative project with the greatest potential to adversely impact 

noise conditions; however, the cumulative projects when combined with the Proposed Action 

would not result in significant cumulative impacts on noise. 

Land Use. Although the Proposed Action and cumulative projects would result in short- and 

long-term generation of noise associated with construction and operational activities, these 

actions would not result in incompatibilities with existing or projected land uses on or off the 

installation. Cumulative projects would be sited in suitable land use categories and would 

adhere to the restrictions associated with constraint areas such as noise contours, CZs, APZs, 

QD arcs, and LUCs. Long-term, beneficial cumulative impacts on land use would result from

efficient use of installation land that would not conflict with existing land uses. The projected 

increases in flight operations resulting from the Proposed Action and KC-46A program would 

have long-term, minor, adverse impacts on off-installation land use compatibility.

Safety. Short-term, negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on health and safety (e.g., slips, 

falls, heat exposure, exposure to mechanical, electrical, vision, chemical hazards) would occur 

from construction, demolition, and renovation associated with the Proposed Action and 

cumulative projects. Implementation of appropriate safety methods, such as wearing PPE,

during these activities would minimize the potential for such impacts. Implementation of the 

Proposed Action and the KC-46A program would increase air operations out of Fairchild AFB, 

resulting in increased potential for long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impacts from bird 

strikes. However, such events likely would be minimal because air operations would adhere to 

existing BASH protocols.

Socioeconomics. If the Airway Heights recreation complex and STEP mixed use development 

projects were constructed concurrently with the Proposed Action, short- and long-term, minor, 

beneficial cumulative impacts on socioeconomics in Spokane County would occur from the 

increased demand for construction workers. These cumulative projects would also create 

permanent jobs and provide an economic stimulus to Spokane County. Although the 

cumulative increase in population would not likely increase the demand for law enforcement, 

firefighting services, and health care professionals, enrollment in the Spokane Public Schools 

and Medical Lake School District would likely increase. The Proposed Action in combination 

with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions would not result in any significant

cumulative socioeconomic impacts. 

Environmental Justice and Sensitive Receptors. There are no disproportionately high and 

adverse health or environmental impacts on low-income or minority populations, and no 

disproportionate impacts on child or elderly populations associated with the Proposed Action. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-7 

Therefore, no significant or disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental impacts 

on minority and low-income populations and no significant or disproportionate impacts on child 

or elderly populations in the vicinity of Fairchild AFB would occur. Consequently, no cumulative 

impacts on environmental justice and sensitive receptors populations would be occur. 

Water Resources. Short- and long-term, minor, adverse, cumulative impacts on water 

resources would occur from the Proposed Action and cumulative projects involving ground 

disturbance and increased impervious surfaces. Soil disturbance could result in erosion, 

sedimentation, and degraded water quality. The cumulative increase in impervious surfaces 

from the Proposed Action and cumulative projects would be considered a minor contribution in 

the context of the whole watershed but could be noticeable on a local level. In accordance with 

federal and state stormwater regulations, the post-development hydrologic conditions of project 

areas must be maintained as they were during predevelopment. For these project areas, 

preservation of pre-development hydrologic condition would be ensured through utilization of 

existing stormwater management systems on the installation and adherence to SWPPPs, 

ESCPs, and incorporation of other BMPs as well as appropriate low-impact development 

strategies that would attenuate potentially long-term, adverse impacts on water resources. 

4.2 MacDill AFB Cumulative Impacts

4.2.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

This section qualitatively evaluates the cumulative impacts of the MacDill AFB Alternative by 

determining the incremental contribution of the MacDill AFB Alternative together with past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Table 4-2 summarizes the past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions within the region where interaction with the MacDill AFB

Alternative might occur. The table briefly describes each action and presents the proponent, 

location, and the timeframe (e.g., past, present/ongoing, future) of the action. 

Past activities are those actions that occurred within the geographic scope of cumulative 

impacts and have shaped the current environmental conditions of MacDill AFB and the 

surrounding area. MacDill AFB was established in 1939 and used to support fighter and 

bomber wings. Installation facilities and infrastructure have undergone several major periods of 

construction and reconstruction to accommodate new missions and commands (USAF 2017b). 

For most resource areas—such as biological resources, geological resources, infrastructure and 

transportation, hazardous materials and wastes, and water resources—the impacts of past 

actions are now part of the existing environment and are incorporated in the description of the 

affected environment in Section 3. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-8 

Table 4-2. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions at MacDill AFB and Associated Region

Action Location Timeframe Description

Military Actions

Beddown eight KC-135s MacDill AFB Present As part of a separate basing process, add eight KC-135s and increase KC-135 flight 

operations by 50 percent. Associated facility construction, demolition, and renovation 

would also occur. USAF’s decision on this beddown was made subsequent to 

independent NEPA analysis (USAF 2017b).

Relocate USAR Forces

at St. PetersburgClearwater International 

Airport to MacDill AFB

MacDill AFB, 

St. 

PetersburgClearwater 

International 

Airport

Present, Future Relocate the 5-159 Combat Aviation Company UH-60L helicopter unit with 8 aircraft, 

the 5-159 Medical Evaluation HH-60L helicopter unit with 15 aircraft and associated 

detachments, and civilian support personnel from the existing USAR facility at St. 

Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport to MacDill AFB. All associated USAR 

personnel, 23 Black Hawk helicopters, vehicles, equipment, and other tangible assets 

would be relocated, and necessary infrastructure for the units’ operations would be 

constructed in the proposed beddown area, which is in the west-central portion of 

MacDill AFB. An existing skeet range in the beddown area would be relocated to a 

former irrigation field in the southeastern portion of MacDill AFB (USAF and USAR 

2017).

Programmed 

Construction Projects

MacDill AFB Past, Present, 

Future

Implement various large-scale construction projects including 49th Materiel 

Maintenance Support Squadron Storage Facility, Special Operations Command 

Operational Support Facility, Base Civil Engineer complex, coalition village (housing 

for international representatives), Level 1 Confinement Facility, alert facility, Bayshore 

gate vehicle screening area, U.S. Central Command headquarters support facility and 

warehouse, Hangar 2 loading/unloading area, office space warehouse (Building 

1092), pest management operations facility, Florida Governmental Utility Authority

storage facility and WWTP administration building, fuels management facility, combat 

aquatic training center, mission support facility, munitions administration facility, pass 

and identification facility, 6th Security Forces Squadron warehouse facility, Wing 

headquarters for Building 299, and Youth Activity Center. Some of these construction 

projects would also include demolition of old facilities. Additionally, a new aquatics 

center would be constructed, various upgrades would occur at the fitness center, and 

an addition and alterations would occur at the Fuel Maintenance Nose Dock Hangar 

1071 (USAF 2017b). 

Programmed Demolition 

Projects

MacDill AFB Present, Future Demolish Building 40, unused taxiways, and miscellaneous pavements and 

equipment pads within the airfield. After demolition, the Building 40 site would be 

used for construction of a new facility as addressed under the programmed

construction projects (USAF 2017b). 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-9 

Action Location Timeframe Description

Military Actions (continued)

Programmed Dormitory

Projects

MacDill AFB Present, Future Construct two 120-room dormitories, and demolish dormitories 375, 376, and 377

(USAF 2017b). 

Programmed Energy 

Projects

MacDill AFB Past, Present, 

Future

Implement various energy-related projects including installation of an energy 

monitoring and control system with remote monitoring capability for U.S. Special 

Operations Command headquarters, essential power upgrade for Combatant 

Command, and installation of a 1 MW photovoltaic power system as part of the 

Energy Conservation Investment Program (USAF 2017b). 

Relocate NOAA MacDill AFB Past, Present Relocate NOAA off-installation. This includes NOAA vacating Hangar 5 and Buildings 

9, 24, and 44 and repositioning NOAA aircraft (e.g., P-3, Twin Otter) (USAF 2017b). 

U.S. Marine Corps 

Forces Central 

Command Projects

MacDill AFB Present, Future Construct a 40,000 ft2 headquarters facility to consolidate U.S. Marine Corps Forces 

Central Command operations, and lease a separate 40,000 ft2 facility (USAF 2017b). 

Transportation 

Infrastructure Projects

MacDill AFB Present, Future Implement various transportation infrastructure projects including anti-terrorism force 

protection/transportation improvements; expand a parking lot at Building 805 from 18 

to 70 spaces; construct 750 feet of asphalt roadway for the new Marine Radar access 

road; undertake various infrastructure improvements consisting of widening one 

roadway, extending two roadways, and demolishing portions of two roadways; 

construct a traffic control facility with traffic lanes dedicated to privately owned 

vehicles at the Port Tampa gate; and repair the traffic control system through 

installation of three complete InSync intersection control systems (USAF 2017b). 

Relevant State and Local Actions

Florida Department of 

Transportation Roadway 

Improvement Projects

Hillsborough 

County

Past, Present, 

Future

Florida Department of Transportation lists 90 roadway improvement projects to be 

completed within the next 10 years in the Tampa area including ramp upgrades, 

interchange improvements, signage, intersection modifications, pedestrian access 

improvements, lighting upgrades, bridge repairs, installing new signalization, and 

repaving (FDOT 2018). 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-10

Action Location Timeframe Description

Relevant State and Local Actions (continued)

Tampa International 

Airport Expansion

Tampa Past, Present, 

Future

Phase I of this project involved expansion of the main transfer level to decongest 

visitor access to amenities, addition of more than 90 new retail stores and restaurants 

(23 were opened by 2016), upgrades of the existing taxiways and bridges, 

development of a new consolidated rental car center, and development of a 1.4-mile 

guide way for the new SkyConnect train that connects the main terminal to economy 

parking and the new rental car center (Danielson 2018). The SkyConnect Train and 

rental car centers opened in early 2018. Phase II entails expansion of curbside 

operations at the main terminal and relocation of the airport’s energy plant to 

accommodate this change.

Johns Hopkins All 

Children’s Research and 

Education Building

St. 

Petersburg

Present, Future This project would construct a 7-story, 225,000 ft2 facility to house academic offices 

supporting the Johns Hopkins All Children’s Heart Institute, Cancer & Blood Disorders 

Institute, Brain Protection Sciences, and the Maternal, Fetal and Neonatal Institute. 

Interior and exterior spaces were at 60 percent completion in 2017. Overall project 

completion is anticipated in 2018 (Johns Hopkins 2018).

Revitalization of Hyde 

Park Village

Tampa Past, Present, 

Future

This project would include repaved streets; metered, on-street parking; road 

signalization; village-wide valet parking; improved pedestrian walkways, bicycle lanes 

and racks; landscaping and development of gathering spaces with outdoor seating; 

and improved façades (e.g., roof replacements, repainting, new canopies and 

awnings) of existing buildings. Construction of the proposed two-story Snow Avenue 

Building, which will host a mix of retail, restaurant, and commercial spaces is 

expected in 2018 (WS Development 2018). 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-11

4.2.2 Cumulative Impacts at MacDill AFB

The following analysis examines the cumulative impacts that would result from the incremental 

impacts of the MacDill AFB Alternative when combined with the past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions identified in Table 4-2. 

Air Quality. The State of Florida takes into account the impacts of all past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable emissions during the development of the State Implementation Plan. 

The state accounts for all significant stationary, area, and mobile emission sources in the 

development of this plan. Concurrent implementation of the MacDill AFB Alternative and the 

operation of 8 KC-135s and 23 USAR helicopters would result in long-term generation of 

moderate CO and NOx emissions levels. However, these actions would not significantly 

contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on air quality within the immediate area or across the 

region. 

Cumulatively, the facility construction, demolition, and renovation associated with the MacDill 

AFB Alternative and the cumulative development projects listed in Table 4-2 would result in 

short-term, intermittent increases in air pollutant levels on or near the installation and the Tampa 

area during those phases of work. Additionally, concurrent construction of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative combined with the development projects would result in minor, cumulative increases 

in vehicle emissions from the increase in traffic.

Biological Resources. Short- and long-term, minor, adverse, cumulative impacts would occur

on vegetation from construction and demolition associated with the MacDill AFB Alternative and 

cumulative projects that include ground disturbance and result in permanent removal of 

vegetation. Construction, demolition, and renovation would result in temporary noise 

disturbances and human presence that could adversely affect terrestrial wildlife and would 

remove potential wildlife habitat. However, there is limited potential wildlife habitat in the 

MacDill AFB cantonment area, and wildlife are habituated to disturbances because of the 

moderate development throughout the installation and existing aircraft operations. Short- and

long-term, moderate, adverse, cumulative impacts on wildlife would occur. Long-term, 

cumulative noise impacts on wildlife, including ESA- and MBTA-protected species, would occur

from the increase in frequency of short-term loud noise from air operations associated with the 

MacDill AFB Alternative as well as the beddown of 8 KC-135s and 23 USAR helicopters. 

Cultural Resources. Considered together, construction, demolition, and renovation that would 

support the MacDill AFB Alternative and cumulative projects would have no cumulative impacts 

on cultural resources on the installation. Construction of new buildings with modern materials 

could visually intrude upon the aesthetic of the historic district; therefore, to minimize these 

impacts, buildings would be designed and constructed in accordance with the MacDill AFB 

design guidelines, which addresses the compatibility of new construction within installation 

historic districts and minimizes the visual impacts. The aircraft operations component of the 

MacDill AFB Alternative and cumulative projects also would not impact cultural resources; 

therefore, cumulative impacts on cultural resources from similar operations would not occur.

Geological Resources. Construction actions to support the MacDill AFB Alternative and 

cumulative projects would result in temporary ground disturbance and short- and long-term, 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-12

minor, adverse impacts on soils from soil compaction, disturbance, and erosion. The total area 

of soil disturbance resulting from all cumulative projects is unknown but is expected to be 

considerably larger than that of the MacDill AFB Alternative. Many cumulative projects sited in 

the MacDill AFB cantonment area would likely occur on previously developed or heavily 

disturbed land. Most impacts from soil disturbance would not go beyond individual project area 

boundaries and would not result in significant impacts on soil resources because BMPs, erosion 

and sediment control practices, and other measures would be implemented. There would be no 

cumulative impacts on regional geology, topography, or farmland soils.

Hazardous Materials and Waste. Short- and long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impacts 

would occur from the increase in hazardous wastes generated from the operation and 

maintenance of the additional KC-135 aircraft and the facility construction, demolition and 

renovation associated with the MacDill AFB Alternative when combined with the cumulative 

projects such as the beddown of 8 KC-135s and 23 USAR helicopters and other construction 

projects. Because some construction activities associated with the MacDill AFB Alternative and 

cumulative projects would coincide with active ERP sites, short-term, minor, adverse cumulative 

impacts from environmental contamination might occur. Construction would require the use and 

onsite storage of hazardous materials such as paints, welding gases, solvents, preservatives, 

and sealants. Demolition could disturb special hazards depending on the age of the buildings 

demolished. Additionally, the operation and maintenance of additional KC-135 aircraft (under 

both the MacDill AFB Alternative and the beddown of eight KC-135s) and USAR helicopters

would require hydraulic fluids and petroleum products, such as diesel and gasoline. The 

MacDill AFB Alternative and cumulative projects would incorporate measures to limit or control 

hazardous materials and wastes and would comply with all federal, state, and local laws to 

ensure compliance with the use, storage, transport and disposal of hazardous materials and 

wastes. Therefore, significant cumulative impacts on hazardous materials and wastes would 

not occur. 

Infrastructure and Transportation. While infrastructure and utility capacity for growth 

currently exist, additional facilities and increases in personnel could result in long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impacts on transportation and electrical supply systems as well as solid 

waste management. Net increases in personnel working or living on the installation as a result 

of the MacDill AFB Alternative and cumulative projects would contribute to long-term, minor to 

moderate, cumulative impacts on transportation systems, especially at the access gates. 

Additional vehicles accessing the installation would exacerbate peak hour congestion. Adverse, 

cumulative impacts on the electrical supply system could occur from increased demand on the 

system. However, newer, more energy-efficient facilities that would be constructed as part of 

the MacDill AFB Alternative and cumulative projects, including installation of the energy 

monitoring and control system and upgrades to the Combatant Command power system, would 

partially offset the increase in demand for electricity. Additionally, the construction of the new 

TECO substation and installation of a 1-MW photovoltaic power system would increase 

electricity supply. Solid waste generated during construction and demolition associated with the 

MacDill AFB Alternative and cumulative projects could result in short-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impacts on solid waste management. Recycling would reduce the amount of solid 

waste that would be disposed at off-installation landfills. The MacDill AFB Alternative would not 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-13

result in an appreciable (i.e., more than negligible) change from the existing conditions for other 

utilities; therefore, no cumulative impacts would be anticipated.

Noise. Short- and long-term, moderate, adverse, cumulative impacts would occur from noise 

generated from construction, demolition, and renovation and increases in aircraft operations. 

The noise conditions presented in Section 3.7.2 already incorporated the aircraft noise from the 

8 KC-135s and 23 USAR helicopters into the comparative baseline used to determine the level 

of impacts from the MacDill AFB Alternative. Therefore, overall long-term cumulative noise 

impacts would be similar to that presented in Section 3.7.3.2. While the relocation of NOAA

aircraft from the installation has slightly decreased air operations at MacDill AFB, the immediate 

area surrounding the installation would continue to be dominated by aircraft takeoff and landing 

operations.

Land Use. The MacDill AFB Alternative and cumulative projects would result in short-term, 

adverse and long-term, adverse and beneficial cumulative impacts on land use. Short-term 

impacts would result from noise associated with construction; however, the noise would not 

result in incompatibilities with existing or projected land uses on or off the installation. 

Cumulative projects would be sited in suitable land use categories and would adhere to the 

restrictions associated with constraint areas such as noise contours, CZs, APZs, QD arcs, and 

LUCs. The projected increases in flight operations resulting from the MacDill AFB Alternative 

and the USAR helicopter program would have long-term, moderate, adverse impacts on offinstallation land use compatibility. Long-term, beneficial cumulative impacts would result from

efficient use of installation land that would not conflict with existing land uses. The MacDill AFB 

Alternative would be consistent with the FCMP; therefore, no cumulative coastal zone 

consistency impacts are anticipated.

Safety. Short-term, negligible, adverse cumulative impacts on health and safety (e.g., slips, 

falls, heat exposure, exposure to mechanical, electrical, vision, chemical hazards) would occur 

from construction, demolition, and renovation associated with the MacDill AFB Alternative and 

cumulative projects. Implementation of appropriate safety methods, such as wearing PPE,

during these activities would minimize the potential for such impacts. Implementation of the 

MacDill AFB Alternative and the addition of 8 KC-135s and 23 USAR helicopters would increase 

air operations out of MacDill AFB, resulting in increased potential for long-term, minor, adverse 

cumulative impacts from bird strikes. However, such events would likely be minimal because air 

operations would adhere to existing BASH protocols.

Socioeconomics. Construction, demolition, and renovation associated with the MacDill AFB 

Alternative and cumulative projects would result in short-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, 

cumulative impacts on the local economy and local employment lasting for the duration of such 

activities. The cumulative increase in personnel on the installation from the MacDill AFB 

Alternative and the addition of 8 KC-135s and 23 USAR helicopters would have long-term, 

minor to moderate, beneficial cumulative impacts on the local economy. These projects would 

provide sustainable employment and earnings to additional individuals and contribute to the 

indirect purchase of goods and services in the region. Although the cumulative increase in 

population would not likely increase the demand for law enforcement, firefighting services, and 

health care professionals, enrollment in the School District of Hillsborough County system would 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-14

likely increase. The current off-installation housing market and on-installation unaccompanied 

housing, which would be added through the cumulative dormitory projects, would accommodate

the population increase. 

Environmental Justice and Sensitive Receptors. Noise generated from flight operations 

associated with the MacDill AFB Alternative and the 8 KC-135s and 23 USAR helicopters would 

result in expanded noise contours that would affect more communities than existing operational 

noise conditions. However, no cumulative disproportionately high and adverse health or 

environmental impacts on minority or low-income populations would occur from the MacDill AFB 

Alternative and cumulative projects. There could be a disproportionate cumulative impact on 

child and elderly populations; however, this impact would not be significant.

Water Resources. Short- and long-term, minor, adverse, cumulative impacts on water 

resources would occur from the MacDill AFB Alternative and cumulative projects involving 

ground disturbance and increased impervious surfaces. Soil disturbance could result in erosion, 

sedimentation, and degraded water quality. The cumulative increase in impervious surfaces 

from the MacDill AFB Alternative and cumulative projects would be considered a minor 

contribution in the context of the whole watershed but could be noticeable on a local level. 

Additionally, because most of MacDill AFB is within the 100-year floodplain, the MacDill AFB 

Alternative and many of the cumulative projects would contribute to a net increase of impervious 

surfaces within the floodplain. In accordance with federal and state stormwater regulations, the 

post-development hydrologic conditions of project areas must be maintained as they were 

during predevelopment. For these project areas, preservation of pre-development hydrologic 

condition would be ensured through utilization of existing stormwater management systems on 

the installation and adherence to SWPPPs, ESCPs, and incorporation of other BMPs as well as 

appropriate low-impact development strategies that would attenuate potentially long-term, 

adverse impacts on water resources. 

There might be long-term, adverse cumulative impacts on wetlands and Waters of the United 

States. The MacDill AFB Alternative would not result in direct impacts on wetlands, although it 

is possible that cumulative projects could result in impacts. Design, siting, and proper 

implementation of construction BMPs would minimize potential cumulative impacts. 

4.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Unavoidable adverse impacts would result from the Proposed Action or MacDill AFB Alternative. 

Energy supplies, although relatively small, would be committed. Fossil fuels, a nonrenewable 

natural resource, would be used in equipment including the KC-135s. The use of nonrenewable 

resources under the Proposed Action or MacDill AFB Alternative is an unavoidable occurrence, 

although not considered significant. 

4.4 Compatibility with the Objectives of Federal, Regional, 

State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls

The Proposed Action or MacDill AFB Alternative would occur on government-owned lands that

USAF currently operates. The nature of activities for the Proposed Action or MacDill AFB 

Alternative would not differ from the current KC-135 activities occurring at the installations. 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-15

USAF would continue to follow all requirements related to KC-135 operation and maintenance 

and would therefore be consistent with current federal, regional, state, and local land use 

policies and controls.

4.5 Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Human 

Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of 

Long-term Productivity

Short-term uses of the biophysical components of the human environment include direct, 

project-related disturbances and direct impacts associated with an increase of population and 

activity that occurs over less than 5 years. Long-term uses of the human environment include 

those impacts occurring over more than 5 years, including permanent resource loss.

The Proposed Action or MacDill AFB Alternative would not require short-term resource uses 

that would result in long-term compromises of productivity. Under the Proposed Action or 

MacDill AFB Alternative, short-term uses of the environment would result in noise and air 

emissions from construction equipment and aircraft operations. The addition of 12 KC-135 to 

Fairchild AFB or MacDill AFB would result in a net increase of flight operations that would either 

contribute negligibly to the existing long-term, adverse aircraft noise and air emissions impacts 

on surrounding communities and noise-sensitive receptors at Fairchild AFB, or contribute 

moderately at MacDill AFB. The impacts on Fairchild AFB would be negligible because the 

added flight operations would be consistent with existing flight operations out of the installation. 

Noise impacts from increased flight operations associated with the MacDill AFB Alternative 

would result in long-term, moderate land use incompatibilities for off-installation areas. Longterm impacts on wildlife species from construction would not occur because of the interim nature 

of the construction and because species on and near both installations would avoid construction 

areas and are likely habituated to noise. The nature of activities for the Proposed Action and 

the MacDill AFB Alternative would not differ from current uses of these areas. Therefore, 

implementation of the Proposed Action or the MacDill AFB Alternative would not result in 

significant impacts on sensitive resources. As a result, it is not anticipated that the Proposed 

Action or the MacDill AFB Alternative would result in any environmental impacts that would 

permanently narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long-term risks to 

health, safety, or the general welfare of the public.

4.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

NEPA requires the identification of any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources 

that would be involved in the implementation of a proposed action. Irreversible and irretrievable 

resource commitments are related to the use of nonrenewable resources and the impacts that 

the uses of these resources could have on future generations. Irreversible impacts primarily 

result from the use or destruction of a specific resource (e.g., energy and minerals) that cannot 

be replaced within a reasonable timeframe. Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss 

in value of an affected resource that cannot be restored as a result of a proposed action 

(e.g., extinction of a threatened or endangered species, disturbance of a cultural site).

Facility construction associated with the Proposed Action or MacDill AFB Alternative would 

require consumption of materials typically associated with exterior and interior construction 
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

July 2018 | 4-16

(e.g., concrete, wiring, piping, insulation, windows). Recycled materials would be used to the 

extent practicable, and the amount of these materials used would not significantly decrease the 

availability of the resources. Small amounts of nonrenewable resources would be used; 

however, these amounts would not be appreciable and would not affect the availability of these 

resources. The Proposed Action or MacDill AFB Alternative would also require consumption of 

fuels including some that would be nonrenewable resources (e.g., petroleum-based fossil fuel 

products for vehicles and aircraft). Neither the Proposed Action nor the MacDill AFB Alternative 

would significantly decrease the availability of mineral or petroleum resources or the availability 

of such resources in either alternative’s region or the nation.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

LIST OF PREPARERS

July 2018 | 5-1 

5. List of Preparers

This EA has been prepared by HDR, Inc. and its subcontractor LPES, Inc. under the direction of 

USAF personnel. The individuals who contributed to the preparation of this document are as 

follows.

Michelle Bare

Infrastructure and Transportation and 

Safety

General Studies

Years of Experience: 28

Jeanne Barnes

Cultural Resources

M.A. History

B.A. History

Years of Experience: 12

Timothy Didlake

Project Management and Hazardous 

Materials and Wastes

B.S. Earth Sciences

Years of Experience: 10

Megan Gambone

Biological Resources and Water 

Resources

M.S. Biology

B.S. Environmental Science

Years of Experience: 12

Leigh Hagan

Project Management, Socioeconomics, 

and Environmental Justice and Sensitive 

Receptors

M.E.S.M. Environmental Science and 

Management

B.S. Biology

Years of Experience: 13

Christopher Holdridge

Quality Control

M.S. Environmental Assessment

B.S. Environmental Science/Chemistry

Years of Experience: 20

Timothy Lavallee, P.E. (LPES, Inc.)

Air Quality and Noise

M.S. Civil and Environmental Engineering

B.S. Mechanical Engineering

Years of Experience: 25 

Elizabeth Leclerc

Cultural Resources

B.A. Anthropology

Years of Experience: 10

Kira Lofgren

Geospatial Analysis and Mapping

B.S. Geography

Years of Experience: 12

Christopher McJetters

Technical Editing

B.S. English 

Years of Experience: 11

Cheryl Myers

Document Formatting

A.A.S. Nursing

Years of Experience: 24

Derek Norpchen

Geospatial Analysis and Mapping

M.S. Geography

B.F.A. 3D Digital Design

Years of Experience: 11

Deborah Peer

Cumulative Impacts

M.S. Environmental Science and 

Management

B.S. Zoology

B.S. Wildlife Science

Years of Experience: 17
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

LIST OF PREPARERS

July 2018 | 5-2 

Steven Peluso, CHMM, CPEA

Air Quality

B.S. Chemical Engineering

Years of Experience: 31

Stephen Pyle, Esq.

Program Management

J.D. with Certification in Environmental 

Law 

B.S. Natural Resources Management 

Years of Experience: 17

Morgan Shelby

Geological Resources and Land Use

B.S. Environmental Studies

Years of Experience: 2

Emily Smith

Technical Advice

M.R.L.S. Natural Resources Law 

B.A. Biology

Years of Experience: 11

Patrick Solomon, CEP

Technical Reviews and Quality Control

M.S. Geography

B.A. Geography

Years of Experience: 24

Valerie Whalon

Biological Resources and Water 

Resources

M.S. Fisheries Science

B.S. Marine Science

Years of Experience: 24
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

REFERENCES

July 2018 | 6-1 

6. References

6th Medical 

Group 2017

6th Medical Group. 2017. 2017 Patient Information Handbook. Current as of 

February 2017. Available online: 

<http://www.airforcemedicine.af.mil/Portals/1/Documents/MTFs/Macdill/macdil

l_patient_information_handbook_2017.pdf>. Accessed March 19, 2018.

Altman 2017 Altman, Howard. 2017. “Tampa providing emergency medical service at 

MacDill, including new ambulance.” Tampa Bay Times. November 27, 2017. 

Available online: <http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/macdill/Tampaproviding-emergency-medical-service-at-MacDill-including-newambulance_162959140>. Accessed May 8, 2018.

AMC 2016 Air Mobility Command (AMC). 2016. Personnel communication between 

Mr. Derek Strunk (HQ AMC/A8PB) and Ms. Emily Smith (HDR) regarding 

personnel at Fairchild AFB. November 23, 2016.

AMC 2017 AMC. 2017. “Air Mobility Command” Fact Sheet. Available online: 

<http://www.amc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/144014/

air-mobility-command/>. Published June 15, 2017. Current as of October 20, 

2017. Accessed January 19, 2018.

ANSI 2013 American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 2013. American National 

Standard Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of 

Environmental Sound. Part 3: Short-term Measurements with an Observer 

Present. ANSI S12.9-1993 (R2013)/Part 3.

ASN 2018a Aviation Safety Network (ASN). 2018. Spokane-Fairchild AFB, WA Profile. 

Available online: <https://aviationsafety.net/database/airport/airport.php?id=SKA>. Accessed April 4, 2018.

ASN 2018b ASN. 2018. Tampa-MacDill AFB, FL Profile. Available online: 

<https://aviation-safety.net/database/airport/airport.php?id=MCF>. Accessed 

April 4, 2018.

Bjerken 2018 Bjerken, L. 2018. Spokane Journal. “Airway Heights Recreational Center 

Work Begins”. Available online: <https://www.spokanejournal.com/localnews/airway-heights-recreation-center-work-begins>. Accessed April 8, 2018.

BLS 2018 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2018. Local Area Unemployment Statistics 

for States, Metropolitan Areas, and Counties. Available online: 

<https://www.bls.gov/lau/>. Accessed March 14, 2018.

CALTRAN 

2013

California Department of Transportation (CALTRAN). 2013. Transportation 

and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September 2013.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

REFERENCES

July 2018 | 6-2 

CEQ 1997 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice 

Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. December 10, 1997.

City of 

Spokane 2014

City of Spokane. 2014. West Plains Draft Transportation Subarea Plan. 

June 2014. 

City of Tampa 

2016

City of Tampa. 2016. Imagine 2040 Tampa Comprehensive Plan. February 

2016. Available online: <http://www.planhillsborough.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/02/Adopted-Tampa-2040-Comp-Plan.pdf>. Accessed 

March 23, 2018. 

City of Tampa 

and MacDill 

AFB 2006

City of Tampa and MacDill AFB. 2006. Joint Land Use Study. 21 June 2006. 

Available online: <https://www.tampagov.net/land-development/joint-land-usestudy>. Accessed March 23, 2018. 

Danielson 

2018

Danielson, Richard. 2018. “Tampa International Airport sets stage for 

another $304 million in construction.” Tampa Bay Times. March 1, 2018. 

Available online: <http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/airlines/TampaInternational-Airport-sets-stage-for-another-304-million-inconstruction_165937650>. Accessed April 8, 2018.

Efroymson et 

al. 2000

Efroymson, R.A., R.A. Rose, S. Nemeth, and G.W. Suter II (Efroymson et al). 

2000. Ecological risk assessment framework for low-altitude overflights by 

fixed-wing and rotary-wing military aircraft. Oak Ridge National Laboratories, 

Environmental Sciences Division. Publication 5010. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Fairchild AFB 

2007a

Fairchild Air Force Base (AFB). 2007. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone 

(AICUZ) Study for Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. October 2007.

Fairchild AFB 

2007b

Fairchild AFB. 2007. Final Land Use Controls Management Plan. May 2007.

Fairchild AFB 

2010

Fairchild AFB. 2010. 92d Air Refueling Wing Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard 

BASH Reduction Plan. January 1, 2010.

Fairchild AFB 

2011

Fairchild AFB. 2011. Fairchild AFB Water System Plan. June 3, 2011. 

Fairchild AFB 

2012a

Fairchild AFB. 2012. Installation Development Environmental Assessment at 

Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. December 2012.

Fairchild AFB 

2012b

Fairchild AFB. 2012. Fairchild Air Force Base Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan 2012-2016. January 2012.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

REFERENCES

July 2018 | 6-3 

Fairchild AFB 

2012c

Fairchild AFB. 2012. Memorandum of Agreement Between the Commander, 

92D Air Refueling Wing, Fairchild Air Force Base and the Washington State 

Historic Preservation Officer and the Spokane County Historic Preservation 

Officer Regarding Demolition Activities Associated with Fairchild Air Force 

Base, Washington. November 2012.

Fairchild AFB 

2014a

Fairchild AFB. 2014. Installation Development Plan for Fairchild Air Force 

Base. May 2014.

Fairchild AFB 

2014b

Fairchild AFB. 2014. Fairchild Air Force Base Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) 

Management Plan. August 2014.

Fairchild AFB 

2015a

Fairchild AFB. 2015. Fairchild AFB Environmental Restoration Program 

Overview/Site Tour. December 2015.

Fairchild AFB 

2015b

Fairchild AFB. 2015. Fairchild Air Force Base Economic Impact Statement 

Fiscal Year 2015. Available online: <http://www.fairchild.af.mil/Portals/23/

documents/Environmental/Fairchild%20EIS%202015%20Final.pdf>. 

Accessed February 1, 2017.

Fairchild AFB 

2015c

Fairchild AFB. 2015. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 92d Air 

Refueling Wing. September 2015.

Fairchild AFB 

2016a

Fairchild AFB. 2016. U.S. Air Force Hazardous Waste Management Plan, 

Fairchild Air Force Base. June 6, 2016.

Fairchild AFB 

2016b

Fairchild AFB. 2016. Asbestos Management Plan Fairchild Air Force Base 

WA. January 2016.

Fairchild AFB 

2016c

Fairchild AFB. 2016. Collection of Asbestos Containing Materials and LeadBased Paint Surveys for Fairchild AFB. Surveys conducted between the mid1990s and 2016.

Fairchild AFB 

2016d 

Fairchild AFB. 2016. Lead Exposure and Lead-based Paint Management 

Plan. January 2016.

Fairchild AFB 

2017

Fairchild AFB. 2017. Fairchild AFB 2017 Facility-wide Air Emission Inventory 

Statement.

Fairchild AFB 

2018a

Fairchild AFB. 2018. U.S. Air Force Integrated Cultural Resources 

Management Plan, Fairchild Air Force Base [Draft]. January 31, 2018.

Fairchild AFB 

2018b

Fairchild AFB. 2018. Geographic Information System data for Fairchild AFB. 

Building construction dates taken from Building_A feature class.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

REFERENCES

July 2018 | 6-4 

Fairchild AFB 

2018c

Fairchild AFB. 2018. Pertinent background information regarding ERP sites 

proximate to the areas of the Proposed Action. Information provided by Mr. 

Marc Connally and Mr. Zachary Miller (AFCEC/CZOM) on January 23 and 24, 

2018.

Fairchild AFB 

2018d

Fairchild AFB. 2018. Programming Project Tracker for Fairchild AFB. 

Information provided by Fairchild AFB Civil Engineering Squadron on January 

23 and 24, 2018.

FDEP 2015 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2015. Proposed 

Revision State Implementation Plan. Submittal Number 2015-04, SO2

Nonattainment Area Plan, Hillsborough County, Florida. April 3, 2015. 

Available online: <https://www.noticeandcomment.com/Air-Quality-StateImplementation-Plans-Approvals-and-Promulgations-Florida-Hillsboroughand-Nassau-Areas-fn-496519.aspx>. Accessed March 2018.

FDOT 2018 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2018. Hillsborough County, All 

Projects. Available online: <http://www.fdottampabay.com/projects/county/

hillsborough/all?page=all>. Accessed April 8, 2018.

FEMA 2008 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008. Flood Insurance 

Rate Map. Hillsborough County, Florida and Incorporated areas. Panel 476 

of 801. Map Number 12057C0476H. Effective August 8, 2008.

FEMA 2010 FEMA. 2010. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Spokane County, Washington and 

Incorporated areas. Panels 500 and 675 of 1150. Map Numbers 

53063C0500D and 53063C0675D. Effective July 6, 2010.

FFWCC 2017 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2017. 

Florida’s Official Endangered and Threatened Species List. Updated May 

2017.

FHWA 2006 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Construction Noise 

Handbook. FHWA-HEP-06-015. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02. NTIS No. 

PB2006-109102. August 2006. Available online: <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/>.

Florida DOE 

2017

Florida Department of Education (Florida DOE). 2017. “Number of Regular 

Elementary, Middle, Senior High and Combination Schools by District 2017-

18, Preliminary Survey 2 (as of 11/09/17).” Available online: 

<http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7588/urlt/RegElemMiddleHighCombo

.xls>. Accessed March 19, 2018.

Florida DOE 

2018

Florida Department of Education (Florida DOE). 2018. “Membership by 

School by Grade, Final Survey 2, 2017-18.” Available online: 

<http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7584/urlt/1718MembBySchoolByGra

de.xls>. Accessed March 19, 2018.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

REFERENCES

July 2018 | 6-5 

Florida DOH 

Undated

Florida Department of Health (Florida DOH). Undated. “Hillsborough County 

Radon Protection Map.” Available online: <http://www.floridahealth.gov/

environmental-health/radon/maps/protection-maps.html>. Accessed April 2, 

2018.

FOCC 2010 Florida Oceans and Coastal Council (FOCC). 2010. Climate Change and 

Sea-Level Rise in Florida: An Update of “The Effects of Climate Change on 

Florida’s Ocean and Costal Resources.” [2009 Report]. Tallahassee, Florida.

GSI 2017 Greater Spokane Incorporated (GSI). 2017. “Major Employers.” Sourced to 

Spokane Journal Business Book of Lists 2017. Available online: 

<https://advantagespokane.com/major-employers/>. Accessed March 14, 

2018.

Hillsborough

County 2017

Hillsborough County. 2017. Hillsborough County Existing Land Use. 

Updated December 1, 2017. Available online: 

<http://www.planhillsborough.org/gis-maps-data-files/>. Accessed March 23, 

2018.

Idcide 2018 Idcide. 2018. Climate and Weather for Fairchild AFB and MacDill AFB 

locations. Available online: <http://www.idcide.com/weather/>. Accessed 

March 2018.

Johns Hopkins 

2018

Johns Hopkins. 2018. Future Johns Hopkins All Children's Research and 

Education Building. Available online: <https://www.hopkinsallchildrens.org/

academics/research-education-building>. Accessed April 8, 2018.

Kaltenbach

et al. 2008

Kaltenbach, M., C. Maschke, and R. Klinke (Kaltenbach et al.). 2008. “Health 

Consequences of Aircraft Noise.” Deutsch Arzteblatt International. August 

2008; 105 (31-32): 548-556. Published online August 4, 2008. Doi: 

10.3238/arztebl.2008.0548. Available online: <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

pmc/articles/PMC2696954/>.

Kirkpatrick 

2016

Kirkpatrick, J. 2016. Email correspondence between Mr. Jason Kirkpatrick 

(MacDill AFB) and Mr. Peter Plage (USFWS) regarding consultation for bird 

strike potential for additional KC-135s at MacDill AFB. September 26, 2016.

Larkin 1996 Larkin, Ronald. 1996. "Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: A Literature 

Review." USA CERL Technical Report. January 1996.

Lohman 2018 Lohman, Scott. 2018. Personal communication from Mr. Scott Lohman 

(Housing Element Chief for Fairchild AFB) to Mr. Spencer Paul (Fairchild AFB)

regarding dormitory occupancy rates and renovations. June 12, 2018.

MacDill AFB 

2007

MacDill Air Force Base (MacDill AFB). 2007. Lead-Based Paint Management 

Plan. September 2007.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

REFERENCES

July 2018 | 6-6 

MacDill AFB 

2008a

MacDill AFB. 2008. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study (AICUZ). 

September 2008.

MacDill AFB 

2008b

MacDill AFB. 2008. Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for MacDill Air 

Force Base Florida. October 2008.

MacDill AFB 

2011a

MacDill AFB. 2011. Environmental Assessment for Construction of Airfield 

Drainage Improvement Projects MacDill AFB, Florida. June 2011.

MacDill AFB 

2011b

MacDill AFB. 2011. Hazardous Waste Management Plan. April 19, 2011.

MacDill AFB 

2011c

MacDill AFB. 2011. Asbestos Management & Operations Plan, MacDill AFB, 

Florida. September 2011.

MacDill AFB 

2011d

MacDill AFB. 2011. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), 

MacDill AFB, Florida. September 15, 2011.

MacDill AFB 

2012a

MacDill AFB. 2012. Final Threatened and Endangered Faunal Species Study 

Conducted in 2011 and 2012. MacDill AFB, Florida. July 9, 2012.

MacDill AFB 

2012b

MacDill AFB. 2012. Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan, 

MacDill AFB, Florida. March 2012.

MacDill AFB 

2013

MacDill AFB. 2013. Final Environmental Assessment of Installation 

Development at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. March 2013.

MacDill AFB 

2014

MacDill AFB. 2014. MacDill Air Force Base 2014 Economic Impact 

Statement. Available online: <http://www.macdill.af.mil/Portals/26/documents/

AFD-151015-010.pdf>. Accessed February 20, 2018.

MacDill AFB 

2016

MacDill AFB. 2016. MacDill AFB 2016 Facility-wide Air Emission Inventory 

Statement.

MacDill AFB 

2017a

MacDill AFB. 2017. Installation Development Plan for MacDill Air Force 

Base, Florida. July 2017.

MacDill AFB 

2017b

MacDill AFB. 2017. Final Air Operation Permit for MacDill AFB. Air Permit 

Number 0570141-020-AO. Effective August 1, 2017.

MacDill AFB 

2017c

MacDill AFB. 2017. U.S. Air Force Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan. MacDill Air Force Base. September 2017.

MacDill AFB 

2017d

MacDill AFB. 2017. U.S. Air Force Integrated Cultural Resource 

Management Plan. MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. September 2, 2017.

MacDill AFB 

2017e

MacDill AFB. 2017. MacDill Air Force Base Instruction 32-7086, Hazardous 

Materials Management Process. March 8, 2017.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

REFERENCES

July 2018 | 6-7 

MacDill AFB 

2018a

MacDill AFB. 2018. Geographic Information System data for MacDill AFB. 

Building construction dates taken from Building_A feature class.

MacDill AFB 

2018b

MacDill AFB. 2018. Pertinent background information regarding ERP sites 

proximate to the areas of the MacDill AFB Alternative. Information provided 

by Ms. Kristy Snyder (AFCEC/CZOE) on January 30, 2018.

NCA 2014a National Climate Assessment (NCA). 2014. Climate Assessment for the 

Northwest Region of the United States. Available online: 

<http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/northwest>. Accessed 

March 2018.

NCA 2014b NCA. 2014. Climate Assessment for the Southeast Region of the United 

States. Available online: <http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/

southeast>. Accessed March 2018.

NPS 1994 National Park Service (NPS). 1994. Report to Congress: Report on Effects of 

Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System. Prepared Pursuant to Public 

Law 100-91, The National Parks Overflights Act of 1987. September 12, 

1994.

NRCS 1989 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS). 1989. Soil Survey of Hillsborough County, Florida. 

NRCS 2006 NRCS. 2006. Soil Survey of Spokane County, Washington. 

NRCS 2018a NRCS. 2018. “Web Soil Survey - Fairchild AFB Project Area.” Available 

online: <https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm>. 

Generated April 3, 2018.

NRCS 2018b NRCS. 2018. “Web Soil Survey - MacDill AFB Project Area.” Available 

online: <https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm>. 

Generated April 4, 2018.

NRCS 

Undated

NRCS. Undated. “Soil Data Access (SDA) Prime and other Important 

Farmlands.” Available online: <https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/

FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1338623.html>. Accessed April 5, 2018.

OSPI 2018a State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). 

2018. October 1, 2017 Enrollment Data as of 01/22/2018. District Level and 

School Level data. Available online: <http://www.k12.wa.us/DataAdmin/

enrollment.aspx>. Accessed March 14, 2018. 

Paul 2018 Paul, Spencer. 2018. Email correspondences between Mr. Spencer Paul 

(Fairchild AFB) and Mr. Timothy Didlake (HDR) regarding NRHP eligibility and 

SHPO consultation for Building 2401. May 15 and 17, 2018.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

REFERENCES

July 2018 | 6-8 

Spokane 

Cares 2017

Spokane Cares. 2017. “Hospitals, Urgent Care, and Ambulances.” Available 

online: <http://www.spokanecares.org/index.php?c_ref=439>. Accessed 

March 15, 2018.

Spokane 

County 2008

Spokane County. 2008. Zoning Code Chapter 14.700: Airport Overlay 

Zones. January 2008. Available online: <https://www.spokanecounty.org/

720/Codes Ordinances>. Accessed March 15, 2018.

Spokane 

County 2009

Spokane County. 2009. Fairchild Joint Land Use Study. Prepared by Matrix 

Design Group. September 2009.

Spokane 

County 2016

Spokane County. 2016. Spokane County Fire Districts. June 2016. 

Available online: <https://www.spokanecounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/

113>. Accessed February 1, 2017.

Spokane Tribe 

of Indians 2017

Spokane Tribe of Indians. 2017. “Study Clears Spokane Tribe's Project.” 

Available online: <http://www.spokanetribe.com/stud-clears-spokane-tribe-sproject>. Accessed March 15, 2018.

SRCAA 2015 Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA). 2015. SIP Revision for the 

Spokane County, Washington. Second 10-Year Limited Maintenance Plan for 

PM10. Available online: <https://www.spokanecleanair.org/documents/our_air/

Spokane%20PM10%20Second%2010%20Year%20LMP%20Final.pdf>. 

Accessed February 2018.

SRCAA 2016 SRCAA. 2016. SIP Revision for Spokane County, Washington. Second 10-

year Limited Maintenance Plan for Carbon Monoxide. Available online: 

<https://ecology.wa.gov/DOE/files/65/65a5a436-001b-42f5-b2c1-

f6dc40b2ce30.pdf>. Accessed February 2018.

SRTC 2018 Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC). 2018. Horizon 2040 

Spokane Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Available online: 

<https://www.srtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Chapter-4-Feb-1-2018-

revisions.pdf>. Accessed April 8, 2018.

STEP 2018 Spokane Tribe Economic Project (STEP). 2018. STEP FAQs. Available 

online: <http://www.stepspokane.com/construction>. Accessed April 8, 2018.

Suncoast Jobs 

2018

Suncoast Jobs. 2018. “Hillsborough County - Largest Employers.” Source: 

Tampa Hillsborough EDC Research, 2016. Available online: 

<http://suncoastemployers.com/#hillsborough>. Accessed March 15, 2018.

TECO 2018 Tampa Electric Company (TECO). 2018. Available online: 

<https:/www.tampaelectric>. Accessed April 25, 2018.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

REFERENCES

July 2018 | 6-9 

U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. DP-1. Profile of General Demographic 

Characteristics: 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent 

Data. Available online: <https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/

searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t>. Accessed March 13, 2018.

U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010a

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 Census – Urbanized Area Reference Map: 

Spokane, WA. Available online: <https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/

dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua83764_spokane_wa/DC10UA83764.pdf>. 

Accessed April 10, 2018.

U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010b

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. DP-1. Profile of General Demographic 

Characteristics: 2010. 2010 Census Summary File 1. Available online: 

<https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh

=t>. Accessed March 13, 2018.

U.S. Census 

Bureau 2012

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. DP-1. Profile of General Demographic 

Characteristics: 2010. 2010 Census Summary File 1. Revised October 18, 

2012. Available online: <https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/

searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t>. Accessed March 13, 2018.

U.S. Census 

Bureau 2016a

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. Poverty Thresholds for 2016 by Size of Family 

and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years. Available online: 

<https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historicalpoverty-thresholds/thresh16.xls>. Accessed March 6, 2018.

U.S. Census 

Bureau 2016b

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. DP05. ACS Demographic and Housing 

Estimates. 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 

Available online: <https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/

searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t>. Accessed March 6, 2018.

U.S. Census 

Bureau 2016c

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. DP03. Selected Economic Characteristics. 

2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Available online: 

<https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh

=t>. Accessed March 6, 2018.

U.S. Census 

Bureau 2016d

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. DP04. Selected Housing Characteristics. 2012-

2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Available online: 

<https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh

=t>. Accessed March 14, 2018.

U.S. Census 

Bureau 2016e

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. S1701. Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months. 

2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Available online: 

<https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh

=t>. Accessed March 15, 2018.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

REFERENCES

July 2018 | 6-10

U.S. Climate 

Data 2018

U.S. Climate Data. 2018. Climate Spokane – Washington and Weather 

Averages Spokane. Available online: <https://www.usclimatedata.com/

climate/spokane/washington/united-states/uswa0422>. Accessed April 4, 

2018.

USAF 2014a U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2014. “KC-135 Stratotanker” Fact Sheet. Available 

online: <http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104524/kc135-stratotanker/>. Published September 15, 2004. Current as of May 2014. 

Accessed January 19, 2018.

USAF 2014b USAF. 2014. Final KC-46A Formal Training Unit (FTU) and First Main 

Operating Base (MOB 1) Beddown Environmental Impact Statement. March 

2014.

USAF 2014c USAF. 2014. Guide for Environmental Justice Analysis under the 

Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP). November 2014.

USAF 2015 USAF. 2015. Air Force Instruction 32-7063: Air Installation Compatible Use 

Zone Program. July 15, 2015.

USAF 2016a USAF. 2016. Air Force Instruction 32-7070, Air Force Noise Program. 

Mandatory Compliance with Computer Noise Model and Associated Metrics in 

NOISEMAP (NMAP) Aircraft Noise Model, Version 7.3. April 21, 2016.

USAF 2016b USAF. 2016. Air Force Instruction 48-127: Occupational Noise and Hearing 

Conservation Program. February 26, 2016.

USAF 2017a USAF. 2017. USAF Air Conformity Applicability Model (ACAM). Version 5.0.

USAF 2017b USAF. 2017. Final Environmental Assessment for Additional KC-135 Aircraft 

at MacDill AFB, Florida. May 2017.

USAF 2018 USAF. 2018. Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for 

KC-46A Main Operating Base #4 (MOB 4) Beddown. February 2018.

USAF and 

USAR 2017

U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army Reserve (USAF and USAR). 2017. 

Environmental Assessment for New U.S. Army Reserve Helicopter Bed Down 

Area at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. July 2017.

USBIA and the 

Spokane Tribe 

of Indians 2013

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (USBIA) and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. 

2013. Final Environmental Impact Statement Spokane Tribe of Indians, West 

Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development Project. Available online: 

<http://www.westplainseis.com/documents/final-eis/index.html>. Accessed 

March 15, 2018.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

REFERENCES

July 2018 | 6-11

USEIA 2017a U.S. Energy Information Agency (USEIA). 2017. 2016 Average Monthly Bill -

Residential. 6 November 2017. Available online: 

<https://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/pdf/table5_a.pdf >. 

Accessed April 4, 2018.

USEIA 2017b USEIA. 2017. Natural Gas Users and Consumption. Available online: 

<https://www.eia.gov/state/search/#?1=96&2=209&r=false>. Accessed April 

4, 2018.

USEIA 2018 USEIA. 2018. State Carbon Dioxide Emissions Data. Available online: 

<https://www.eia.gov/environment/ emissions/state/>. Accessed March 2018.

USEPA 1971 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971. Noise from 

Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home 

Appliances. Washington, DC: s.n., Publication NTID300.1. 

USEPA 2005 USEPA. 2005. A Homeowners Guide to Septic Systems. Revised March 

2005. Available online: <https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/

homeowner_guide_long.pdf>. Accessed April 4, 2018.

USEPA 2009 USEPA. 2009. Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and 

Demolition Materials Amounts. March 2009. Available online: 

<https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-09/documents/estimating

2003buildingrelatedcanddmaterialsamounts.pdf>. Accessed April 5, 2018.

USEPA 2010 USEPA. 2010. Waterbody Quality Assessment Report. 2010 Waterbody 

Report for Hillsborough Bay (Lower). Available online: 

<https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_list_id=FL155

8D&p_cycle=2010>. Accessed April 6, 2018

USEPA 2014a USEPA. 2014. 2014 National Emissions Inventory, County Level Query. 

Available online: <https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2014-

national-emissions-inventory-nei-data>. Accessed April 10, 2018.

USEPA 2014b USEPA. 2014. Chapter 10: Environmental Justice, Children’s Environmental 

Health and Other Distributional Considerations. In Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analyses. May 2014. Available online: <https://www.epa.gov/

sites/production/files/2017-09/documents/ee-0568-10.pdf>. Accessed July 9, 

2018.

USEPA 2018a USEPA. 2018. Attainment Status. Available online: <https://www.epa.gov/

green-book>. Accessed January 2018.

USEPA 2018b USEPA. 2018. AirData Web Site. Available online: 

<https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/air-quality-statistics-report>. 

Accessed September 2016.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

REFERENCES

July 2018 | 6-12

USEPA 2018c USEPA. 2018. “Table Version of EPA Radon Zones by County”. Available 

online: <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/radonzonestable.xlsx>. Downloaded on March 26, 2018.

USEPA 2018d USEPA. 2018. NEPAssist mapping tool. Available online: 

<https://www.epa.gov/nepa/nepassist>. Accessed March 2018.

USFS 1994 U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1994. “Ecological Subregions of the United 

States.” Chapter 48 Intermountain Semi-Desert Section 342I – Columbia 

Basin. Available online: <https://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/>. 

Accessed March 19, 2018.

USFWS 2018a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Information for Planning and 

Conservation. Trust Resources Report: Fairchild AFB. Available online: 

<https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/>. Accessed March 23, 2018

USFWS 2018b USFWS. 2018. Information for Planning and Conservation. Trust Resources 

Report: MacDill AFB. Available online: <https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/>. 

Accessed April 2, 2018.

USGS 2014a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. Two-percent probability of 

exceedance in 50 years map of peak ground acceleration. Available online: 

<https://earthquake.usgs.gov/static/lfs/nshm/conterminous/2014/2014pga2pct.

pdf>. Accessed April 3, 2018. 

USGS 2014b U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. Estimated Use of Water in the United 

States in 2010. 

USGS 2015 USGS. 2015. Gibsonton Quadrangle Florida – Hillsborough Co. 7.5-Minute 

Series. 

USGS 2017 USGS. 2017. Medical Lake Quadrangle Washington – Spokane Co. 7.5-

Minute Series. 

Vichich 2018 Vichich, Eric. 2018. Personal communication from Mr. Eric Vichich (MacDill 

AFB) to Mr. Timothy Didlake (HDR) regarding recent architectural survey of 

Cold War-era resources built from 1971 to 1992. March 19, 2018.

WA DOE 2010 Washington Department of Ecology (WA DOE). 2010. Washington State 

Coastal Zone Management Section 309 Assessment and Strategy, 2011-

2015. November 15, 2010. 

WA DOT 2018 Washington Department of Transportation (WA DOT). Statewide 

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). 2018 to 2021 STIP Approved. 

Available online: <https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/ProgramMgmt/

STIP.htm>. Accessed April 8, 2018.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

REFERENCES

July 2018 | 6-13

WDFW 2017 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2017. State Listed 

Species. Revised October 2017.

WDNR 2018 Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2017. 

“Columbia Basin”. Available online: <https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-andservices/geology/explore-popular-geology/geologic-provinceswashington/columbia-basin>. Accessed March 19, 2018. 

WNHP 2017 Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP). 2017. Endangered, 

Threatened, and Sensitive Vascular Plant List. April 2017.

WS 

Development 

2018

WS Development. 2018. Hyde Park Beautification Project. Available online: 

<https://www.hydeparkvillage.com/info/beautificationproject>. Accessed April 

8, 2018.
EA Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135s to Fairchild AFB, WA, or MacDill AFB, FL

REFERENCES

July 2018 | 6-14

This page intentionally left blank.
A

Stakeholder Consultation 

and Public Involvement 

Materials 

A-1

Notice for Early Public Review

A Notice for Early Public Review was published in the Tampa Bay Times on Monday, March 26, 

2018, because areas of the MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) Alternative are within the 100-year 

floodplain. The notice appeared in the local section of the Hillsborough and Pinellas counties 

editions. The notice, as it appeared in the newspaper, is below. No public comments were 

received from this notice. 
A-2

Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act Consultation

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) is consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

regarding effects on federally listed species from the Proposed Action and MacDill AFB 

Alternative. The Proposed Action would have no effect on federally listed species at Fairchild 

AFB. The MacDill AFB Alternative may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the federally 

listed red knot, piping plover, and wood stork. Documentation of the USAF’s consultation with 

the USFWS is on the following pages, and responses will be added for the Final Environmental 

Assessment (EA). The offices contacted for this consultation are as follows:

Fairchild AFB: MacDill AFB:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Mr. Eric Rickerson, State Supervisor Mr. Jay Herrington

510 Desmond Drive, Suite 102 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200

Lacey, Washington 98503 Jacksonville, Florida 32256-7517
A-3

Letter to the USFWS for the Proposed Action at Fairchild AFB:
A-4
A-5

Letter to the USFWS for the MacDill AFB Alternative:
A-6
A-7

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act Consultation

The USAF is consulting with the Washington and Florida State Historical Preservation Officers 

(SHPOs) to request concurrence that the Proposed Action and MacDill AFB Alternative would 

have no adverse effect on historic properties under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. Documentation of the USAF’s consultation with the SHPOs is on the following 

pages, and responses will be added for the Final EA. The offices contacted for this consultation 

are as follows:

Fairchild AFB: MacDill AFB:

Dr. Allyson Brooks Mr. Jason Aldridge

State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Historic Resources

Dept. of Archaeology and Historic Preservation R.A. Gray Building

P.O. Box 48343 500 South Bronough Street

Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
A-8

Letter to the Washington SHPO:
A-9

Attachments to this letter are included in the administrative record.
A-10

Letter to the Florida SHPO:
A-11

Attachments to this letter are included in the administrative record.
A-12

Response from the Florida SHPO:
A-13

Native American Tribal Consultation

The USAF is consulting with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

Reservation, Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Seminole Tribe of Florida, 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. Documentation of 

the USAF’s consultation with these Native American tribes is on the following pages, and any 

responses the USAF receives will be added for the Final EA. The offices contacted for this 

consultation are as follows:

Fairchild AFB: MacDill AFB: 

Chief J. Allan Mr. Marcellus W. Osceola Jr.

Chairman Chairman

Coeur d'Alene Tribe Seminole Tribe of Florida

P.O. Box 408 6300 Stirling Road, Box 1498

Plummer, Idaho 83851 Hollywood, Florida 33024

Dr. Michael Marchand Mr. Billy Cypress

Chairman Chairman

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida

P.O. Box 150 HC 61, SR BOX 68, Old Loop Road

Nespelem, Washington 99155 Ochopee, Florida 34141

Mr. Glen Nenema Mr. Greg Chilcoat

Chairman Principal Chief

Kalispel Tribe of Indians Seminole Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 39 P.O. Box 1498

Usk, Washington 99180 Wewoka, Oklahoma 74884

Ms. Carol Evans

Chairwoman

Spokane Tribe of Indians

P.O. Box 100

Wellpinit, Washington 99040
A-14

Letter to the Coeur d'Alene Tribe: 
A-15

Attachments to this letter are included in the administrative record.
A-16

Letter to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation: 
A-17

Attachments to this letter are included in the administrative record.
A-18

Letter to the Kalispel Tribe of Indians: 
A-19

Attachments to this letter are included in the administrative record.
A-20

Letter to the Spokane Tribe of Indians: 
A-21

Attachments to this letter are included in the administrative record.
A-22

Letter to the Seminole Tribe of Florida: 
A-23

Attachments to this letter are included in the administrative record.
A-24

Response from the Seminole Tribe of Florida: 
A-25

Letter to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida:
A-26

Attachments to this letter are included in the administrative record.
A-27

Response from the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida: 
A-28

Letter to the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma: 
A-29

Attachments to this letter are included in the administrative record.
A-30

Response from the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma: 
A-31

Draft EA Stakeholder Distribution List

The USAF distributed the Draft EA and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact/Finding of No 

Practicable Alternative (FONSI/FONPA) to relevant federal, state, and local government 

agencies for a 30-day review period. The list of federal, state, and local government agencies

contacted as part of this distribution is below. The distribution memorandums that the USAF 

sent are on the following pages, and any responses the USAF receives will be added for the 

Final EA. 

Federal Agency Contacts 

Fairchild AFB: MacDill AFB: 

Mr. David Suomi Mr. Michael O’Harra

Regional Administrator Regional Administrator

Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Administration

Northwest Mountain Region Southern Region

1601 Lind Avenue Southwest P.O. Box 20636

Renton, Washington 98057 Atlanta, Georgia 30320

Ms. Jill Nogi Mr. Chris Militscher

NEPA Manager Chief of the NEPA Program Office

USEPA, Region 10 USEPA, Region 4

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 61 Forsyth Street SW

Seattle, Washington 98101 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

State Agency Contacts 

Fairchild AFB: MacDill AFB: 

Mr. Grant Pfeifer Mr. Chris Stahl

Director Florida State Clearinghouse

Washington Department of Ecology Office of Intergovernmental Programs

Eastern Regional Office Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection

4601 North Monroe Street 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 47

Spokane, Washington 99205-1295 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

(submitted by email to:

Mr. Steve Pozzanghera state.clearinghouse@dep.state.fl.us) 

Regional Director

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 1

2315 North Discovery Place

Spokane Valley, Washington 99216-1566
A-32

Local Agency Contacts

Fairchild AFB: MacDill AFB: 

Mr. John Pederson Mr. Thomas R.P. Snelling, AICP

Planning Director Director

Spokane County Building & Planning Tampa Dept. of Planning and Development

1026 West Broadway Avenue 1400 North Boulevard

Spokane, Washington 99260 Tampa, Florida 33607

Mr. Derrick Braaten

Development Services Director

City of Airway Heights: Planning Department

1208 S. Lundstrom Street

Airway Heights, Washington 99001

Ms. Lisa Key

Development Services Director

City of Spokane: Planning and Development

808 W. Spokane Falls Boulevard

Spokane, Washington 99201

Mr. Timothy Ames

Superintendent

Medical Lake School District

P.O. Box 128

Medical Lake, Washington 99022

Mr. Matt Breen

Planning & Engineering

Spokane International Airport

9000 West Airport Drive, Suite 204

Spokane, Washington 99224

Mr. Joe Southwell

Air Quality Engineer

Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency

3104 E. Augusta Avenue

Spokane, Washington 99207
A-33

Distribution memorandum for Fairchild AFB: 

 
A-34

Distribution memorandum for MacDill AFB:
A-35
A-36

Notice of Availability for the Draft EA

Notice of availabilities announcing the Draft EA and Draft FONSI/FONPA were available for a 

30-day public comment period were published in the Spokesman-Review and Tampa Bay 

Times. The notices are on the following pages, and any comments the USAF receives will be 

added for the Final EA. 

The Draft EA and Draft FONSI/FONPA were made available to the public in hardcopy format at 

the following locations: 

Fairchild AFB: MacDill AFB:

Fairchild AFB Library MacDill AFB Library

2 W. Castle Street 8102 Condor Street, Building 252

Fairchild AFB, Washington 99011 MacDill AFB, Florida 33621

Spokane Public Library John F. Germany Public Library

906 W. Main Avenue 900 North Ashley Drive

Spokane, Washington 99201-0976 Tampa, Florida 33602-3704

Airway Heights Library

1213 S. Lundstrom Street

Airway Heights, Washington 99001

The Draft EA and Draft FONSI/FONPA also were made available to the public in electronic 

format on the following websites:

http://www.fairchild.af.mil/about/fact-sheets/

http://www.macdill.af.mil/EIAP.aspx
A-37

Notice of Availability for the Spokesman-Review: 

Notice of Availability

Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) Addressing the Addition of 12 KC-135 Aircraft to

Fairchild Air Force Base (AFB), Washington, or MacDill AFB, Florida

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) announces the availability of, and invites public comments on, the Draft EA evaluating the 

addition of 12 KC-135 Stratotanker (KC-135) aircraft to the existing fleet of KC-135s at Fairchild AFB (the Proposed 

Action) or MacDill AFB (the MacDill AFB Alternative). The addition of these aircraft to the selected installation would 

constitute activation of a new air refueling squadron and would include an increase of KC-135 aircraft; associated 

personnel and dependents; operations and maintenance activities; and facility construction, demolition, and 

renovation.

The analysis contained in the Draft EA indicates the Proposed Action and MacDill AFB Alternative would not have a 

significant impact on the environment and a Finding of No Significant Impact/Finding of No Practicable Alternative 

(FONSI/FONPA) would be appropriate. 

The USAF invites public participation through the solicitation of comments on the Draft EA and Draft FONSI/FONPA. 

Comments are invited and will be accepted for 30 days from the publication of this notice. The Draft EA and Draft 

FONSI/FONPA are available on the internet at http://www.fairchild.af.mil/about/fact-sheets/. Hard copies also are 

available at the following local libraries: 

Fairchild AFB Library Spokane Public Library Airway Heights Library

2 W. Castle Street 906 W. Main Avenue 1213 S. Lundstrom Street

Fairchild AFB, WA 99011 Spokane, WA 99201 Airway Heights, WA 99001

Please provide comments to 92 ARW Public Affairs, 1 East Bong Street, Suite 228, Fairchild AFB, WA 99011. 

Comments are encouraged to be sent by email to 92arw.pa@us.af.mil. The telephone number is (509) 247-5705.
A-38

Notice of Availability for the Tampa Bay Times: 

Notice of Availability

Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) Addressing the

Addition of 12 KC-135 Aircraft to Fairchild Air Force Base (AFB), 

Washington, or MacDill AFB, Florida

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) announces the availability of, and invites 

public comments on, the Draft EA evaluating the addition of 12 

KC-135 Stratotanker (KC-135) aircraft to the existing fleet of KC-135s

at Fairchild AFB (the Proposed Action) or MacDill AFB (the MacDill 

AFB Alternative). The addition of these aircraft to the selected 

installation would constitute activation of a new air refueling squadron 

and would include an increase of KC-135 aircraft; associated 

personnel and dependents; operations and maintenance activities; 

and facility construction, demolition, and renovation.

The analysis contained in the Draft EA indicates the Proposed Action 

and MacDill AFB Alternative would not have a significant impact on 

the environment and a Finding of No Significant Impact/Finding of No 

Practicable Alternative (FONSI/FONPA) would be appropriate. 

The USAF invites public participation through the solicitation of 

comments on the Draft EA and Draft FONSI/FONPA. Comments are 

invited and will be accepted for 30 days from the publication of this 

notice. The Draft EA and Draft FONSI/FONPA are available on the 

internet at http://www.macdill.af.mil/EIAP.aspx. Hard copies also are 

available at the following local libraries: 

MacDill AFB Library John F. Germany Public Library

8102 Condor Street 900 North Ashley Drive

Building 252 Tampa, FL 33602

MacDill AFB, FL 33621 

Please provide comments to 6 AMW Public Affairs, 8209 Hangar 

Loop Drive, Suite 14, MacDill AFB, FL 33621. Comments are 

encouraged to be sent by email to 6.amw.pa@us.af.mil. The 

telephone number is (813) 828-2215.
B

Air Conformity Applicability 

Model Reports 

AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

RECORD OF AIR ANALYSIS (ROAA) – PROPOSED ACTION

B-1

1. General Information: The Air Force’s Air Conformity Applicability Model (ACAM) was used to perform 

an analysis to assess the potential air quality impact/s associated with the action in accordance with the Air Force 

Instruction 32-7040, Air Quality Compliance And Resource Management; the Environmental Impact Analysis 

Process (EIAP, 32 CFR 989); and the General Conformity Rule (GCR, 40 CFR 93 Subpart B). This report provides 

a summary of the ACAM analysis.

a. Action Location:

Base: FAIRCHILD AFB

County(s): Spokane

Regulatory Area(s): NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

b. Action Title: Proposed Action – Fairchild AFB

c. Project Number/s (if applicable): Increased operations, construction/renovation, demolition

d. Projected Action Start Date: 1 / 2018

e. Action Description: See Section 2 of EA.

2. Air Impact Analysis: Based on the attainment status at the action location, the requirements of the General 

Conformity Rule are:

 applicable

 X not applicable

Total combined direct and indirect emissions associated with the action were estimated through ACAM on a 

calendar-year basis for the “worst-case” and “steady state” (net gain/loss upon action fully implemented) emissions.

“Air Quality Indicators” were used to provide an indication of the significance of potential impacts to air quality. 

These air quality indicators are EPA General Conformity Rule (GCR) thresholds (de minimis levels) that are applied 

out of context to their intended use. Therefore, these indicators do not trigger a regulatory requirement; however, 

they provide a warning that the action is potentially significant. It is important to note that these indicators only 

provide a clue to the potential impacts to air quality.

Given the GCR de minimis threshold values are the maximum net change an action can acceptably emit in nonattainment and maintenance areas, these threshold values would also conservatively indicate an actions emissions 

within an attainment would also be acceptable. An air quality indicator value of 100 tons/yr is used based on the 

GCR de minimis threshold for the least severe non-attainment classification for all criteria pollutants (see 40 CFR 

93.153). Therefore, the worst-case year emissions were compared against the GCR Indicator and are summarized 

below.
AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

RECORD OF AIR ANALYSIS (ROAA) – PROPOSED ACTION

B-2

Analysis Summary:

Construction and Demolition Year

Pollutant Action Emissions (ton/yr) AIR QUALITY INDICATOR

Threshold (ton/yr) Exceedance (Yes or No)

NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

VOC 16.427 100 No

NOx 12.193 100 No

CO 8.747 100 No

SOx 0.022 100 No

PM 10 39.529 100 No

PM 2.5 0.553 100 No

Pb 0.000 100 No

NH3 0.007 100 No

CO2e 2140.2

Operational Years

Pollutant Action Emissions (ton/yr) AIR QUALITY INDICATOR

Threshold (ton/yr) Exceedance (Yes or No)

NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

VOC 7.254 100 No

NOx 136.491 100 Yes

CO 88.044 100 No

SOx 9.583 100 No

PM 10 1.256 100 No

PM 2.5 1.183 100 No

Pb 0.000 100 No

NH3 0.080 100 No

CO2e 30271.5

Some estimated emissions associated with this action are above the GCR indicators, indicating a significant 

impact to air quality; therefore, further air assessment was provided in the air quality analysis of the EA.

___________________________________________________________ June 27, 2018 

Timothy Lavallee, P.E. DATE

Contractor (LPES, Inc.) 

Author of Air Quality Section 
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-3

1. General Information 

- Action Location

Base: FAIRCHILD AFB

County(s): Spokane

Regulatory Area(s): NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

- Action Title: Proposed Action – Fairchild AFB

- Project Number/s (if applicable): Increased operations, construction/renovation, demolition

- Projected Action Start Date: 1 / 2018

- Action Purpose and Need:

KC-135R Beddown with 2 Alternatives

Fairchild AFB

MacDill AFB

- Action Description: See Section 2 of the EA.

 

- Point of Contact

Name: - 

Title: - 

Organization: - 

Email: - 

Phone Number: - 

- Activity List:

Activity Type Activity Title

2. Aircraft 12 additional KC 135s

3. Construction / Demolition Construction and Demolition

4. Personnel Fairchild AFB KC-135 Beddown

5. Heating Heating

2. Aircraft 

2.1 General Information & Timeline Assumptions

- Add or Remove Activity from Baseline? Add

- Activity Location

County: Spokane

Regulatory Area(s): NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

- Activity Title: 12 additional KC 135s

- Activity Description:

 

- Activity Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Year: 2019
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-4

- Activity End Date

Indefinite: Yes

End Month: N/A

End Year: N/A

- Activity Emissions:

Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs) Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs)

VOC 5.985677 PM 2.5 1.133803

SOx 9.572663 Pb 0.000000

NOx 135.047654 NH3 0.000000

CO 73.455288 CO2e 28732.1

PM 10 1.202993

- Activity Emissions [Flight Operations (includes Trim Test & APU) part]:

Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs) Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs)

VOC 4.058827 PM 2.5 0.459047

SOx 9.077396 Pb 0.000000

NOx 99.498808 NH3 0.000000

CO 67.640407 CO2e 27694.6

PM 10 0.507082

- Activity Emissions [Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) part]:

Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs) Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs)

VOC 1.926849 PM 2.5 0.674756

SOx 0.495267 Pb 0.000000

NOx 35.548846 NH3 0.000000

CO 5.814881 CO2e 1037.4

PM 10 0.695911

2.2 Aircraft & Engines 

2.2.1 Aircraft & Engines Assumptions 

- Aircraft & Engine

Aircraft Designation: KC-135R

Engine Model: CFM56-2B-1 

Primary Function: Transport - Bomber

Number of Engines: 4 

- Aircraft & Engine Surrogate

Is Aircraft & Engine a Surrogate? No

Original Aircraft Name:

Original Engine Name:

2.2.2 Aircraft & Engines Emission Factor(s)

- Aircraft & Engine Emissions Factors (lb/1000lb fuel)

Fuel Flow VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CO2e

Idle 1015.88 2.11 1.06 4.00 30.70 0.07 0.06 3234

Approach 2468.27 0.09 1.06 8.20 4.20 0.06 0.05 3234

Intermediate 6500.04 0.06 1.06 16.00 0.90 0.05 0.05 3234

Military 7817.51 0.05 1.06 18.50 0.90 0.07 0.06 3234

After Burn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3234
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-5

2.3 Flight Operations

2.3.1 Flight Operations Assumptions 

- Flight Operations

Number of Aircraft: 12

Number of Annual LTOs (Landing and Take-off) cycles for all Aircraft: 983

Number of Annual TGOs (Touch-and-Go) cycles for all Aircraft: 3988

Number of Annual Trim Test(s) per Aircraft: 24

- Default Settings Used: Yes

- Flight Operations TIMs (Time In Mode)

Taxi/Idle Out (mins): 32.8 (default)

Takeoff (mins): 0.7 (default)

Climb Out (mins): 1.6 (default)

Approach (mins): 5.2 (default)

Taxi/Idle In (mins): 14.9 (default)

- Trim Test

Idle (mins): 12 (default)

Approach (mins): 27 (default)

Intermediate (mins): 9 (default)

Military (mins): 12 (default)

AfterBurn (mins): 0 (default)

2.3.2 Flight Operations Formula(s)

- Aircraft Emissions per Mode for LTOs per Year

AEMPOL = (TIM / 60) * (FC / 1000) * EF * NE * LTO / 2000

AEMPOL: Aircraft Emissions per Pollutant & Mode (TONs)

TIM: Time in Mode (min)

60: Conversion Factor minutes to hours

FC: Fuel Flow Rate (lb/hr)

1000: Conversion Factor pounds to 1000pounds

EF: Emission Factor (lb/1000lb fuel)

NE: Number of Engines

LTO: Number of Landing and Take-off Cycles (for all aircraft)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to TONs

- Aircraft Emissions for LTOs per Year

AELTO = AEMIDLE_IN + AEMIDLE_OUT + AEMAPPROACH + AEMCLIMBOUT + AEMTAKEOFF

AELTO: Aircraft Emissions (TONs)

AEMIDLE_IN: Aircraft Emissions for Idle-In Mode (TONs)

AEMIDLE_OUT: Aircraft Emissions for Idle-Out Mode (TONs)

AEMAPPROACH: Aircraft Emissions for Approach Mode (TONs)

AEMCLIMBOUT: Aircraft Emissions for Climb-Out Mode (TONs)

AEMTAKEOFF: Aircraft Emissions for Take-Off Mode (TONs)

- Aircraft Emissions per Mode for TGOs per Year

AEMPOL = (TIM / 60) * (FC / 1000) * EF * NE * TGO / 2000

AEMPOL: Aircraft Emissions per Pollutant & Mode (TONs)

TIM: Time in Mode (min)
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-6

60: Conversion Factor minutes to hours

FC: Fuel Flow Rate (lb/hr)

1000: Conversion Factor pounds to 1000pounds

EF: Emission Factor (lb/1000lb fuel)

NE: Number of Engines

TGO: Number of Touch-and-Go Cycles (for all aircraft)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to TONs

- Aircraft Emissions for TGOs per Year

AETGO = AEMAPPROACH + AEMCLIMBOUT + AEMTAKEOFF

AETGO: Aircraft Emissions (TONs)

AEMAPPROACH: Aircraft Emissions for Approach Mode (TONs)

AEMCLIMBOUT: Aircraft Emissions for Climb-Out Mode (TONs)

AEMTAKEOFF: Aircraft Emissions for Take-Off Mode (TONs)

- Aircraft Emissions per Mode for Trim per Year

AEPSPOL = (TD / 60) * (FC / 1000) * EF * NE * NA * NTT / 2000

AEPSPOL: Aircraft Emissions per Pollutant & Power Setting (TONs)

TD: Test Duration (min)

60: Conversion Factor minutes to hours

FC: Fuel Flow Rate (lb/hr)

1000: Conversion Factor pounds to 1000pounds

EF: Emission Factor (lb/1000lb fuel)

NE: Number of Engines

NA: Number of Aircraft

NTT: Number of Trim Test

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to TONs

- Aircraft Emissions for Trim per Year

AETRIM = AEPSIDLE + AEPSAPPROACH + AEPSINTERMEDIATE + AEPSMILITARY + AEPSAFTERBURN

AETRIM: Aircraft Emissions (TONs)

AEPSIDLE: Aircraft Emissions for Idle Power Setting (TONs)

AEPSAPPROACH: Aircraft Emissions for Approach Power Setting (TONs)

AEPSINTERMEDIATE: Aircraft Emissions for Intermediate Power Setting (TONs)

AEPSMILITARY: Aircraft Emissions for Military Power Setting (TONs)

AEPSAFTERBURN: Aircraft Emissions for After Burner Power Setting (TONs)

2.4 Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) 

2.4.1 Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Assumptions

- Default Settings Used: Yes

- Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) (default)

Number of APU 

per Aircraft

Operation Hours 

for Each LTO

Exempt 

Source?

Designation Manufacturer

2.4.2 Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Emission Factor(s) 

- Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Emission Factor (lb/hr)

Designation Fuel Flow VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CO2e
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-7

2.4.3 Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Formula(s)

- Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Emissions per Year

APUPOL = APU * OH * LTO * EFPOL / 2000

APUPOL: Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Emissions per Pollutant (TONs)

APU: Number of Auxiliary Power Units

OH: Operation Hours for Each LTO (hour)

LTO: Number of LTOs

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (lb/hr)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

2.5 Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE)

2.5.1 Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Assumptions

- Default Settings Used: Yes

- AGE Usage

Number of Annual LTO (Landing and Take-off) cycles for AGE: 983

- Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) (default)

Total Number of 

AGE

Operation Hours 

for Each LTO

Exempt 

Source?

AGE Type Designation

1 0.33 No Air Compressor MC-1A - 18.4hp

1 2 No Air Conditioner MA-3C

1 10 No Generator Set A/M32A-86D

1 5 No Heater H1

1 2 No Light Cart NF-2

1 1 No Start Cart A/M32A-60A

2.5.2 Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Emission Factor(s)

- Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Emission Factor (lb/hr)

Designation Fuel Flow VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CO2e

MC-1A - 18.4hp 1.1 0.267 0.008 0.419 0.267 0.071 0.068 24.8

MA-3C 7.1 0.053 0.050 4.167 0.317 0.109 0.105 161.7

A/M32A-86D 6.5 0.294 0.046 6.102 0.457 0.091 0.089 147.0

H1 0.4 0.100 0.011 0.160 0.180 0.006 0.006 8.9

NF-2 0.0 0.010 0.043 0.110 0.080 0.010 0.010 22.1

A/M32A-60A 0.0 0.270 0.306 1.820 5.480 0.211 0.205 221.1

2.5.3 Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Formula(s)

- Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Emissions per Year

AGEPOL = AGE * OH * LTO * EFPOL / 2000

AGEPOL: Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Emissions per Pollutant (TONs)

AGE: Total Number of Aerospace Ground Equipment

OH: Operation Hours for Each LTO (hour)

LTO: Number of LTOs

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (lb/hr)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-8

3. Construction / Demolition 

3.1 General Information & Timeline Assumptions 

- Activity Location

County: Spokane

Regulatory Area(s): NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

- Activity Title: Construction and Demolition

- Activity Description:

Construction and Demolition

- Activity Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Month: 2018

- Activity End Date

Indefinite: False

End Month: 12

End Month: 2018

- Activity Emissions:

Pollutant Total Emissions (TONs) Pollutant Total Emissions (TONs)

VOC 16.427139 PM 2.5 0.553449

SOx 0.021715 Pb 0.000000

NOx 12.193005 NH3 0.006755

CO 8.747108 CO2e 2140.2

PM 10 39.529078

3.1 Demolition Phase 

3.1.1 Demolition Phase Timeline Assumptions 

- Phase Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Quarter: 1

Start Year: 2018

- Phase Duration

Number of Month: 12

Number of Days: 0

3.1.2 Demolition Phase Assumptions 

- General Demolition Information

Area of Building to be demolished (ft2

): 471435

Height of Building to be demolished (ft): 12.67

- Default Settings Used: Yes

- Average Day(s) worked per week: 5 (default)

- Construction Exhaust (default)
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-9

Equipment Name Number Of 

Equipment

Hours Per Day

Excavators Composite 3 8

Rubber Tired Dozers Composite 2 8

- Vehicle Exhaust

Average Hauling Truck Capacity (yd3

): 20 (default)

Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 0 0 0 0 0 100.00 0

- Worker Trips

Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Worker Trips Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 50.00 50.00 0 0 0 0 0

3.1.3 Demolition Phase Emission Factor(s) 

- Construction Exhaust Emission Factors (lb/hour) (default)

Excavators Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0848 0.0013 0.5180 0.5159 0.0249 0.0249 0.0076 119.77

Rubber Tired Dozers Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.2343 0.0024 1.8193 0.8818 0.0737 0.0737 0.0211 239.61

- Vehicle Exhaust & Worker Trips Emission Factors (grams/mile)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

LDGV 000.339 000.002 000.292 003.662 000.010 000.008 000.025 00338.542

LDGT 000.436 000.003 000.505 005.311 000.012 000.011 000.027 00438.929

HDGV 000.855 000.005 001.379 018.249 000.029 000.025 000.045 00768.870

LDDV 000.134 000.003 000.151 002.379 000.004 000.004 000.008 00329.716

LDDT 000.336 000.004 000.495 004.740 000.007 000.007 000.008 00480.968

HDDV 000.589 000.013 006.184 002.023 000.223 000.205 000.029 01505.080

MC 002.361 000.003 000.826 013.943 000.029 000.026 000.053 00399.517

3.1.4 Demolition Phase Formula(s)

- Fugitive Dust Emissions per Phase

PM10FD = (0.00042 * BA * BH) / 2000

PM10FD: Fugitive Dust PM 10 Emissions (TONs)

0.00042: Emission Factor (lb/ft3

) 

BA: Area of Building to be demolished (ft2

) 

BH: Height of Building to be demolished (ft)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Construction Exhaust Emissions per Phase

CEEPOL = (NE * WD * H * EFPOL) / 2000

CEEPOL: Construction Exhaust Emissions (TONs)

NE: Number of Equipment
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-10

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

H: Hours Worked per Day (hours)

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (lb/hour)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Vehicle Exhaust Emissions per Phase

VMTVE = BA * BH * (1 / 27) * 0.25 * (1 / HC) * HT

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

BA: Area of Building being demolish (ft2

) 

BH: Height of Building being demolish (ft)

(1 / 27): Conversion Factor cubic feet to cubic yards ( 1 yd3 / 27 ft3

) 

0.25: Volume reduction factor (material reduced by 75% to account for air space)

HC: Average Hauling Truck Capacity (yd3

) 

(1 / HC): Conversion Factor cubic yards to trips (1 trip / HC yd3

) 

HT: Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile/trip)

VPOL = (VMTVE * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Vehicle Exhaust On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Worker Trips Emissions per Phase

VMTWT = WD * WT * 1.25 * NE

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

WT: Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile)

1.25: Conversion Factor Number of Construction Equipment to Number of Works

NE: Number of Construction Equipment

VPOL = (VMTWT * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

3.2 Site Grading Phase 

3.2.1 Site Grading Phase Timeline Assumptions 

- Phase Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Quarter: 1

Start Year: 2018

- Phase Duration

Number of Month: 3

Number of Days: 0
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-11

3.2.2 Site Grading Phase Assumptions 

- General Site Grading Information

Area of Site to be Graded (ft2

): 1263080

Amount of Material to be Hauled On-Site (yd3

): 0

Amount of Material to be Hauled Off-Site (yd3

): 0

- Site Grading Default Settings

Default Settings Used: Yes

Average Day(s) worked per week: 5 (default)

- Construction Exhaust (default)

Equipment Name Number Of 

Equipment

Hours Per Day

Excavators Composite 1 8

Graders Composite 1 8

Other Construction Equipment Composite 1 8

Rubber Tired Dozers Composite 1 8

Scrapers Composite 3 8

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite 3 8

- Vehicle Exhaust

Average Hauling Truck Capacity (yd3

): 20 (default)

Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 0 0 0 0 0 100.00 0

- Worker Trips

Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Worker Trips Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 50.00 50.00 0 0 0 0 0

3.2.3 Site Grading Phase Emission Factor(s)

- Construction Exhaust Emission Factors (lb/hour) (default)

Excavators Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0848 0.0013 0.5180 0.5159 0.0249 0.0249 0.0076 119.77

Graders Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.1049 0.0014 0.7217 0.5812 0.0354 0.0354 0.0094 132.97

Other Construction Equipment Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0633 0.0012 0.4477 0.3542 0.0181 0.0181 0.0057 122.66

Rubber Tired Dozers Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.2343 0.0024 1.8193 0.8818 0.0737 0.0737 0.0211 239.61

Scrapers Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.2135 0.0026 1.6041 0.8417 0.0653 0.0653 0.0192 262.96

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0512 0.0007 0.3330 0.3646 0.0189 0.0189 0.0046 66.912
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-12

- Vehicle Exhaust & Worker Trips Emission Factors (grams/mile)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

LDGV 000.339 000.002 000.292 003.662 000.010 000.008 000.025 00338.542

LDGT 000.436 000.003 000.505 005.311 000.012 000.011 000.027 00438.929

HDGV 000.855 000.005 001.379 018.249 000.029 000.025 000.045 00768.870

LDDV 000.134 000.003 000.151 002.379 000.004 000.004 000.008 00329.716

LDDT 000.336 000.004 000.495 004.740 000.007 000.007 000.008 00480.968

HDDV 000.589 000.013 006.184 002.023 000.223 000.205 000.029 01505.080

MC 002.361 000.003 000.826 013.943 000.029 000.026 000.053 00399.517

3.2.4 Site Grading Phase Formula(s) 

- Fugitive Dust Emissions per Phase

PM10FD = (20 * ACRE * WD) / 2000

PM10FD: Fugitive Dust PM 10 Emissions (TONs)

20: Conversion Factor Acre Day to pounds (20 lb / 1 Acre Day)

ACRE: Total acres (acres)

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Construction Exhaust Emissions per Phase

CEEPOL = (NE * WD * H * EFPOL) / 2000

 CEEPOL: Construction Exhaust Emissions (TONs)

NE: Number of Equipment

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

H: Hours Worked per Day (hours)

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (lb/hour)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Vehicle Exhaust Emissions per Phase

VMTVE = (HAOnSite + HAOffSite) * (1 / HC) * HT

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

HAOnSite: Amount of Material to be Hauled On-Site (yd3

) 

HAOffSite: Amount of Material to be Hauled Off-Site (yd3

) 

HC: Average Hauling Truck Capacity (yd3

) 

(1 / HC): Conversion Factor cubic yards to trips (1 trip / HC yd3

) 

HT: Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile/trip)

VPOL = (VMTVE * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Vehicle Exhaust On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Worker Trips Emissions per Phase

VMTWT = WD * WT * 1.25 * NE

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-13

WT: Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile)

1.25: Conversion Factor Number of Construction Equipment to Number of Works

NE: Number of Construction Equipment

VPOL = (VMTWT * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

3.3 Trenching/Excavating Phase 

3.3.1 Trenching / Excavating Phase Timeline Assumptions 

- Phase Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Quarter: 1

Start Year: 2018

- Phase Duration

Number of Month: 3

Number of Days: 0

3.3.2 Trenching / Excavating Phase Assumptions 

- General Trenching/Excavating Information

Area of Site to be Trenched/Excavated (ft2

): 795

Amount of Material to be Hauled On-Site (yd3

): 0

Amount of Material to be Hauled Off-Site (yd3

): 0

- Trenching Default Settings

Default Settings Used: Yes

Average Day(s) worked per week: 5 (default)

- Construction Exhaust (default)

Equipment Name Number Of 

Equipment

Hours Per Day

Excavators Composite 2 8

Other General Industrial Equipmen Composite 1 8

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite 1 8

- Vehicle Exhaust

Average Hauling Truck Capacity (yd3

): 20 (default)

Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 0 0 0 0 0 100.00 0

- Worker Trips

Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-14

- Worker Trips Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 50.00 50.00 0 0 0 0 0

3.3.3 Trenching / Excavating Phase Emission Factor(s) 

- Construction Exhaust Emission Factors (lb/hour) (default)

Excavators Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0848 0.0013 0.5180 0.5159 0.0249 0.0249 0.0076 119.77

Graders Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.1049 0.0014 0.7217 0.5812 0.0354 0.0354 0.0094 132.97

Other Construction Equipment Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0633 0.0012 0.4477 0.3542 0.0181 0.0181 0.0057 122.66

Rubber Tired Dozers Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.2343 0.0024 1.8193 0.8818 0.0737 0.0737 0.0211 239.61

Scrapers Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.2135 0.0026 1.6041 0.8417 0.0653 0.0653 0.0192 262.96

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0512 0.0007 0.3330 0.3646 0.0189 0.0189 0.0046 66.912

- Vehicle Exhaust & Worker Trips Emission Factors (grams/mile)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

LDGV 000.339 000.002 000.292 003.662 000.010 000.008 000.025 00338.542

LDGT 000.436 000.003 000.505 005.311 000.012 000.011 000.027 00438.929

HDGV 000.855 000.005 001.379 018.249 000.029 000.025 000.045 00768.870

LDDV 000.134 000.003 000.151 002.379 000.004 000.004 000.008 00329.716

LDDT 000.336 000.004 000.495 004.740 000.007 000.007 000.008 00480.968

HDDV 000.589 000.013 006.184 002.023 000.223 000.205 000.029 01505.080

MC 002.361 000.003 000.826 013.943 000.029 000.026 000.053 00399.517

3.3.4 Trenching / Excavating Phase Formula(s)

- Fugitive Dust Emissions per Phase

PM10FD = (20 * ACRE * WD) / 2000

PM10FD: Fugitive Dust PM 10 Emissions (TONs)

20: Conversion Factor Acre Day to pounds (20 lb / 1 Acre Day)

ACRE: Total acres (acres)

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Construction Exhaust Emissions per Phase

CEEPOL = (NE * WD * H * EFPOL) / 2000

CEEPOL: Construction Exhaust Emissions (TONs)

NE: Number of Equipment

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

H: Hours Worked per Day (hours)

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (lb/hour)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-15

- Vehicle Exhaust Emissions per Phase

VMTVE = (HAOnSite + HAOffSite) * (1 / HC) * HT

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

HAOnSite: Amount of Material to be Hauled On-Site (yd3

) 

HAOffSite: Amount of Material to be Hauled Off-Site (yd3

) 

HC: Average Hauling Truck Capacity (yd3

) 

(1 / HC): Conversion Factor cubic yards to trips (1 trip / HC yd3

) 

HT: Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile/trip)

VPOL = (VMTVE * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Vehicle Exhaust On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Worker Trips Emissions per Phase

VMTWT = WD * WT * 1.25 * NE

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

WT: Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile)

1.25: Conversion Factor Number of Construction Equipment to Number of Works

NE: Number of Construction Equipment

VPOL = (VMTWT * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVE: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

3.4 Building Construction Phase 

3.4.1 Building Construction Phase Timeline Assumptions

- Phase Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Quarter: 1

Start Year: 2018

- Phase Duration

Number of Month: 12

Number of Days: 0

3.4.2 Building Construction Phase Assumptions

- General Building Construction Information

Building Category: Office or Industrial

Area of Building (ft2

): 240494

Height of Building (ft): 12.67
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-16

Number of Units: N/A

- Building Construction Default Settings

Default Settings Used: Yes

Average Day(s) worked per week: 5 (default)

- Construction Exhaust (default)

Equipment Name Number Of 

Equipment

Hours Per Day

Cranes Composite 1 7

Forklifts Composite 2 7

Generator Sets Composite 1 8

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite 1 8

Welders Composite 3 8

- Vehicle Exhaust

Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 0 0 0 0 0 100.00 0

- Worker Trips

Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Worker Trips Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 50.00 50.00 0 0 0 0 0

- Vendor Trips

Average Vendor Round Trip Commute (mile): 40 (default)

- Vendor Trips Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 0 0 0 0 0 100.00 0

3.4.3 Building Construction Phase Emission Factor(s) 

- Construction Exhaust Emission Factors (lb/hour) (default)

Cranes Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.1012 0.0013 0.7908 0.4059 0.0318 0.0318 0.0091 128.85

Forklifts Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0371 0.0006 0.2186 0.2173 0.0101 0.0101 0.0033 54.479

Generator Sets Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0477 0.0006 0.3758 0.2785 0.0191 0.0191 0.0043 61.100

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0512 0.0007 0.3330 0.3646 0.0189 0.0189 0.0046 66.912

Welders Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0387 0.0003 0.1940 0.1876 0.0133 0.0133 0.0034 25.690
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-17

- Vehicle Exhaust & Worker Trips Emission Factors (grams/mile)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

LDGV 000.339 000.002 000.292 003.662 000.010 000.008 000.025 00338.542

LDGT 000.436 000.003 000.505 005.311 000.012 000.011 000.027 00438.929

HDGV 000.855 000.005 001.379 018.249 000.029 000.025 000.045 00768.870

LDDV 000.134 000.003 000.151 002.379 000.004 000.004 000.008 00329.716

LDDT 000.336 000.004 000.495 004.740 000.007 000.007 000.008 00480.968

HDDV 000.589 000.013 006.184 002.023 000.223 000.205 000.029 01505.080

MC 002.361 000.003 000.826 013.943 000.029 000.026 000.053 00399.517

3.4.4 Building Construction Phase Formula(s)

- Construction Exhaust Emissions per Phase

CEEPOL = (NE * WD * H * EFPOL) / 2000

CEEPOL: Construction Exhaust Emissions (TONs)

NE: Number of Equipment

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

H: Hours Worked per Day (hours)

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (lb/hour)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Vehicle Exhaust Emissions per Phase

VMTVE = BA * BH * (0.42 / 1000) * HT

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

BA: Area of Building (ft2

) 

BH: Height of Building (ft)

(0.42 / 1000): Conversion Factor ft3 to trips (0.42 trip / 1000 ft3

) 

HT: Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile/trip)

VPOL = (VMTVE * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Worker Trips Emissions per Phase

VMTWT = WD * WT * 1.25 * NE

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

WT: Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile)

1.25: Conversion Factor Number of Construction Equipment to Number of Works

NE: Number of Construction Equipment

VPOL = (VMTWT * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-18

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Vender Trips Emissions per Phase

VMTVT = BA * BH * (0.38 / 1000) * HT

VMTVT: Vender Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

BA: Area of Building (ft2

) 

BH: Height of Building (ft)

(0.38 / 1000): Conversion Factor ft3 to trips (0.38 trip / 1000 ft3

) 

HT: Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile/trip)

VPOL = (VMTVT * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVT: Vender Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

3.5 Architectural Coatings Phase

3.5.1 Architectural Coatings Phase Timeline Assumptions

- Phase Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Quarter: 1

Start Year: 2018

- Phase Duration

Number of Month: 3

Number of Days: 0

3.5.2 Architectural Coatings Phase Assumptions 

- General Architectural Coatings Information

Building Category: 

Total Square Footage (ft2

): 1263080

Number of Units: N/A

- Architectural Coatings Default Settings

Default Settings Used: Yes

Average Day(s) worked per week: 5 (default)

- Worker Trips

Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Worker Trips Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 50.00 50.00 0 0 0 0 0

3.5.3 Architectural Coatings Phase Emission Factor(s) 
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-19

- Worker Trips Emission Factors (grams/mile)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

LDGV 000.339 000.002 000.292 003.662 000.010 000.008 000.025 00338.542

LDGT 000.436 000.003 000.505 005.311 000.012 000.011 000.027 00438.929

HDGV 000.855 000.005 001.379 018.249 000.029 000.025 000.045 00768.870

LDDV 000.134 000.003 000.151 002.379 000.004 000.004 000.008 00329.716

LDDT 000.336 000.004 000.495 004.740 000.007 000.007 000.008 00480.968

HDDV 000.589 000.013 006.184 002.023 000.223 000.205 000.029 01505.080

MC 002.361 000.003 000.826 013.943 000.029 000.026 000.053 00399.517

3.5.4 Architectural Coatings Phase Formula(s) 

- Worker Trips Emissions per Phase

VMTWT = (1 * WT * PA) / 800

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

1: Conversion Factor man days to trips ( 1 trip / 1 man * day)

WT: Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile)

PA: Paint Area (ft2

) 

800: Conversion Factor square feet to man days ( 1 ft2 / 1 man * day)

VPOL = (VMTWT * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Off-Gassing Emissions per Phase

VOCAC = (AB * 2.0 * 0.0116) / 2000.0

VOCAC: Architectural Coating VOC Emissions (TONs)

BA: Area of Building (ft2

) 

2.0: Conversion Factor total area to coated area (2.0 ft2 coated area / total area)

0.0116: Emission Factor (lb/ft2

) 

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

3.6 Paving Phase

3.6.1 Paving Phase Timeline Assumptions 

- Phase Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Quarter: 1

Start Year: 2018

- Phase Duration

Number of Month: 3

Number of Days: 0

3.6.2 Paving Phase Assumptions

- General Paving Information

Paving Area (ft2

): 409451
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-20

- Paving Default Settings

Default Settings Used: Yes

Average Day(s) worked per week: 5 (default)

- Construction Exhaust (default)

Equipment Name Number Of 

Equipment

Hours Per Day

Pavers Composite 1 8

Paving Equipment Composite 2 6

Rollers Composite 2 6

- Vehicle Exhaust

Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 0 0 0 0 0 100.00 0

- Worker Trips

Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Worker Trips Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 50.00 50.00 0 0 0 0 0

3.6.3 Paving Phase Emission Factor(s)

- Construction Exhaust Emission Factors (lb/hour) (default)

Excavators Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0848 0.0013 0.5180 0.5159 0.0249 0.0249 0.0076 119.77

Graders Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.1049 0.0014 0.7217 0.5812 0.0354 0.0354 0.0094 132.97

Other Construction Equipment Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0633 0.0012 0.4477 0.3542 0.0181 0.0181 0.0057 122.66

Rubber Tired Dozers Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.2343 0.0024 1.8193 0.8818 0.0737 0.0737 0.0211 239.61

Scrapers Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.2135 0.0026 1.6041 0.8417 0.0653 0.0653 0.0192 262.96

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0512 0.0007 0.3330 0.3646 0.0189 0.0189 0.0046 66.912

- Vehicle Exhaust & Worker Trips Emission Factors (grams/mile)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

LDGV 000.339 000.002 000.292 003.662 000.010 000.008 000.025 00338.542

LDGT 000.436 000.003 000.505 005.311 000.012 000.011 000.027 00438.929

HDGV 000.855 000.005 001.379 018.249 000.029 000.025 000.045 00768.870

LDDV 000.134 000.003 000.151 002.379 000.004 000.004 000.008 00329.716

LDDT 000.336 000.004 000.495 004.740 000.007 000.007 000.008 00480.968

HDDV 000.589 000.013 006.184 002.023 000.223 000.205 000.029 01505.080

MC 002.361 000.003 000.826 013.943 000.029 000.026 000.053 00399.517
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-21

3.6.4 Paving Phase Formula(s)

- Construction Exhaust Emissions per Phase

CEEPOL = (NE * WD * H * EFPOL) / 2000

CEEPOL: Construction Exhaust Emissions (TONs)

NE: Number of Equipment

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

H: Hours Worked per Day (hours)

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (lb/hour)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Vehicle Exhaust Emissions per Phase

VMTVE = PA * 0.25 * (1 / 27) * (1 / HC) * HT

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

PA: Paving Area (ft2

) 

0.25: Thickness of Paving Area (ft)

(1 / 27): Conversion Factor cubic feet to cubic yards ( 1 yd3 / 27 ft3

) 

HC: Average Hauling Truck Capacity (yd3

) 

(1 / HC): Conversion Factor cubic yards to trips (1 trip / HC yd3

) 

HT: Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile/trip)

VPOL = (VMTVE * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Vehicle Exhaust On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Worker Trips Emissions per Phase

VMTWT = WD * WT * 1.25 * NE

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

WT: Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile)

1.25: Conversion Factor Number of Construction Equipment to Number of Works

NE: Number of Construction Equipment

VPOL = (VMTWT * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVE: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Off-Gassing Emissions per Phase

VOCP = (2.62 * PA) / 43560

VOCP: Paving VOC Emissions (TONs)

2.62: Emission Factor (lb/acre)
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-22

PA: Paving Area (ft2) 

43560: Conversion Factor square feet to acre (43560 ft2 / acre)2 / acre)

4. Personnel 

4.1 General Information & Timeline Assumptions 

- Add or Remove Activity from Baseline? Add

- Activity Location

County: Spokane

Regulatory Area(s): NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

- Activity Title: Fairchild AFB KC-135 Beddown

- Activity Description:

370 additional personnel

- Activity Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Year: 2019

- Activity End Date

Indefinite: Yes

End Month: N/A

End Year: N/A

- Activity Emissions:

Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs) Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs)

VOC 1.254966 PM 2.5 0.030311

SOx 0.008357 Pb 0.000000

NOx 1.194439 NH3 0.079979

CO 14.379437 CO2e 1239.5

PM 10 0.033666

4.2 Personnel Assumptions

- Number of Personnel

Active Duty Personnel: 370

Civilian Personnel: 185

Support Contractor Personnel: 0

Air National Guard (ANG) Personnel: 0

Reserve Personnel: 0

- Default Settings Used: Yes

- Average Personnel Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Personnel Work Schedule

Active Duty Personnel: 5 Days Per Week (default)

Civilian Personnel: 5 Days Per Week (default)

Support Contractor Personnel: 5 Days Per Week (default)

Air National Guard (ANG) Personnel: 4 Days Per Week (default)

Reserve Personnel: 4 Days Per Month (default)
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-23

4.3 Personnel On Road Vehicle Mixture

- On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 37.55 60.32 0 0.03 0.2 0 1.9

GOVs 54.49 37.73 4.67 0 0 3.11 0

4.4 Personnel Emission Factor(s)

- On Road Vehicle Emission Factors (grams/mile)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

LDGV 000.305 000.002 000.252 003.454 000.009 000.008 000.024 00329.670

LDGT 000.389 000.003 000.438 004.893 000.011 000.010 000.025 00426.333

HDGV 000.775 000.005 001.216 016.893 000.027 000.023 000.045 00765.945

LDDV 000.127 000.003 000.140 002.378 000.004 000.004 000.008 00319.522

LDDT 000.298 000.004 000.435 004.410 000.007 000.007 000.008 00459.913

HDDV 000.541 000.013 005.618 001.874 000.194 000.179 000.028 01491.701

MC 002.348 000.003 000.824 013.752 000.029 000.025 000.054 00399.619

4.5 Personnel Formula(s)

- Personnel Vehicle Miles Travel for Work Days per Year

VMTP = NP * WD * AC

VMTP: Personnel Vehicle Miles Travel (miles/year)

NP: Number of Personnel

WD: Work Days per Year

AC: Average Commute (miles)

- Total Vehicle Miles Travel per Year

VMTTotal = VMTAD + VMTC + VMTSC + VMTANG + VMTAFRC

VMTTotal: Total Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

VMTAD: Active Duty Personnel Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

VMTC: Civilian Personnel Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

VMTSC: Support Contractor Personnel Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

VMTANG: Air National Guard Personnel Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

VMTAFRC: Reserve Personnel Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

- Vehicle Emissions per Year

VPOL = (VMTTotal * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTTotal: Total Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Personnel On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-24

5. Heating 

5.1 General Information & Timeline Assumptions 

- Add or Remove Activity from Baseline? Add

- Activity Location

County: Spokane

Regulatory Area(s): NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

- Activity Title: Heating

- Activity Description:

 

- Activity Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Year: 2019

- Activity End Date

Indefinite: Yes

End Month: N/A

End Year: N/A

- Activity Emissions:

Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs) Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs)

VOC 0.013703 PM 2.5 0.018936

SOx 0.001495 Pb 0.000000

NOx 0.249154 NH3 0.000000

CO 0.209290 CO2e 300.0

PM 10 0.018936

5.2 Heating Assumptions 

- Heating

Heating Calculation Type: Heat Energy Requirement Method

- Heat Energy Requirement Method

Area of floorspace to be heated (ft2

): 77400

Type of fuel: Natural Gas

Type of boiler/furnace: Industrial (10 - 250 MMBtu/hr)

Heat Value (MMBtu/ft3

): 0.00105

Energy Intensity (MMBtu/ft2

): 0.0676

- Default Settings Used: Yes

- Boiler/Furnace Usage

Operating Time Per Year (hours): 900 (default)

5.3 Heating Emission Factor(s) 

- Heating Emission Factors (lb/1000000 scf)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

5.5 0.6 100 84 7.6 7.6 120390
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

PROPOSED ACTION

B-25

5.4 Heating Formula(s) 

- Heating Fuel Consumption ft3 per Year

FCHER= HA * EI / HV / 1000000

FCHER: Fuel Consumption for Heat Energy Requirement Method

HA: Area of floorspace to be heated (ft2

) 

EI: Energy Intensity Requirement (MMBtu/ft2

) 

HV: Heat Value (MMBTU/ft3

) 

1000000: Conversion Factor

- Heating Emissions per Year

HEPOL= FC * EFPOL / 2000

HEPOL: Heating Emission Emissions (TONs)

FC: Fuel Consumption

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons
AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

RECORD OF AIR ANALYSIS (ROAA) – MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-26

1. General Information: The Air Force’s Air Conformity Applicability Model (ACAM) was used to perform 

an analysis to assess the potential air quality impact/s associated with the action in accordance with the Air Force 

Instruction 32-7040, Air Quality Compliance And Resource Management; the Environmental Impact Analysis 

Process (EIAP, 32 CFR 989); and the General Conformity Rule (GCR, 40 CFR 93 Subpart B). This report provides 

a summary of the ACAM analysis.

a. Action Location:

Base: MACDILL AFB

County(s): Hillsborough

Regulatory Area(s): NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

b. Action Title: MacDill AFB Alternative

c. Project Number/s (if applicable): Increased operations, construction/renovation, demolition

d. Projected Action Start Date: 1 / 2018

e. Action Description: See Section 2 of EA.

2. Air Impact Analysis: Based on the attainment status at the action location, the requirements of the General 

Conformity Rule are:

 applicable

 X not applicable

Total combined direct and indirect emissions associated with the action were estimated through ACAM on a 

calendar-year basis for the “worst-case” and “steady state” (net gain/loss upon action fully implemented) emissions.

“Air Quality Indicators” were used to provide an indication of the significance of potential impacts to air quality. 

These air quality indicators are EPA General Conformity Rule (GCR) thresholds (de minimis levels) that are applied 

out of context to their intended use. Therefore, these indicators do not trigger a regulatory requirement; however, 

they provide a warning that the action is potentially significant. It is important to note that these indicators only 

provide a clue to the potential impacts to air quality.

Given the GCR de minimis threshold values are the maximum net change an action can acceptably emit in nonattainment and maintenance areas, these threshold values would also conservatively indicate an actions emissions 

within an attainment would also be acceptable. An air quality indicator value of 100 tons/yr is used based on the 

GCR de minimis threshold for the least severe non-attainment classification for all criteria pollutants (see 40 CFR 

93.153). Therefore, the worst-case year emissions were compared against the GCR Indicator and are summarized 

below.
AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

RECORD OF AIR ANALYSIS (ROAA) – MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-27

Analysis Summary:

Construction and Demolition Year

Pollutant Action Emissions (ton/yr) AIR QUALITY INDICATOR

Threshold (ton/yr) Exceedance (Yes or No)

NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

VOC 39.300 100 No

NOx 10.889 100 No

CO 7.890 100 No

SOx 0.021 100 No

PM 10 57.602 100 No

PM 2.5 0.491 100 No

Pb 0.000 100 No

NH3 0.014 100 No

CO2e 2124.4

Operational Years

Pollutant Action Emissions (ton/yr) AIR QUALITY INDICATOR

Threshold (ton/yr) Exceedance (Yes or No)

NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

VOC 13.754 100 No

NOx 255.634 100 Yes

CO 164.471 100 Yes

SOx 17.867 100 No

PM 10 2.498 100 No

PM 2.5 2.360 100 No

Pb 0.000 100 No

NH3 0.085 100 No

CO2e 55341.5

Some estimated emissions associated with this action are above the GCR indicators, indicating a significant 

impact to air quality; therefore, further air assessment was provided in the air quality analysis of the EA.

___________________________________________________________ June 27, 2018 

Timothy Lavallee, P.E. DATE

Contractor (LPES, Inc.) 

Author of Air Quality Section 
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-28

1. General Information 

- Action Location

Base: MACDILL AFB

County(s): Hillsborough

Regulatory Area(s): NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

- Action Title: MacDill AFB Alternative

- Project Number/s (if applicable): Increased operations, construction/renovation, demolition

- Projected Action Start Date: 1 / 2018

- Action Purpose and Need:

KC-135R Beddown with 2 Alternatives

Fairchild AFB

MacDill AFB

- Action Description: See Section 2 of the EA.

- Point of Contact

Name: - 

Title: - 

Organization: - 

Email: - 

Phone Number: - 

- Activity List:

Activity Type Activity Title

2. Aircraft 12 Additional KC-135

3. Construction / Demolition Construction and Demolition

4. Personnel Additional Personnel

5. Heating Heating

2. Aircraft 

2.1 General Information & Timeline Assumptions 

- Add or Remove Activity from Baseline? Add

- Activity Location

County: Hillsborough

Regulatory Area(s): NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

- Activity Title: 12 Additional KC-135

- Activity Description:

 

- Activity Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Year: 2019
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-29

- Activity End Date

Indefinite: Yes

End Month: N/A

End Year: N/A

- Activity Emissions:

Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs) Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs)

VOC 12.387644 PM 2.5 2.292784

SOx 17.854868 Pb 0.000000

NOx 253.894629 NH3 0.000000

CO 148.718644 CO2e 53460.1

PM 10 2.427188

- Activity Emissions [Flight Operations (includes Trim Test & APU) part]:

Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs) Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs)

VOC 8.261481 PM 2.5 0.847858

SOx 16.794301 Pb 0.000000

NOx 177.770193 NH3 0.000000

CO 136.266636 CO2e 51238.5

PM 10 0.936961

- Activity Emissions [Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) part]:

Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs) Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs)

VOC 4.126163 PM 2.5 1.444925

SOx 1.060567 Pb 0.000000

NOx 76.124435 NH3 0.000000

CO 12.452008 CO2e 2221.6

PM 10 1.490227

2.2 Aircraft & Engines 

2.2.1 Aircraft & Engines Assumptions

- Aircraft & Engine

Aircraft Designation: KC-135R

Engine Model: CFM56-2B-1 

Primary Function: Transport - Bomber

Number of Engines: 4 

- Aircraft & Engine Surrogate

Is Aircraft & Engine a Surrogate? No

Original Aircraft Name:

Original Engine Name:

2.2.2 Aircraft & Engines Emission Factor(s)

- Aircraft & Engine Emissions Factors (lb/1000lb fuel)

Fuel Flow VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CO2e

Idle 1015.88 2.11 1.06 4.00 30.70 0.07 0.06 3234

Approach 2468.27 0.09 1.06 8.20 4.20 0.06 0.05 3234

Intermediate 6500.04 0.06 1.06 16.00 0.90 0.05 0.05 3234

Military 7817.51 0.05 1.06 18.50 0.90 0.07 0.06 3234

After Burn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3234
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-30

2.3 Flight Operations

2.3.1 Flight Operations Assumptions 

- Flight Operations

Number of Aircraft: 12

Number of Annual LTOs (Landing and Take-off) cycles for all Aircraft: 2105

Number of Annual TGOs (Touch-and-Go) cycles for all Aircraft: 8580

Number of Annual Trim Test(s) per Aircraft: 24

- Default Settings Used: Yes

- Flight Operations TIMs (Time In Mode)

Taxi/Idle Out (mins): 32.8 (default)

Takeoff (mins): 0.7 (default)

Climb Out (mins): 1.6 (default)

Approach (mins): 5.2 (default)

Taxi/Idle In (mins): 14.9 (default)

- Trim Test

Idle (mins): 12 (default)

Approach (mins): 27 (default)

Intermediate (mins): 9 (default)

Military (mins): 12 (default)

AfterBurn (mins): 0 (default)

2.3.2 Flight Operations Formula(s)

- Aircraft Emissions per Mode for LTOs per Year

AEMPOL = (TIM / 60) * (FC / 1000) * EF * NE * LTO / 2000

AEMPOL: Aircraft Emissions per Pollutant & Mode (TONs)

TIM: Time in Mode (min)

60: Conversion Factor minutes to hours

FC: Fuel Flow Rate (lb/hr)

1000: Conversion Factor pounds to 1000pounds

EF: Emission Factor (lb/1000lb fuel)

NE: Number of Engines

LTO: Number of Landing and Take-off Cycles (for all aircraft)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to TONs

- Aircraft Emissions for LTOs per Year

AELTO = AEMIDLE_IN + AEMIDLE_OUT + AEMAPPROACH + AEMCLIMBOUT + AEMTAKEOFF

AELTO: Aircraft Emissions (TONs)

AEMIDLE_IN: Aircraft Emissions for Idle-In Mode (TONs)

AEMIDLE_OUT: Aircraft Emissions for Idle-Out Mode (TONs)

AEMAPPROACH: Aircraft Emissions for Approach Mode (TONs)

AEMCLIMBOUT: Aircraft Emissions for Climb-Out Mode (TONs)

AEMTAKEOFF: Aircraft Emissions for Take-Off Mode (TONs)

- Aircraft Emissions per Mode for TGOs per Year

AEMPOL = (TIM / 60) * (FC / 1000) * EF * NE * TGO / 2000

AEMPOL: Aircraft Emissions per Pollutant & Mode (TONs)

TIM: Time in Mode (min)
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-31

60: Conversion Factor minutes to hours

FC: Fuel Flow Rate (lb/hr)

1000: Conversion Factor pounds to 1000pounds

EF: Emission Factor (lb/1000lb fuel)

NE: Number of Engines

TGO: Number of Touch-and-Go Cycles (for all aircraft)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to TONs

- Aircraft Emissions for TGOs per Year

AETGO = AEMAPPROACH + AEMCLIMBOUT + AEMTAKEOFF

AETGO: Aircraft Emissions (TONs)

AEMAPPROACH: Aircraft Emissions for Approach Mode (TONs)

AEMCLIMBOUT: Aircraft Emissions for Climb-Out Mode (TONs)

AEMTAKEOFF: Aircraft Emissions for Take-Off Mode (TONs)

- Aircraft Emissions per Mode for Trim per Year

AEPSPOL = (TD / 60) * (FC / 1000) * EF * NE * NA * NTT / 2000

AEPSPOL: Aircraft Emissions per Pollutant & Power Setting (TONs)

TD: Test Duration (min)

60: Conversion Factor minutes to hours

FC: Fuel Flow Rate (lb/hr)

1000: Conversion Factor pounds to 1000pounds

EF: Emission Factor (lb/1000lb fuel)

NE: Number of Engines

NA: Number of Aircraft

NTT: Number of Trim Test

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to TONs

- Aircraft Emissions for Trim per Year

AETRIM = AEPSIDLE + AEPSAPPROACH + AEPSINTERMEDIATE + AEPSMILITARY + AEPSAFTERBURN

AETRIM: Aircraft Emissions (TONs)

AEPSIDLE: Aircraft Emissions for Idle Power Setting (TONs)

AEPSAPPROACH: Aircraft Emissions for Approach Power Setting (TONs)

AEPSINTERMEDIATE: Aircraft Emissions for Intermediate Power Setting (TONs)

AEPSMILITARY: Aircraft Emissions for Military Power Setting (TONs)

AEPSAFTERBURN: Aircraft Emissions for After Burner Power Setting (TONs)

2.4 Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) 

2.4.1 Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Assumptions 

- Default Settings Used: Yes

- Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) (default)

Number of APU 

per Aircraft

Operation Hours 

for Each LTO

Exempt 

Source?

Designation Manufacturer

2.4.2 Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Emission Factor(s) 

- Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Emission Factor (lb/hr)

Designation Fuel Flow VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CO2e
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-32

2.4.3 Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Formula(s)

- Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Emissions per Year

APUPOL = APU * OH * LTO * EFPOL / 2000

APUPOL: Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Emissions per Pollutant (TONs)

APU: Number of Auxiliary Power Units

OH: Operation Hours for Each LTO (hour)

LTO: Number of LTOs

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (lb/hr)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

2.5 Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE)

2.5.1 Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Assumptions

- Default Settings Used: Yes

- AGE Usage

Number of Annual LTO (Landing and Take-off) cycles for AGE: 2105

- Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) (default)

Total Number of 

AGE

Operation Hours 

for Each LTO

Exempt 

Source?

AGE Type Designation

1 0.33 No Air Compressor MC-1A - 18.4hp

1 2 No Air Conditioner MA-3C

1 10 No Generator Set A/M32A-86D

1 5 No Heater H1

1 2 No Light Cart NF-2

1 1 No Start Cart A/M32A-60A

2.5.2 Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Emission Factor(s)

- Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Emission Factor (lb/hr)

Designation Fuel Flow VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CO2e

MC-1A - 18.4hp 1.1 0.267 0.008 0.419 0.267 0.071 0.068 24.8

MA-3C 7.1 0.053 0.050 4.167 0.317 0.109 0.105 161.7

A/M32A-86D 6.5 0.294 0.046 6.102 0.457 0.091 0.089 147.0

H1 0.4 0.100 0.011 0.160 0.180 0.006 0.006 8.9

NF-2 0.0 0.010 0.043 0.110 0.080 0.010 0.010 22.1

A/M32A-60A 0.0 0.270 0.306 1.820 5.480 0.211 0.205 221.1

2.5.3 Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Formula(s) 

- Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Emissions per Year

AGEPOL = AGE * OH * LTO * EFPOL / 2000

AGEPOL: Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Emissions per Pollutant (TONs)

AGE: Total Number of Aerospace Ground Equipment

OH: Operation Hours for Each LTO (hour)

LTO: Number of LTOs

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (lb/hr)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-33

3. Construction / Demolition 

3.1 General Information & Timeline Assumptions 

- Activity Location

County: Hillsborough

Regulatory Area(s): NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

- Activity Title: Construction and Demolition

- Activity Description:

Construction and Demolition

- Activity Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Month: 2018

- Activity End Date

Indefinite: False

End Month: 12

End Month: 2018

- Activity Emissions:

Pollutant Total Emissions (TONs) Pollutant Total Emissions (TONs)

VOC 39.299656 PM 2.5 0.491332

SOx 0.020790 Pb 0.000000

NOx 10.888691 NH3 0.014286

CO 7.889520 CO2e 2124.4

PM 10 57.601511

3.1 Demolition Phase 

3.1.1 Demolition Phase Timeline Assumptions 

- Phase Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Quarter: 1

Start Year: 2018

- Phase Duration

Number of Month: 12

Number of Days: 0

3.1.2 Demolition Phase Assumptions 

- General Demolition Information

Area of Building to be demolished (ft2

): 48500

Height of Building to be demolished (ft): 12.67

- Default Settings Used: Yes

- Average Day(s) worked per week: 5 (default)
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-34

- Construction Exhaust (default)

Equipment Name Number Of 

Equipment

Hours Per Day

Concrete/Industrial Saws Composite 1 8

Rubber Tired Dozers Composite 1 1

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite 2 6

- Vehicle Exhaust

Average Hauling Truck Capacity (yd3

): 20 (default)

Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 0 0 0 0 0 100.00 0

- Worker Trips

Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Worker Trips Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 50.00 50.00 0 0 0 0 0

3.1.3 Demolition Phase Emission Factor(s) 

- Construction Exhaust Emission Factors (lb/hour) (default)

Concrete/Industrial Saws Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0604 0.0006 0.3958 0.3850 0.0260 0.0260 0.0054 58.600

Rubber Tired Dozers Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.2343 0.0024 1.8193 0.8818 0.0737 0.0737 0.0211 239.61

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0512 0.0007 0.3330 0.3646 0.0189 0.0189 0.0046 66.912

- Vehicle Exhaust & Worker Trips Emission Factors (grams/mile)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

LDGV 000.339 000.002 000.292 003.662 000.010 000.008 000.025 00338.542

LDGT 000.436 000.003 000.505 005.311 000.012 000.011 000.027 00438.929

HDGV 000.855 000.005 001.379 018.249 000.029 000.025 000.045 00768.870

LDDV 000.134 000.003 000.151 002.379 000.004 000.004 000.008 00329.716

LDDT 000.336 000.004 000.495 004.740 000.007 000.007 000.008 00480.968

HDDV 000.589 000.013 006.184 002.023 000.223 000.205 000.029 01505.080

MC 002.361 000.003 000.826 013.943 000.029 000.026 000.053 00399.517

3.1.4 Demolition Phase Formula(s)

- Fugitive Dust Emissions per Phase

PM10FD = (0.00042 * BA * BH) / 2000

PM10FD: Fugitive Dust PM 10 Emissions (TONs)

0.00042: Emission Factor (lb/ft3

) 

BA: Area of Building to be demolished (ft2

) 

BH: Height of Building to be demolished (ft)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-35

- Construction Exhaust Emissions per Phase

CEEPOL = (NE * WD * H * EFPOL) / 2000

CEEPOL: Construction Exhaust Emissions (TONs)

NE: Number of Equipment

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

H: Hours Worked per Day (hours)

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (lb/hour)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Vehicle Exhaust Emissions per Phase

VMTVE = BA * BH * (1 / 27) * 0.25 * (1 / HC) * HT

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

BA: Area of Building being demolish (ft2

) 

BH: Height of Building being demolish (ft)

(1 / 27): Conversion Factor cubic feet to cubic yards ( 1 yd3 / 27 ft3

) 

0.25: Volume reduction factor (material reduced by 75% to account for air space)

HC: Average Hauling Truck Capacity (yd3

) 

(1 / HC): Conversion Factor cubic yards to trips (1 trip / HC yd3

) 

HT: Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile/trip)

VPOL = (VMTVE * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Vehicle Exhaust On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Worker Trips Emissions per Phase

VMTWT = WD * WT * 1.25 * NE

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

WT: Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile)

1.25: Conversion Factor Number of Construction Equipment to Number of Works

NE: Number of Construction Equipment

VPOL = (VMTWT * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

3.2 Site Grading Phase 

3.2.1 Site Grading Phase Timeline Assumptions 

- Phase Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Quarter: 1
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-36

Start Year: 2018

- Phase Duration

Number of Month: 3

Number of Days: 0

3.2.2 Site Grading Phase Assumptions 

- General Site Grading Information

Area of Site to be Graded (ft2

): 1907800

Amount of Material to be Hauled On-Site (yd3

): 0

Amount of Material to be Hauled Off-Site (yd3

): 0

- Site Grading Default Settings

Default Settings Used: Yes

Average Day(s) worked per week: 5 (default)

- Construction Exhaust (default)

Equipment Name Number Of 

Equipment

Hours Per Day

Graders Composite 2 8

Other Construction Equipment Composite 2 8

Rubber Tired Dozers Composite 2 8

Scrapers Composite 4 8

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite 2 8

- Vehicle Exhaust

Average Hauling Truck Capacity (yd3

): 20 (default)

Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 0 0 0 0 0 100.00 0

- Worker Trips

Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Worker Trips Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 50.00 50.00 0 0 0 0 0

3.2.3 Site Grading Phase Emission Factor(s)

- Construction Exhaust Emission Factors (lb/hour) (default)

Graders Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.1049 0.0014 0.7217 0.5812 0.0354 0.0354 0.0094 132.97

Other Construction Equipment Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0633 0.0012 0.4477 0.3542 0.0181 0.0181 0.0057 122.66

Rubber Tired Dozers Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.2343 0.0024 1.8193 0.8818 0.0737 0.0737 0.0211 239.61

Scrapers Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.2135 0.0026 1.6041 0.8417 0.0653 0.0653 0.0192 262.96
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-37

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0512 0.0007 0.3330 0.3646 0.0189 0.0189 0.0046 66.912

- Vehicle Exhaust & Worker Trips Emission Factors (grams/mile)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

LDGV 000.339 000.002 000.292 003.662 000.010 000.008 000.025 00338.542

LDGT 000.436 000.003 000.505 005.311 000.012 000.011 000.027 00438.929

HDGV 000.855 000.005 001.379 018.249 000.029 000.025 000.045 00768.870

LDDV 000.134 000.003 000.151 002.379 000.004 000.004 000.008 00329.716

LDDT 000.336 000.004 000.495 004.740 000.007 000.007 000.008 00480.968

HDDV 000.589 000.013 006.184 002.023 000.223 000.205 000.029 01505.080

MC 002.361 000.003 000.826 013.943 000.029 000.026 000.053 00399.517

3.2.4 Site Grading Phase Formula(s) 

- Fugitive Dust Emissions per Phase

PM10FD = (20 * ACRE * WD) / 2000

PM10FD: Fugitive Dust PM 10 Emissions (TONs)

20: Conversion Factor Acre Day to pounds (20 lb / 1 Acre Day)

ACRE: Total acres (acres)

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Construction Exhaust Emissions per Phase

CEEPOL = (NE * WD * H * EFPOL) / 2000

 CEEPOL: Construction Exhaust Emissions (TONs)

NE: Number of Equipment

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

H: Hours Worked per Day (hours)

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (lb/hour)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Vehicle Exhaust Emissions per Phase

VMTVE = (HAOnSite + HAOffSite) * (1 / HC) * HT

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

HAOnSite: Amount of Material to be Hauled On-Site (yd3

) 

HAOffSite: Amount of Material to be Hauled Off-Site (yd3

) 

HC: Average Hauling Truck Capacity (yd3

) 

(1 / HC): Conversion Factor cubic yards to trips (1 trip / HC yd3

) 

HT: Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile/trip)

VPOL = (VMTVE * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Vehicle Exhaust On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Worker Trips Emissions per Phase

VMTWT = WD * WT * 1.25 * NE
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-38

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

WT: Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile)

1.25: Conversion Factor Number of Construction Equipment to Number of Works

NE: Number of Construction Equipment

VPOL = (VMTWT * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

3.3 Trenching/Excavating Phase 

3.3.1 Trenching / Excavating Phase Timeline Assumptions 

- Phase Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Quarter: 1

Start Year: 2018

- Phase Duration

Number of Month: 3

Number of Days: 0

3.3.2 Trenching / Excavating Phase Assumptions 

- General Trenching/Excavating Information

Area of Site to be Trenched/Excavated (ft2

): 1276

Amount of Material to be Hauled On-Site (yd3

): 0

Amount of Material to be Hauled Off-Site (yd3

): 0

- Trenching Default Settings

Default Settings Used: Yes

Average Day(s) worked per week: 5 (default)

- Construction Exhaust (default)

Equipment Name Number Of 

Equipment

Hours Per Day

Excavators Composite 2 8

Other General Industrial Equipmen Composite 1 8

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite 1 8

- Vehicle Exhaust

Average Hauling Truck Capacity (yd3

): 20 (default)

Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 0 0 0 0 0 100.00 0
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-39

- Worker Trips

Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Worker Trips Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 50.00 50.00 0 0 0 0 0

3.3.3 Trenching / Excavating Phase Emission Factor(s) 

- Construction Exhaust Emission Factors (lb/hour) (default)

Graders Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.1049 0.0014 0.7217 0.5812 0.0354 0.0354 0.0094 132.97

Other Construction Equipment Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0633 0.0012 0.4477 0.3542 0.0181 0.0181 0.0057 122.66

Rubber Tired Dozers Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.2343 0.0024 1.8193 0.8818 0.0737 0.0737 0.0211 239.61

Scrapers Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.2135 0.0026 1.6041 0.8417 0.0653 0.0653 0.0192 262.96

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0512 0.0007 0.3330 0.3646 0.0189 0.0189 0.0046 66.912

- Vehicle Exhaust & Worker Trips Emission Factors (grams/mile)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

LDGV 000.339 000.002 000.292 003.662 000.010 000.008 000.025 00338.542

LDGT 000.436 000.003 000.505 005.311 000.012 000.011 000.027 00438.929

HDGV 000.855 000.005 001.379 018.249 000.029 000.025 000.045 00768.870

LDDV 000.134 000.003 000.151 002.379 000.004 000.004 000.008 00329.716

LDDT 000.336 000.004 000.495 004.740 000.007 000.007 000.008 00480.968

HDDV 000.589 000.013 006.184 002.023 000.223 000.205 000.029 01505.080

MC 002.361 000.003 000.826 013.943 000.029 000.026 000.053 00399.517

3.3.4 Trenching / Excavating Phase Formula(s)

- Fugitive Dust Emissions per Phase

PM10FD = (20 * ACRE * WD) / 2000

PM10FD: Fugitive Dust PM 10 Emissions (TONs)

20: Conversion Factor Acre Day to pounds (20 lb / 1 Acre Day)

ACRE: Total acres (acres)

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Construction Exhaust Emissions per Phase

CEEPOL = (NE * WD * H * EFPOL) / 2000

CEEPOL: Construction Exhaust Emissions (TONs)

NE: Number of Equipment

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

H: Hours Worked per Day (hours)

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (lb/hour)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-40

- Vehicle Exhaust Emissions per Phase

VMTVE = (HAOnSite + HAOffSite) * (1 / HC) * HT

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

HAOnSite: Amount of Material to be Hauled On-Site (yd3

) 

HAOffSite: Amount of Material to be Hauled Off-Site (yd3

) 

HC: Average Hauling Truck Capacity (yd3

) 

(1 / HC): Conversion Factor cubic yards to trips (1 trip / HC yd3

) 

HT: Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile/trip)

VPOL = (VMTVE * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Vehicle Exhaust On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Worker Trips Emissions per Phase

VMTWT = WD * WT * 1.25 * NE

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

WT: Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile)

1.25: Conversion Factor Number of Construction Equipment to Number of Works

NE: Number of Construction Equipment

VPOL = (VMTWT * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVE: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

3.4 Building Construction Phase 

3.4.1 Building Construction Phase Timeline Assumptions

- Phase Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Quarter: 1

Start Year: 2018

- Phase Duration

Number of Month: 12

Number of Days: 0

3.4.2 Building Construction Phase Assumptions

- General Building Construction Information

Building Category: Office or Industrial

Area of Building (ft2

): 1628940
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-41

Height of Building (ft): 12.67

Number of Units: N/A

- Building Construction Default Settings

Default Settings Used: Yes

Average Day(s) worked per week: 5 (default)

- Construction Exhaust (default)

Equipment Name Number Of 

Equipment

Hours Per Day

Cranes Composite 1 7

Forklifts Composite 3 8

Generator Sets Composite 1 8

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite 3 7

Welders Composite 1 8

- Vehicle Exhaust

Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 0 0 0 0 0 100.00 0

- Worker Trips

Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Worker Trips Vehicle Mixture (%) 

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 50.00 50.00 0 0 0 0 0

- Vendor Trips

Average Vendor Round Trip Commute (mile): 40 (default)

- Vendor Trips Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 0 0 0 0 0 100.00 0

3.4.3 Building Construction Phase Emission Factor(s)

- Construction Exhaust Emission Factors (lb/hour) (default)

Cranes Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.1012 0.0013 0.7908 0.4059 0.0318 0.0318 0.0091 128.85

Forklifts Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0371 0.0006 0.2186 0.2173 0.0101 0.0101 0.0033 54.479

Generator Sets Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0477 0.0006 0.3758 0.2785 0.0191 0.0191 0.0043 61.100

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0512 0.0007 0.3330 0.3646 0.0189 0.0189 0.0046 66.912

Welders Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0387 0.0003 0.1940 0.1876 0.0133 0.0133 0.0034 25.690
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-42

- Vehicle Exhaust & Worker Trips Emission Factors (grams/mile)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

LDGV 000.339 000.002 000.292 003.662 000.010 000.008 000.025 00338.542

LDGT 000.436 000.003 000.505 005.311 000.012 000.011 000.027 00438.929

HDGV 000.855 000.005 001.379 018.249 000.029 000.025 000.045 00768.870

LDDV 000.134 000.003 000.151 002.379 000.004 000.004 000.008 00329.716

LDDT 000.336 000.004 000.495 004.740 000.007 000.007 000.008 00480.968

HDDV 000.589 000.013 006.184 002.023 000.223 000.205 000.029 01505.080

MC 002.361 000.003 000.826 013.943 000.029 000.026 000.053 00399.517

3.4.4 Building Construction Phase Formula(s) 

- Construction Exhaust Emissions per Phase

CEEPOL = (NE * WD * H * EFPOL) / 2000

CEEPOL: Construction Exhaust Emissions (TONs)

NE: Number of Equipment

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

H: Hours Worked per Day (hours)

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (lb/hour)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Vehicle Exhaust Emissions per Phase

VMTVE = BA * BH * (0.42 / 1000) * HT

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

BA: Area of Building (ft2

) 

BH: Height of Building (ft)

(0.42 / 1000): Conversion Factor ft3 to trips (0.42 trip / 1000 ft3

) 

HT: Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile/trip)

VPOL = (VMTVE * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Worker Trips Emissions per Phase

VMTWT = WD * WT * 1.25 * NE

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

WT: Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile)

1.25: Conversion Factor Number of Construction Equipment to Number of Works

NE: Number of Construction Equipment

VPOL = (VMTWT * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-43

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Vender Trips Emissions per Phase

VMTVT = BA * BH * (0.38 / 1000) * HT

VMTVT: Vender Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

BA: Area of Building (ft2

) 

BH: Height of Building (ft)

(0.38 / 1000): Conversion Factor ft3 to trips (0.38 trip / 1000 ft3

) 

HT: Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile/trip)

VPOL = (VMTVT * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVT: Vender Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

3.5 Architectural Coatings Phase 

3.5.1 Architectural Coatings Phase Timeline Assumptions

- Phase Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Quarter: 1

Start Year: 2018

- Phase Duration

Number of Month: 3

Number of Days: 0

3.5.2 Architectural Coatings Phase Assumptions 

- General Architectural Coatings Information

Building Category: 

Total Square Footage (ft2

): 3257880

Number of Units: N/A

- Architectural Coatings Default Settings

Default Settings Used: Yes

Average Day(s) worked per week: 5 (default)

- Worker Trips

Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Worker Trips Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 50.00 50.00 0 0 0 0 0
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-44

3.5.3 Architectural Coatings Phase Emission Factor(s) 

- Worker Trips Emission Factors (grams/mile)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

LDGV 000.339 000.002 000.292 003.662 000.010 000.008 000.025 00338.542

LDGT 000.436 000.003 000.505 005.311 000.012 000.011 000.027 00438.929

HDGV 000.855 000.005 001.379 018.249 000.029 000.025 000.045 00768.870

LDDV 000.134 000.003 000.151 002.379 000.004 000.004 000.008 00329.716

LDDT 000.336 000.004 000.495 004.740 000.007 000.007 000.008 00480.968

HDDV 000.589 000.013 006.184 002.023 000.223 000.205 000.029 01505.080

MC 002.361 000.003 000.826 013.943 000.029 000.026 000.053 00399.517

3.5.4 Architectural Coatings Phase Formula(s) 

- Worker Trips Emissions per Phase

VMTWT = (1 * WT * PA) / 800

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

1: Conversion Factor man days to trips ( 1 trip / 1 man * day)

WT: Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile)

PA: Paint Area (ft2

) 

800: Conversion Factor square feet to man days ( 1 ft2 / 1 man * day)

VPOL = (VMTWT * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Off-Gassing Emissions per Phase

VOCAC = (AB * 2.0 * 0.0116) / 2000.0

VOCAC: Architectural Coating VOC Emissions (TONs)

BA: Area of Building (ft2

) 

2.0: Conversion Factor total area to coated area (2.0 ft2 coated area / total area)

0.0116: Emission Factor (lb/ft2

) 

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

3.6 Paving Phase

3.6.1 Paving Phase Timeline Assumptions 

- Phase Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Quarter: 1

Start Year: 2018

- Phase Duration

Number of Month: 3

Number of Days: 0

3.6.2 Paving Phase Assumptions
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-45

- General Paving Information

Paving Area (ft2

): 22000

- Paving Default Settings

Default Settings Used: Yes

Average Day(s) worked per week: 5 (default)

- Construction Exhaust (default)

Equipment Name Number Of 

Equipment

Hours Per Day

Cement and Mortar Mixers Composite 4 6

Pavers Composite 1 7

Paving Equipment Composite 1 8

Rollers Composite 1 7

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite 1 7

- Vehicle Exhaust

Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 0 0 0 0 0 100.00 0

- Worker Trips

Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Worker Trips Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 50.00 50.00 0 0 0 0 0

3.6.3 Paving Phase Emission Factor(s)

- Construction Exhaust Emission Factors (lb/hour) (default)

Graders Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.1049 0.0014 0.7217 0.5812 0.0354 0.0354 0.0094 132.97

Other Construction Equipment Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0633 0.0012 0.4477 0.3542 0.0181 0.0181 0.0057 122.66

Rubber Tired Dozers Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.2343 0.0024 1.8193 0.8818 0.0737 0.0737 0.0211 239.61

Scrapers Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.2135 0.0026 1.6041 0.8417 0.0653 0.0653 0.0192 262.96

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Composite

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 CH4 CO2e

Emission Factors 0.0512 0.0007 0.3330 0.3646 0.0189 0.0189 0.0046 66.912
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-46

- Vehicle Exhaust & Worker Trips Emission Factors (grams/mile)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

LDGV 000.339 000.002 000.292 003.662 000.010 000.008 000.025 00338.542

LDGT 000.436 000.003 000.505 005.311 000.012 000.011 000.027 00438.929

HDGV 000.855 000.005 001.379 018.249 000.029 000.025 000.045 00768.870

LDDV 000.134 000.003 000.151 002.379 000.004 000.004 000.008 00329.716

LDDT 000.336 000.004 000.495 004.740 000.007 000.007 000.008 00480.968

HDDV 000.589 000.013 006.184 002.023 000.223 000.205 000.029 01505.080

MC 002.361 000.003 000.826 013.943 000.029 000.026 000.053 00399.517

3.6.4 Paving Phase Formula(s)

- Construction Exhaust Emissions per Phase

CEEPOL = (NE * WD * H * EFPOL) / 2000

CEEPOL: Construction Exhaust Emissions (TONs)

NE: Number of Equipment

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

H: Hours Worked per Day (hours)

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (lb/hour)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Vehicle Exhaust Emissions per Phase

VMTVE = PA * 0.25 * (1 / 27) * (1 / HC) * HT

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

PA: Paving Area (ft2

) 

0.25: Thickness of Paving Area (ft)

(1 / 27): Conversion Factor cubic feet to cubic yards ( 1 yd3 / 27 ft3

) 

HC: Average Hauling Truck Capacity (yd3

) 

(1 / HC): Conversion Factor cubic yards to trips (1 trip / HC yd3

) 

HT: Average Hauling Truck Round Trip Commute (mile/trip)

VPOL = (VMTVE * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVE: Vehicle Exhaust Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Vehicle Exhaust On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Worker Trips Emissions per Phase

VMTWT = WD * WT * 1.25 * NE

VMTWT: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

WD: Number of Total Work Days (days)

WT: Average Worker Round Trip Commute (mile)

1.25: Conversion Factor Number of Construction Equipment to Number of Works

NE: Number of Construction Equipment

VPOL = (VMTWT * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTVE: Worker Trips Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-47

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Worker Trips On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

- Off-Gassing Emissions per Phase

VOCP = (2.62 * PA) / 43560

VOCP: Paving VOC Emissions (TONs)

2.62: Emission Factor (lb/acre)

PA: Paving Area (ft2

) 

43560: Conversion Factor square feet to acre (43560 ft2 / acre)2 / acre)

4. Personnel 

4.1 General Information & Timeline Assumptions 

- Add or Remove Activity from Baseline? Add

- Activity Location

County: Hillsborough

Regulatory Area(s): NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

- Activity Title: Additional Personnel

- Activity Description:

 

- Activity Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Year: 2019

- Activity End Date

Indefinite: Yes

End Month: N/A

End Year: N/A

- Activity Emissions:

Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs) Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs)

VOC 1.340892 PM 2.5 0.032386

SOx 0.008929 Pb 0.000000

NOx 1.276221 NH3 0.085455

CO 15.363975 CO2e 1324.4

PM 10 0.035972

4.2 Personnel Assumptions

- Number of Personnel

Active Duty Personnel: 395

Civilian Personnel: 198

Support Contractor Personnel: 0

Air National Guard (ANG) Personnel: 0

Reserve Personnel: 0

- Default Settings Used: Yes
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-48

- Average Personnel Round Trip Commute (mile): 20 (default)

- Personnel Work Schedule

Active Duty Personnel: 5 Days Per Week (default)

Civilian Personnel: 5 Days Per Week (default)

Support Contractor Personnel: 5 Days Per Week (default)

Air National Guard (ANG) Personnel: 4 Days Per Week (default)

Reserve Personnel: 4 Days Per Month (default)

4.3 Personnel On Road Vehicle Mixture

- On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)

LDGV LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC

POVs 37.55 60.32 0 0.03 0.2 0 1.9

GOVs 54.49 37.73 4.67 0 0 3.11 0

4.4 Personnel Emission Factor(s)

- On Road Vehicle Emission Factors (grams/mile)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

LDGV 000.305 000.002 000.252 003.454 000.009 000.008 000.024 00329.670

LDGT 000.389 000.003 000.438 004.893 000.011 000.010 000.025 00426.333

HDGV 000.775 000.005 001.216 016.893 000.027 000.023 000.045 00765.945

LDDV 000.127 000.003 000.140 002.378 000.004 000.004 000.008 00319.522

LDDT 000.298 000.004 000.435 004.410 000.007 000.007 000.008 00459.913

HDDV 000.541 000.013 005.618 001.874 000.194 000.179 000.028 01491.701

MC 002.348 000.003 000.824 013.752 000.029 000.025 000.054 00399.619

4.5 Personnel Formula(s)

- Personnel Vehicle Miles Travel for Work Days per Year

VMTP = NP * WD * AC

VMTP: Personnel Vehicle Miles Travel (miles/year)

NP: Number of Personnel

WD: Work Days per Year

AC: Average Commute (miles)

- Total Vehicle Miles Travel per Year

VMTTotal = VMTAD + VMTC + VMTSC + VMTANG + VMTAFRC

VMTTotal: Total Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

VMTAD: Active Duty Personnel Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

VMTC: Civilian Personnel Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

VMTSC: Support Contractor Personnel Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

VMTANG: Air National Guard Personnel Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

VMTAFRC: Reserve Personnel Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

- Vehicle Emissions per Year

VPOL = (VMTTotal * 0.002205 * EFPOL * VM) / 2000

 VPOL: Vehicle Emissions (TONs)

VMTTotal: Total Vehicle Miles Travel (miles)

0.002205: Conversion Factor grams to pounds

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant (grams/mile)

VM: Personnel On Road Vehicle Mixture (%)
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-49

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons

5. Heating 

5.1 General Information & Timeline Assumptions 

- Add or Remove Activity from Baseline? Add

- Activity Location

County: Hillsborough

Regulatory Area(s): NOT IN A REGULATORY AREA

- Activity Title: Heating

- Activity Description:

 

- Activity Start Date

Start Month: 1

Start Year: 2019

- Activity End Date

Indefinite: Yes

End Month: N/A

End Year: N/A

- Activity Emissions:

Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs) Pollutant Emissions Per Year (TONs)

VOC 0.025450 PM 2.5 0.035167

SOx 0.002776 Pb 0.000000

NOx 0.462726 NH3 0.000000

CO 0.388690 CO2e 557.1

PM 10 0.035167

5.2 Heating Assumptions 

- Heating

Heating Calculation Type: Heat Energy Requirement Method

- Heat Energy Requirement Method

Area of floorspace to be heated (ft2

): 117500

Type of fuel: Natural Gas

Type of boiler/furnace: Industrial (10 - 250 MMBtu/hr)

Heat Value (MMBtu/ft3

): 0.00105

Energy Intensity (MMBtu/ft2

): 0.0827

- Default Settings Used: Yes

- Boiler/Furnace Usage

Operating Time Per Year (hours): 900 (default)
DETAIL AIR CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY MODEL REPORT

MACDILL AFB ALTERNATIVE

B-50

5.3 Heating Emission Factor(s) 

- Heating Emission Factors (lb/1000000 scf)

VOC SOx NOx CO PM 10 PM 2.5 Pb NH3 CO2e

5.5 0.6 100 84 7.6 7.6 120390

5.4 Heating Formula(s) 

- Heating Fuel Consumption ft3 per Year

FCHER= HA * EI / HV / 1000000

FCHER: Fuel Consumption for Heat Energy Requirement Method

HA: Area of floorspace to be heated (ft2

) 

EI: Energy Intensity Requirement (MMBtu/ft2

) 

HV: Heat Value (MMBTU/ft3

) 

1000000: Conversion Factor

- Heating Emissions per Year

HEPOL= FC * EFPOL / 2000

HEPOL: Heating Emission Emissions (TONs)

FC: Fuel Consumption

EFPOL: Emission Factor for Pollutant

2000: Conversion Factor pounds to tons
C

Federal Coastal Zone 

Management Act 

Consistency Determination 

C-1

Introduction

This document provides the State of Florida with the U.S. Air Force’s (USAF’s) Federal 

Consistency Determination under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) § 307 and 15 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 930 Subpart C. The information in this Consistency

Determination is provided pursuant to 15 CFR 930.39 and § 307 of the CZMA, 16 United States 

Code § 1456, as amended, and its implementing regulations at 15 CFR § 930.

Proposed Federal Agency Action

This Federal Consistency Determination addresses the addition of 12 KC-135 Stratotanker 

(KC-135) aircraft to the existing fleet of KC-135s at MacDill Air Force Base (AFB). The addition 

of these aircraft to MacDill AFB would constitute activation of a new air refueling squadron and

would include an increase of KC-135 aircraft; associated personnel and dependents; operations 

and maintenance activities; and facility construction, demolition, and renovation. 

The MacDill AFB Alternative would add 12 KC-135s to the installation, resulting in a total of 36

KC-135s stationed at the installation. An approximate 1,035 USAF personnel and dependents 

would accompany the KC-135s, representing a 2.5 percent increase to MacDill AFB’s 

population. Annual operations by KC-135 aircraft would increase by 50 percent and would use 

existing airspace and training areas currently utilized by KC-135s. There would be a 

corresponding 50 percent increase in aircraft maintenance activities following the addition of the 

12 KC-135s. Facility construction, demolition, and renovation would be required to support 

operations and maintenance of the additional KC-135s and to provide parking, housing, and 

office space for associated personnel. One building would be demolished to create space for a 

new squadron operations facility. New construction would also include expansion of the parking 

lot associated with the squadron operations facility, a fitness center addition, a fuel cell hangar, 

and a warehouse facility. Interior renovations would occur at four facilities, and renovations in 

the form of pavement repair and upgrades to the fuel hydrant system would occur on the North 

Ramp. Overall, the MacDill AFB Alternative would disturb no more than 1,699,440 square feet; 

however, this area could be smaller because some construction and demolition projects overlap 

with one another and the proposed renovations to one hangar and the North Ramp would likely 

occur on a small fraction of the total area of these facilities. The MacDill AFB Alternative would 

increase the total amount of impervious surfaces on the installation by 104,500 square feet. 

The purpose of the MacDill AFB Alternative is to continue to provide Air Mobility Command

continental U.S. active duty locations with fully capable air refueling assets to accomplish air 

refueling and related missions. The MacDill AFB Alternative is needed because USAF must 

comply with the force adjustments enacted through the fiscal year 2017 National Defense 

Authorization Act to redistribute 12 KC-135s within the continental United States in fiscal year

2020. USAF needs a viable location to conduct the operations and maintenance activities 

associated with these 12 KC-135s. 

Federal Review

The Florida Statutes addressed as part of the Florida Coastal Management Program 

consistency review and considered in the analysis of the MacDill AFB Alternative are discussed 

in Table C-1. 
C-2

Based on the information and analysis provided in Table C-1, MacDill AFB finds that the MacDill 

AFB Alternative under which 12 KC-135 aircraft would be added to the existing fleet of KC-135s 

is consistent with the applicable enforceable policies and mechanisms of the Florida Coastal 

Management Program. 

Pursuant to 15 CFR 930.41, the Florida State Clearinghouse has 60 days from receipt of this 

document to concur with, or object to, this Consistency Determination, or to request an 

extension in writing under 15 CFR 930.41(b). Florida’s concurrence will be presumed if MacDill 

AFB does not receive its response by the 60th day from receipt of this determination.

Table C-1. Florida Coastal Management Program Federal Consistency Review

Statute Scope Consistency

Chapter 161, F.S. 

Beach and Shore 

Preservation

Authorizes the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection to 

regulate construction on or 

seaward of the state’s beaches.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would not impact

coastal areas, including beach and shore 

management, because there would be no 

construction or other activities occurring on or 

near beach areas. 

Chapter 163, F.S. 

Intergovernmental 

Programs: Growth 

Policy; County and 

Municipal Planning; 

Land Development 

Regulation

Requires local governments to 

prepare, adopt, and implement 

comprehensive plans that 

encourage the most appropriate 

use of land and natural resources 

in a manner that is consistent with 

the public interest.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would not impact

local government comprehensive plans. Local 

and regional agencies will be provided the 

opportunity to review the Draft Environmental 

Assessment (EA). 

Chapter 186, F.S. 

State and Regional 

Planning

Details state-level planning 

requirements. Requires the 

development of special statewide 

plans governing water use, land 

development, and transportation.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would not impact or 

interfere with the development of state plans for 

water use, land development, and transportation. 

State agencies will be provided the opportunity to 

review the Draft EA. 

Chapter 252, F.S. 

Emergency 

Management

Directs the state to reduce the 

vulnerability of its people and 

property to natural and manmade

disasters; prepare for, respond to, 

and reduce the impacts of 

disasters; and decrease the time 

and resources needed when 

responding to disasters.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would not have an 

adverse impact on the ability of the state to 

manage and respond to natural and manmade 

disasters. 

Chapter 253, F.S. 

State Lands

Provides the framework for 

conservation and protection of 

natural and cultural resources on 

state-owned lands.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would occur on 

federal property and use existing airspace; 

therefore, there would be no impact on stateowned lands.

Chapter 258, F.S. 

State Parks and 

Preserves

Addresses administration and 

management of state parks, 

preserves, and recreation areas.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would not impact 

state parks, preserves, or recreational areas.

Chapter 259, F.S. 

Land Acquisitions 

for Conservation or 

Recreation

Authorizes acquisition of 

environmentally endangered lands 

and outdoor recreation lands.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would not impact

publicly owned lands used for tourism or outdoor 

recreation.
C-3

Statute Scope Consistency

Chapter 260, F.S. 

Florida Greenways 

and Trails Act

Authorizes acquisition of land to 

create a recreational trails system

(Florida Greenways and Trails 

System) and to facilitate 

management of the system.

MacDill AFB’s existing noise contours and those 

anticipated after implementation of the MacDill 

AFB Alternative would overlap with existing 

walking trails within the Florida Greenways and 

Trails System as well as trail opportunities and 

priority corridors. Although Chapter 260 F.S. 

does not contain any enforceable policies for 

federal consistency purposes, the MacDill AFB 

Alternative would not include the acquisition of 

land or preclude the implementation, growth, and 

use of the Florida Greenways and Trails System

and would not impact the Greenways and Trails 

Program. 

Chapter 267, F.S. 

Historical 

Resources

Addresses management and 

preservation of the state’s 

archaeological and historical 

resources.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would impact 

historical resources from interior renovations to a 

facility that is individually eligible for National 

Register of Historic Places listing and is a 

contributing resource of the MacDill Field Historic 

District and from construction activities within the 

historic district. However, no adverse effects 

under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act would occur because such 

interior renovations have occurred periodically 

throughout the facility’s history and the proposed 

renovations would not adversely impact its

eligibility for National Register of Historic Places

listing. Additionally, proposed new facilities

would be designed to appear compatible with the 

MacDill Field Historic District’s historic 

architectural styles and consistent with other 

recent buildings constructed within the district. 

USAF is satisfying its responsibilities under 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act concurrent with the National Environmental 

Policy Act process, as provided for in 36 CFR 

800.8(a), by consulting with the Florida State 

Historic Preservation Officer. The MacDill AFB 

Alternative would not be expected to impact 

archaeological or traditional resources because

no such properties have been identified within 

the area of potential effects. 

Chapter 288, F.S. 

Commercial 

Development and 

Capital 

Improvements

Provides the framework for 

promoting and developing the 

general business, trade, and 

tourism components of the state 

economy.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would not have 

adverse impacts on Florida industries or 

economic diversification efforts.
C-4

Statute Scope Consistency

Chapter 334, F.S. 

Transportation 

Administration

Addresses the transportation 

administration policies of the state.

Short-term, negligible impacts are anticipated on 

the transportation network at MacDill AFB from 

construction vehicles, which would compose a 

small percentage of the total existing traffic. 

Long-term, negligible to minor impacts could 

result from the increase in personnel and 

dependents and potential increased congestion

that would primarily occur at access gates during 

peak hours. No permanent impacts or 

alterations to the transportation network would 

occur.

Chapter 339, F.S. 

Transportation 

Finance and 

Planning

Addresses the state’s 

transportation systems finance and 

planning needs.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would not impact

the finance and planning needs of the state’s 

transportation system.

Chapter 373, F.S. 

Water Resources

Addresses conservation and 

preservation of water resources, 

water quality, and environmental 

quality.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would not result in a 

significant impact on water resources. Shortterm, minor impacts during construction,

demolition, and North Ramp renovation projects

from sedimentation and long-term, minor impacts

from the increased rate and volume of 

stormwater runoff because of an increase in 

impervious surfaces would occur. However, 

impacts would be minimized through 

implementation of environmental protection and 

best management practices and by following the 

project-specific and the installation Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plans. All applicable 

permits would be coordinated in accordance with 

Florida’s statutes and the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System. Therefore, the 

MacDill AFB Alternative would be consistent with 

Florida’s statutes and regulations regarding the 

water resources of the state.

Chapter 375, F.S. 

Outdoor Recreation 

and Conservation 

Lands

Addresses the development of a 

comprehensive multipurpose 

outdoor recreation plan.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would not impact 

opportunities for outdoor recreation on state 

lands.

Chapter 376, F.S. 

Pollutant Discharge 

Prevention and 

Removal

Regulates the transfer, storage, 

and transportation of pollutants, 

and cleanup of pollutant 

discharges.

All petroleum, oils, and lubricants would be 

managed through implementation of the 

installation’s Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasures Plan and handling, storage, 

transportation, and disposal activities would be 

conducted in accordance with applicable federal, 

state, and local regulations; USAF Instructions; 

and the MacDill AFB Hazardous Waste 

Management Plan.

Chapter 377, F.S. 

Energy Resources

Addresses the regulation, 

planning, and development of oil 

and gas resources of the state.

The proposed facilities would tie into existing 

utility lines at MacDill AFB. The MacDill AFB 

Alternative would not affect energy resource 

production, including oil and gas, or the 

transportation of oil and gas. 
C-5

Statute Scope Consistency

Chapter 379, F.S. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation

Addresses the management of the 

wildlife resources of the state.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would occur in 

improved or semi-improved areas that provide 

habitat for few native wildlife species. The 

MacDill Alternative may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect, the following federally protected 

and sensitive species: the red knot, piping plover, 

and wood stork. State-listed species that could 

incur similar affects include Scott’s seaside 

sparrow, snowy plover, little blue heron, reddish 

egret, tricolored heron, American oystercatcher, 

roseate spoonbill, and black skimmer. Measures 

to minimize potential impacts on these species 

are discussed in the EA. The MacDill AFB 

Alternative would result in no effects on the 

federally listed Florida scrub jay, red-cockaded 

woodpecker, eastern indigo snake, Atlantic 

sturgeon, and all sea turtle and plant species. 

Suitable habitat for the gopher tortoise, Florida 

pine snake, short-tailed snake, and burrowing 

owl occurs near the areas of the MacDill AFB 

Alternative; however, there are no burrows within 

the footprints of disturbance. 

Chapter 380, F.S. 

Land and Water 

Management

Establishes state land and water 

management policies to guide and 

coordinate local decisions relating 

to growth and development.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would be consistent 

with state and local policies regarding growth and 

development. It would not include changes to 

coastal infrastructure such as capacity increases 

of existing coastal infrastructure or use of state 

funds for infrastructure planning, designing, or 

construction. The City of Tampa continues to 

implement land use policies that are compatible 

with the installation in its planning efforts, and the 

latest Comprehensive Plan for the City of Tampa 

includes policies and objectives meant to support 

and strengthen the role of MacDill AFB. 

Chapter 381, F.S. 

Public Health: 

General Provisions

Establishes public policy 

concerning the state’s public 

health system.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would not impact

the state’s policy concerning the public health 

system.

Chapter 388, F.S. 

Mosquito Control

Addresses mosquito control efforts 

in the state.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would not impact 

mosquito control efforts.

Chapter 403, F.S. 

Environmental 

Control

Establishes public policy 

concerning environmental control 

(i.e., pollution control) in the state.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would have 

negligible impacts on groundwater and surface 

water quality and quantity; protection of potable 

water supply; air quality; floodplains and 

wetlands; and the conservation of 

environmentally sensitive living resources. 

Minimization measures for these impacts are 

identified in the EA. 

Chapter 553, F.S. 

Building 

Construction 

Standards

Addresses building construction 

standards for a unified Florida 

Building Code.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would comply with 

the state’s construction standards.
C-6

Statute Scope Consistency

Chapter 582, F.S. 

Soil and Water 

Conservation

Provides for the control and 

prevention of soil erosion.

Soil disturbance would occur during construction, 

demolition, and North Ramp renovation projects, 

but would be controlled through implementation 

of environmental protection measures and best 

management practices. Additionally, adherence 

to site-specific Erosion and Sediment Control 

Plans, both site-specific and installation 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans, and 

Section 438 of the Energy Independence and 

Security Act would further minimize impacts. 

Chapter 597, F.S. 

Aquaculture

Establishes public policy to 

enhance the growth of 

aquaculture.

The MacDill AFB Alternative would not impact

aquaculture.

Key: F.S. = Florida Statute