fort drum pal final ea - august 2012

FinalEnvironmental Assessment for the

Implementation of the Privatization of Army Lodging Program atFort Drum, New York

Prepared for

Commander, Fort Drum, New York

Prepared by

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District

With technical assistance from

Tetra Tech, Inc.

August 2012

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ORGANIZATION

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the proposed action to implement thePrivatization of Army Lodging (PAL) Program at Fort Drum, New York. It has been developedin accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulationsissued by the Council on Environmental Quality (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations[CFR] Parts 1500–1508) and the Army (32 CFR Part 651). Its purpose is to inform decisionmakers and the public of the likely environmental and socioeconomic consequences of thePreferred Alternative and other alternatives.

An EXECUTIVE SUMMARY briefly describes the proposed action, environmental andsocioeconomic consequences, and mitigation measures.

CONTENTS

SECTION 1.0: PURPOSE, NEED, AND SCOPE summarizes the purpose of and need for theproposed action and describes the scope of the environmental impact analysis process.

SECTION 2.0: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES describes the proposed action toimplement the PAL program at Fort Drum and examines alternatives to implementing theproposed action including a Preferred Alternative and a No Action Alternative.

SECTION 3.0: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESdescribes the existing environmental and socioeconomic setting at Fort Drum and identifiespotential effects of implementing the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative.

SECTION 4.0: CONCLUSIONS summarizes the environmental and socioeconomic effects ofimplementing the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative.

SECTION 5.0: REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED provides bibliographicalinformation for cited sources and provides a listing of persons and agencies consulted duringpreparation of this EA.

SECTION 6.0: LIST OF PREPARERS identifies the persons who prepared the document.

SECTION 7.0: DISTRIBUTION LIST indicates recipients of this EA.

APPENDIX A: Record of Non-Applicability and Emission Calculations

APPENDIX B: Agency Coordination

APPENDIX C: Economic Impact Forecast System Model

APPENDIX D: Solid Waste Calculations

An ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS list is provided at the end.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRIVATIZATION OF ARMY LODGINGPROGRAM AT FORT DRUM, NEW YORK

Prepared by

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersMobile District

________________________________________ ________________________

STEVEN J. ROEMHILDT DateColonel, Corps of EngineersCommanding

Approved by

Fort Drum

________________________________________ ________________________

GARY A. ROSENBERGCOL, SF DateGarrison Commander

This page intentionally left blank.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

LEAD AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Installations, Energy, andEnvironment

TITLE OF PROPOSED ACTION: Implementation of the Privatization of Army LodgingProgram at Fort Drum, New York

AFFECTED JURISDICTION: Fort Drum, New York

PREPARED BY: Steven J. Roemhildt, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Commanding, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Mobile District

APPROVED BY: Gary A. Rosenberg, Colonel, SF, Garrison Commander, Fort Drum, New York

ABSTRACT: This Environmental Assessment (EA) considers the proposed implementation ofthe Privatization of Army Lodging (PAL) Program, including the transfer of lodging assets atFort Drum, New York. The EA identifies, evaluates, and documents the effects of obtainingprivate sector funding for construction, maintenance, management, renovation, replacement,rehabilitation, and development of transient lodging facilities. This is the Army’s PreferredAlternative. A No Action Alternative is also evaluated. Implementing the Preferred Alternativeis not expected to result in significant environmental impacts. Preparation of an environmentalimpact statement, therefore, is not required, and a finding of no significant impact (FNSI) will bepublished in accordance with Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 651(Environmental Effects of Army Actions) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

REVIEW COMMENT DEADLINE: The final EA and draft FNSI are available for review andcomment for 30 days, beginning upon publication of a notice of availability in the WatertownDaily Times (Watertown, New York). Copies of the EA and draft FNSI are available for reviewand comment at the following local libraries: Robert C. McEwen Library, Fort Drum, New York;Gouverneur Public Library, Gouverneur, New York; Flower Memorial Library, Watertown, NewYork; and Lowville Free Library, Lowville, New York. The EA and draft FNSI are alsoavailable online at the following address:http://www.drum.army.mil/publicworks/pages/PALEA.aspx. Comments on the EA and draftFNSI should be submitted to Fort Drum, ATTN: Directorate of Public Works – NEPACoordinator, 85 First Street West, Fort Drum, NY 13602-5097, or by e-mail [email protected]. Comments on the EA and draft FNSI should be submitted nolater than the end of the 30-day review period.

http://www.drum.army.mil/publicworks/pages/PALEA.aspx

mailto:[email protected]

Final Environmental Assessment

Fort Drum, New York August 2012

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 BACKGROUND

This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the proposal of the Privatization of ArmyLodging (PAL) at Fort Drum, New York.

ES.2 PROPOSED ACTION

The Army has competitively selected Lend Lease as its development entity to privatize the Armylodging at Fort Drum. Lend Lease has formed a special-purpose entity, Rest Easy, LLC (RestEasy) to execute the lease. Lend Lease would redevelop the lodging facilities, andInterContinental Hotels Group (IHG), its contracted hotelier, would assume responsibility forlodging operations. Lend Lease has completed a Lodging Development Management Plan(LDMP) to serve as the initial business plan for the project. The LDMP served as a guide tothose developing the PAL lease. The PAL lease will be expanded to include additionalinstallations, including Fort Drum. Upon implementation of the amended and restated PAL lease,transfer of assets and transition to privatized operations would begin. The Army would conveyits lodging and ancillary support facilities to the developer under a long-term hold lease andseparate support leases. In return, the Army would obtain the benefit of modern facilities andservices equal to the standards prevailing in the commercial sector.

Implementing the PAL program at Fort Drum would result in the conveyance of the Fort DrumInn to Rest Easy for renovation as a Holiday Inn Express for long-term use, and construction of anew 235-room Candlewood Suites hotel. In addition, the Army would grant the short-term use offour other lodging facilities and three ancillary support facilities through support leases, until thenew hotel is operational. These actions would occur over about a 7-year development periodbeginning in 2013 and provide a final inventory of about 346 lodging rooms. The proposedaction would improve the quality of life for Soldiers, their families, and other personnel eligibleto use Army transient lodging.

ES.3 PURPOSE AND NEED

The need for the proposed action is to improve the quality of life for Soldiers, their families, andother personnel eligible to use Army lodging. Many lodging facilities at Fort Drum are old, andtheir rehabilitation is not economically feasible. By leveraging scarce resources, the Army canobtain the benefits of capital improvements and professional management that are availablethrough the private sector’s investment and experience. In addition, the PAL program sets asidefunds for the long-term sustainment of such facilities. Privatization of existing lodging and newlodging facilities to be constructed would enable the Army to focus its resources on its corecompetencies.

ES.4 ALTERNATIVES

This EA is an analysis of the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative. It alsoidentifies alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study.

Implementing the PAL program at Fort Drum is the Army’s Preferred Alternative. Byimplementing the LDMP, the Army proposes that Rest Easy assume the ownership, operation,



ES-2

and maintenance of transient lodging at Fort Drum, both by renovating inadequate existingfacilities and constructing new lodging facilities. The Army would also grant to the developer a46-year lease of the land underlying the existing Fort Drum Inn and a parcel of land forconstructing a new 235-room hotel. In addition, the Army would grant the short-term use of fourother lodging facilities and three ancillary support facilities through support leases, until the newhotel is operational. These actions are expected to achieve the purpose of and need for theproposed action.

A No Action Alternative also is evaluated in detail in this EA. The No Action Alternative isprescribed by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations to serve as the baseline againstwhich the Preferred Alternative and other alternatives are analyzed. Under the No ActionAlternative, the Army would not implement the PAL program at Fort Drum, and would continueto provide lodging through the facilities funded by congressional appropriations and by Armylodging resources that rely on nonappropriated funds. In all likelihood, quality of life forpersonnel using the lodging would decline, given current funding levels.

The alternative to the Preferred Alternative that was considered was to discontinue lodgingoperations at Fort Drum, and rely on private sector lodging services. In lieu of privatizing thefunction, the Army could exit the lodging business, resulting in patrons’ reliance on off-posthotels and motels for similar services. The use of off-post lodging, however, would lengthenSoldiers’ workdays because of commuting and increased transportation costs. In some instances,Soldiers would encounter shortages of lodging in adjacent communities. At Fort Drum,termination of the Army’s lodging program would result in the abandonment and eventualdemolition of five buildings with 261 lodging rooms. The Army would incur substantial costsdemolishing of these buildings. The combination of the buildings’ standing idle until alternativeuses could be determined and the time needed to achieve such alternative uses would contravenethe Army’s policy to manage its resources to optimal potential. For those reasons, the off-posthotel market alternative is not feasible and is not evaluated in detail in this EA.

ES.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This EA evaluates potential long- and short-term effects on land use, aesthetic and visualresources, air quality, noise, geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, culturalresources, socioeconomics (including environmental justice and protection of children),transportation, utilities, and hazardous and toxic substances.

Implementing the Preferred Alternative would be expected to result in a mixture of short- andlong-term minor adverse and short- and long-term minor beneficial effects on the subjectenvironmental resources and conditions. Mitigation of adverse effects associated withimplementing the PAL Program at Fort Drum includes compensatory wetland mitigation, asdetermined through correspondence with the New York District of the US Army Corps ofEngineers regarding wetland impacts, and tree cutting restrictions for protection of bat species,including the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis).

For each resource area, the predicted effects from the Preferred Alternative and the No ActionAlternative are summarized in Table ES-1.



ES-3

Table ES-1.Summary of potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences

Environmental and socioeconomic effects

Resource Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative

Land use No effect No effect

Aesthetic and visual resources Short-term minor adverseLong-term minor beneficial

Long-term minor adverse

Air quality Short-term minor adverse


No effect

Noise Short-term minor adverse No effect

Geology and soils Short-term minor adverse No effect

Water resources Short-term minor adverse


No effect

Biological resources Short-term minor adverse

Long-term minor adverse No effect

Cultural resources No effect No effect

Socioeconomics Short-term minor beneficial

Long-term minor beneficial


Transportation Short-term minor adverseLong-term minor adverse

No effect

Utilities Short-term minor adverse


No effect

Hazardous and toxic substances No effect No effect

ES.6 CONCLUSION

On the basis of information available in preparation of this EA, it has been determined thatimplementing the Preferred Alternative would have no significant adverse effects on the qualityof human life or the natural environment. Preparation of an environmental impact statement isnot required before implementing the Preferred Alternative.



ES-4




i

CONTENTS

SECTION 1.0 Purpose, Need, and Scope ...............................................................................1-1

1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Need...................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3 Scope of Analysis...................................................................................................... 1-3

1.4 Public Involvement.................................................................................................... 1-3

1.5 Privatization Authorities ............................................................................................ 1-4

1.6 Environmental Laws and Regulations ........................................................................ 1-4

SECTION 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...................................................................2-12.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................. 2-1

2.3.1 Description of Existing Lodging and Available Land ...................................... 2-1

2.3.2 Proposed Lodging Actions ............................................................................ 2-10

2.4 Lodging Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study .................... 2-12

SECTION 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ................................3-13.1 Land Use................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Affected Environment..................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Aesthetics and Visual Resources................................................................................ 3-1



3.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 3-3



3.4 Noise 3-6



3.5 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................... 3-8



3.6 Water Resources...................................................................................................... 3-10

3.6.1 Affected Environment................................................................................... 3-10

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 3-11

3.7 Biological Resources ............................................................................................... 3-14



3.8 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 3-18



3.9 Socioeconomics....................................................................................................... 3-20



ii



3.10 Transportation ......................................................................................................... 3-24



3.11 Utilities ................................................................................................................... 3-26



3.12 Hazardous and Toxic Substances ............................................................................. 3-29



3.13 Cumulative Effects Summary .................................................................................. 3-30

3.14 Mitigation Summary................................................................................................ 3-31

SECTION 4.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................................4-1

SECTION 5.0 References and Persons Consulted ..................................................................5-1

SECTION 6.0 List of Preparers..............................................................................................6-1

SECTION 7.0 Distribution List..............................................................................................7-1

Appendices

APPENDIX A: Record of Non-Applicability and Emission Calculations

APPENDIX B: Agency Coordination

APPENDIX C: Economic Impact Forecast System Model

APPENDIX D: Solid Waste Calculations

Figures

Figure 1-1 Installation Location ............................................................................................... 1-2

Figure 2-1 Site Map ................................................................................................................. 2-2

Figure 2-2 Parcel B- Excluded From PAL-Approved Footprint ................................................ 2-5

Figure 2-3 Parcel A.................................................................................................................. 2-6

Figure 2-4 Parcel C .................................................................................................................. 2-7

Figure 2-5 Parcel D.................................................................................................................. 2-8

Figure 2-6 Parcel E .................................................................................................................. 2-9

Figure 2-7 Representative Photos of Existing Lodging Structures........................................... 2-10

Figure 3-1 PAL Parcels A and C Wetlands............................................................................. 3-12



iii

Tables

Table 1-1. Installations participating in PAL by group.............................................................. 1-1

Table 2-1. Existing lodging facilities, warehouse space, and developable land available to PALat Fort Drum........................................................................................................... 2-4

Table 2-2. Fort Drum PAL Preferred Alternative.................................................................... 2-11

Table 3-1. 2007 annual emissions for significant statutory sources at Form Drum..................... 3-3

Table 3-2. Annual air emissions compared to applicability thresholds....................................... 3-4

Table 3-3. Common sounds and their levels ............................................................................. 3-6

Table 3-4. Estimated existing noise levels ................................................................................ 3-7

Table 3-5. Noise levels associated with outdoor construction.................................................... 3-8

Table 3-6. Labor force and unemployment ............................................................................. 3-21

Table 3-7. 2010 Income ......................................................................................................... 3-21

Table 3-8. Population............................................................................................................. 3-21

Table 3-9. EIFS model output ................................................................................................ 3-23

Table 3-10. Annual average daily traffic counts at Fort Drum gates ........................................ 3-25

Table 3-11. Summary of construction and renovation debris................................................... 3-28

Table 4-1. Summary of potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences................... 4-2

Acronyms and Abbreviations (at the end of the document)



iv




1-1

SECTION 1.0PURPOSE, NEED, AND SCOPE

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Army provides transient lodging for Soldiers and their families on temporary duty (TDY)and permanent change of station travel. Because funding shortfalls over many years haveprevented the proper maintenance, repair, or replacement of facilities, approximately 80 percentof the Army’s lodging inventory was found not to meet acceptable quality standards.

The Privatization of Army Lodging (PAL) program is an initiative to improve facilities andservices for transient lodging users. It is founded on the Military Housing Privatization Initiative(MHPI) established in the 1996 Defense Authorization Act.1 The MHPI authorizes the Army toobtain private capital by leveraging Government contributions, making efficient use of limitedresources, and using a variety of private-sector approaches to build, renovate, and operatelodging. This environmental assessment (EA) evaluates implementation of the PAL program atFort Drum, New York (Fort Drum or installation) (Figure 1-1).

All Army installations in the Continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico thathave a need for on-post transient housing will participate in the PAL program. The Army dividedits installations into three groups (A, B, and C) for implementing the PAL program. Group Aconsisted of 10 installations; Group B consisted of 11 installations; and Group C, of which FortDrum is a part, will involve implementing the program at the remaining 21 participating Armyinstallations. The installations participating in the PAL program are identified in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1.Installations participating in PAL by group

Group A installations Group B installations Group C installations

Fort Hood, TX Fort Bliss, TX Fort Meade, MDFort Sam Houston, TX Fort Buchanan, PR Aberdeen Proving Ground, MDFort Sill, OK Fort Belvoir, VA Fort Drum, NYFort Riley, KS Fort Hamilton, NY USAG West Point, NYFort Leavenworth, KS Fort Gordon, GA Fort McCoy, WIFort Rucker, AL White Sands Missile Range, NM Dugway Proving Ground, UTFort Myer, VA Fort Huachuca, AZ Fort Carson, COYuma Proving Ground, AZ Fort Leonard Wood, MO Carlisle Barracks, PAFort Polk, LA Fort Wainwright, AK Fort Lee, VAFort Shafter Tripler AMC, HI Fort Knox, KY Fort Bragg, NC

Fort Campbell, KY/TN Fort Jackson, SCRedstone Arsenal, ALFort Hunter Liggett, CAPresidio of Monterey, CACamp Parks, CABT Collins, CAFort Stewart, GAHunter Army Air Field, GAFort Benning, GAJB Lewis-McChord, WAYakima Training Range, WA

11 Section 2801, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Public Law 104-106, as amended (codified atTitle 10 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 2871–2885).



1-3

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The Army proposes to privatize operation of its lodging at Fort Drum. This is the Army’sPreferred Alternative. The purpose of the proposed action is to transfer ownership and operationof the existing transient lodging and the new hotel to be constructed to the private sector under along-term lease.

The need for the proposed action is to improve the quality of life for Soldiers, their families, andother personnel eligible to use Army lodging. Many lodging facilities at Fort Drum are old, andtheir rehabilitation is not economically feasible. By leveraging scarce resources, the Army canobtain the benefits of capital improvements and professional management that are availablethrough the private sector’s investment and experience. In addition, the PAL program sets asidefunds for the long-term sustainment of such facilities. Privatization of lodging would enable theArmy to focus its resources on its core competencies.

1.3 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS

This EA has been developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)of 1969 and implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)and the Army.2 An interdisciplinary team of environmental scientists, biologists, ecologists,geologists, planners, economists, engineers, archaeologists, historians, lawyers, and militarytechnicians reviewed the proposed action in light of existing conditions, and has identifiedrelevant beneficial and adverse effects associated with the assessed alternatives.

The purpose of the EA is to inform Army decision makers and the public of the likelyenvironmental consequences of privatizing transient lodging at Fort Drum.

This EA focuses on evaluating environmental effects that are reasonably foreseeable within theinitial development period (IDP), which is approximately the first 7 years of implementingprivatization (described in detail in Section 2.3. This is the period during which the Army’sprivatization entity would accomplish demolition, renovation, and new construction of lodging,and assume responsibility for operation and maintenance of the on-post lodging facilities.Potential environmental effects beyond 2020 would be speculative; therefore, they are notanalyzed in this EA.

1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The Army invites public participation in the NEPA process. Consideration of the views andinformation of all interested persons promotes open communication and enables better decisionmaking. All agencies, organizations, and members of the public having interest in the proposedaction, including minority, low-income, disadvantaged, and Native American groups, are urged toparticipate in the decision-making process.

Army guidance provides for public participation in the NEPA process. If the EA concludes thatthe proposed action would not result in significant environmental effects, the Army may issue adraft Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI). The Army will then observe a 30-day periodduring which agencies and the public may submit comments on the EA or draft FNSI. The 30-

2 CEQ Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, Title 40 of theCode of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 1500–1508, and Environmental Analysis of Army Actions, 32 CFR Part 651.



1-4

day comment period will serve as the public’s opportunity to review and comment. Uponconsideration of any comments received from the public or agencies, the Army may approve theFNSI and implement the Preferred Alternative. If, however, during the development of the EA, itis determined that significant effects would be likely, the Army will issue a notice of intent toprepare an environmental impact statement.

1.5 PRIVATIZATION AUTHORITIES

The PAL program is founded on the MHPI. The essence of the MHPI is that it comprehensivelyallows access to private-sector financial and management resources for constructing, maintaining,managing, renovating, replacing, rehabilitating, and developing housing. In 2002 Congressamended the MHPI to clarify that unaccompanied personnel housing includes “transient housingintended to be occupied by members of the armed forces on TDY.”3

The Army has competitively selected Lend Lease as its development entity to privatize the Armylodging at Fort Drum. Lend Lease has formed a special-purpose entity, Rest Easy, LLC (RestEasy) to execute the lease. Lend Lease would perform the redevelopment of the lodgingfacilities, and InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG), its contracted hotelier, would assumeresponsibility for lodging operations. Lend Lease has completed a Lodging DevelopmentManagement Plan (LDMP) to serve as the initial business plan for the project. The LDMP servedas a guide to those preparing the PAL lease. The PAL lease will be expanded to includeadditional installations, including Fort Drum. Upon implementation of the amended and restatedPAL lease, transfer of assets and transition to privatized operations would begin. The Armywould convey its existing lodging facilities and new lodging facilities to be constructed to thedeveloper and provide long-term hold (LTH) leases for the underlying land. In return, the Armywould obtain the benefit of modern facilities and services equal to the standards prevailing in thecommercial sector.

1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Army decisions that affect environmental resources and conditions occur within the framework ofnumerous laws, regulations, and executive orders (EOs). Some of the authorities prescribestandards for compliance. Others require specific planning and management actions to protectenvironmental values potentially affected by Army actions. These include the Clean Air Act,Clean Water Act, Noise Control Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,Energy Policy Act, Energy Independence and Security Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act.EOs bearing on the proposed action include EO 11988 (Floodplain Management); EO 11990(Protection of Wetlands); EO 12088 (Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards); EO12580 (Superfund Implementation); EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address EnvironmentalJustice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations); EO 13045 (Protection ofChildren from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks); EO 13175 (Consultation andCoordination with Indian Tribal Governments); EO 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agenciesto Protect Migratory Birds); EO 13423 (Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, andTransportation Management); and EO 13514 (Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy,

3 Section 2803(b), National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law 107-314.



1-5

and Economic Performance). Where useful to better understanding, key provisions of thesestatutes and EOs are described in more detail in the text of the EA.4

4 The text of EOs can be accessed at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/, and the text of publiclaws can be accessed at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/.



1-6




2-1

SECTION 2.0PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The Army proposes to implement the PAL program at Fort Drum. The Army would conveyspecified lodging facilities to Rest Easy. The Army would also grant a 46-year lease of the landunderlying the existing facilities and other land for constructing new lodging facilities. Rest Easywould be expected to meet Fort Drum’s lodging requirements by operating and maintaining theexisting facilities, renovating inadequate facilities, and constructing new lodging. When sitingfacilities, garrison commanders take into account the following criteria: availability ofdevelopable land, consistency with land use allocations of the installation’s master plan,compatibility with adjacent functions, proximity to relevant community services (e.g.,Commissary, Post Exchange, and recreation and entertainment venues), and avoidance ofenvironmental areas of concern, natural resources and cultural resources (e.g., wetlands, protectedspecies, archaeological sites, past hazardous waste sites). Fort Drum officials gave substantialweight to the proximity of new lodging facilities to existing lodging facilities and their requiredsupport functions to enable efficient and cost-effective management of operations. Those criteriaresulted in the siting locations identified in Figure 2-1.

This section presents the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative. It also identifiesalternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. The proposed action presented inSection 2.3 is the Army’s Preferred Alternative.

2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action Alternative, whose inclusion is prescribed by CEQ regulations, serves as a baselineagainst which the impacts of the Preferred Alternative and other alternatives can be evaluated.

Under the No Action Alternative, the Army would not implement the PAL program at Fort Drum.The Army would continue to provide lodging through the use of facilities funded by congressionalappropriations and by Army lodging resources that rely on nonappropriated funds. On the basis ofhistorical trends, it is assumed that the Government will be unable to dedicate additional resourcesto support the Army lodging operation, and that maintenance backlogs would remain at presentlevels or increase. If the PAL program were not implemented, the Army would foregoopportunities to leverage private sector financing for the lodging function. Quality of life forpersonnel using the lodging facilities would in all likelihood decline, given current funding levels.

2.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

2.3.1 Description of Existing Lodging and Available Land

Fort Drum provides on-post transient lodging services through the use of 486 lodging units(rooms) in more than 24 buildings across the installation. Most of the rooms are around Officer’sLoop, also known as the 2200 area. Officer’s Loop consists of World War II (WWII)-Erabuildings that are considered inadequate by Army lodging standards. The primary lodgingfacility, the Fort Drum Inn, accounts for 111 rooms and is booked first (before the inadequate



2-3

lodging supply is used). The inventory’s remaining rooms are scattered among several otherbuildings and range from aging, pet-friendly rooms to luxurious distinguished visitors’ quarterssuites.

Fort Drum’s lodging inventory exceeds the installation’s lodging demand. In addition, much ofthe lodging is old, and maintenance of the structures is costly. Therefore, Fort Drum is in theprocess of removing several of these buildings from its lodging inventory. Before the proposedPAL transition in the spring of 2013, the lodging inventory will be reduced to about 261 rooms infive buildings. The conversion of the buildings being removed from the lodging inventory beforethe proposed PAL lease is implemented as a separate action, and therefore it is not part of theproposed action addressed in this EA.

The lodging inventory to be conveyed to Rest Easy will include the main lodging facility (FortDrum Inn [Building B4205] on Parcel A), and a parcel of land (Parcel C) on which new lodgingwould be built as part of the PAL program. In addition, four lodging buildings in the 2200 blockof Officer’s Loop (WWII Lodges) (Parcel D, Buildings T-2203, T-2204, T-2205, and T-2217),and would be leased to Rest Easy under a support lease for short-term use as lodging until thenew hotel becomes operational. Doing so would allow Rest Easy to maintain an optimal numberof available rooms during the IDP. Army lodging provides for its maintenance and storage needsin two ancillary support facilities in Parcel D (Buildings T-2220 and T-2248), and by using spacein a warehouse in Parcel E (Building S-79) for furniture storage. Rest Easy would continue to usethose facilities for the same purposes in the short term under support leases.

At the outset of the PAL planning process, an area of undeveloped land adjacent to the Fort DrumInn was offered by the installation for consideration as a possible location for a new hotel. Theland, identified at that time as Parcel B, was surveyed for the purposes of metes and bounds, andmonuments were set. However, it was quickly discovered that nearly 65 percent of the parcel(about 25 acres) was covered by wetlands as shown in Figure 2-2. Upon learning of the extent ofwetlands on the property the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations,Energy, and Environment–Installations, Housing and Partnerships (OASA IE&E IH&P) rejectedany consideration of Parcel B in the PAL footprint because it does not meet their stated screeningcriteria that any property offered to the PAL Program be free of any known or suspectedenvironmental issues. As such, Parcel B was never part of the OASA IE&E IH&P's approvedPAL footprint. At the direction of OASA IE&E IH&P, Parcel B is not addressed in either the EAor Environmental Condition of Property report.

Table 2-1 identifies the existing Fort Drum lodging facilities, ancillary support facilities, anddevelopable land under consideration for use by the PAL program.

Figures 2-3 through 2-6 provide aerial views of the approved PAL parcels, and Figure 2-7 showsphotos of the lodging structures.

Parcel A. This 9.97-acre parcel consists of the Fort Drum Inn (P-4205), as shown in Figure 2-3.The parcel is accessed via Po Valley Road south of its intersection with Conway Road. FortDrum Inn was constructed as a private hotel in 1986. It is a two-story, 57,320-square-footstructure with 111 standard hotel rooms. The hotel was transferred to Army lodging in April1992, when was renamed the Fort Drum Inn. The building is in good condition.



2-4

Table 2-1.Existing lodging facilities, warehouse space, and developable land available to

PAL at Fort Drum

Parcel Building(s) Building nameYearbuilt

Lodgingrooms

Squarefootage Notes

Parcel A P-4205 Fort Drum Inn 1986 111 57,320 Primary lodging facility

Parcel C N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Undeveloped land

Parcel D

T-2203

Officer’s LoopWWII Lodges

1941 150

7,670 Lodging

T-2204 7,670 Lodging



T-2220Officer’s LoopWarehouses

1941

N/A 6,805 Linen storage

T-2248 N/A 2,250Maintenance andstorage

Parcel E S-79 N/A 1941 N/A 10,491 Furniture storage

Total lodging rooms 261

Note: N/A = not applicable

Parcel C. This 20.46-acre parcel is southwest of the intersection of Enduring Freedom Drive andMount Belvedere Boulevard, as shown in Figure 2-4. The site is relatively flat and includesundeveloped scrub vegetation and woodland. This parcel would be available for constructingnew lodging.

Parcel D. This parcel has four lodging buildings—T-2203, T-2204, T-2205, and T-2217—andtwo buildings (T-2220 and T-2248) used for storage and maintenance by Army lodging. Thebuildings are in the 2200 block of Officer’s Loop, as shown in Figure 2-5. All six buildings,constructed in 1941, are part of a larger group of 17 buildings commonly known as the WWIILodges. The four buildings used as lodging provide about 150 rooms. Building T-2220 is usedfor the storage of linens and as classroom space and building T-2248 serves as the carpentry andmaintenance shop for Army lodging. None of the buildings is considered eligible for the NationalRegister of Historic Places (NRHP). Parcel D consists of the buildings only. No underlying oradjacent land is associated with this parcel for the PAL action.

Parcel E. This parcel consists of Building S-79, only a portion of which is being made availablefor short-term use under the PAL action. No underlying or adjacent land is associated with thisparcel. The building belongs to the Family Morale Welfare Recreation Services Division. Thehalf of the building that is shared with Army lodging for furniture storage would be includedunder the support lease. Parcel E is shown in Figure 2-6.



2-10

Figure 2-7 Representative Photos of Existing Lodging Structures

2.3.2 Proposed Lodging Actions

Implementing the PAL program at Fort Drum would involve two types of lease actions—LTHand Support Lease––along with renovation and construction actions, as described in the followingparagraphs and listed in Table 2-2. Upon conveyance and grants of the leases noted below, RestEasy would assume responsibility for all transient lodging assets, and IHG would assumeoperations as provided for in the leases.

Initial market demand analyses performed by OASA IE&E IH&P and Rest Easy indicate thatFort Drum requires as many as 346 on-post lodging rooms based on current and future missionrequirements. Due to the condition and configuration of much of the existing on-post lodginginventory, only 261 of the 486 rooms available will in fact be transferred to the PAL program.The on-post inventory will remain at 261 rooms until the completion of the proposed 235-roomnew hotel. As a result of the PAL program, Fort Drum’s overall lodging inventory woulddecrease from 486 rooms, to no more than 346 rooms at the end of the IDP (approximately 2020).This would result in a net decrease of 140+ rooms from the 486 rooms that have been in theavailable on-post inventory for the past several years.

LTH Lease Actions and New Construction. The existing lodging and land in Parcel A (FortDrum Inn) would be conveyed to Rest Easy under a 46-year lease. Rest Easy would renovate theFort Drum Inn, brand the hotel as a Holiday Inn Express, and continue to operate it as a lodgingfacility during the 46-year lease period. Renovations would include making safety upgrades andany necessary functional repairs, updating the interiors (e.g., new linens, décor, fixtures,furnishings, and equipment), adding recreational facilities and improved public spaces for guests,and making interior and exterior renovations and structural modifications associated with theHoliday Inn Express brand standard.

Parcel A. Fort Drum Inn (Building P-4205)Parcel D. WWII lodges at Officer’s Loop (Building

T-2205 shown)



2-11

Table 2-2.Fort Drum PAL Preferred Alternative

Rooms

Acres Building(s)Beginning

stateEndstate PAL action

Parcel A (Fort Drum Inn) – LTH

9.97 P-4205 111 111Renovate and brand as a Holiday InnExpress.

Parcel C (New Build Site) – LTH

20.46 New Build 0 235 Build 235-room Candlewood Suites

Parcel D (WWII Lodges) – Support Lease

N/A

T-2203

150 0Minor renovations for short-term use aslodging during IDP, then demolish orreturn upon lease termination.

T-2204

T-2205

T-2217

T-2220 0 0Linen storage during IDP, then vacate atlease termination.

T-2248 0 0Carpentry, maintenance and paintstorage during IDP, then vacate at leasetermination.

Parcel E (Storage Warehouse) – Support Lease

N/A S-79 0 0Furniture storage during IDP, then vacateat lease termination.

Total lodging rooms 261 346

Notes: LTH = long-term hold; N/A = not applicable

Rest Easy plans to replace the outdated lodging infrastructure at Fort Drum by building a CWShotel with as many as 235 guest rooms5. The new hotel would provide a combination of singlerooms, family suites, and distinguished visitors’ quarters. The Army would grant Rest Easy a 46-year lease of Parcel C (undeveloped land at southwest corner of Mount Belvedere Boulevard andEnduring Freedom Drive) for the new hotel.

Support Lease Actions. The six buildings in Parcel D (T-2203, T-2204, T-2205, T-2217, part ofT-2220, and T-2248) would be made available to Rest Easy for short-term use under a supportlease. The four lodging buildings would be used during the IDP to maintain an appropriatenumber of available rooms while new lodging is being built. Building T-2220 would continue tobe used for linen storage until space is made available either through the renovation of the FortDrum Inn, or until the new hotel is completed. Building T-2248 would continue to serve as acarpentry and maintenance shop while the new hotel is under construction. Rest Easy wouldperform minor renovations to the four lodging buildings, such as making safety and critical

5 The projected room count analyzed in this EA is based on the demand analysis performed by OASA IE&E IH&P, LendLease, and IHG using historical demand and projected demand resulting from changing mission requirements. The EA assumesthe largest possible build out. It is possible that Rest Easy might build a smaller hotel with fewer than 235 rooms based onsubsequent analysis and the availability of project funds. In that case, the project would be altered to reflect fewer rooms, but theNEPA analysis and process will have covered the broadest possible action.



2-12

repairs, and upgrading room interiors. At the end of the IDP or as the new hotel becameoperational, the support lease would terminate. Upon lease termination, Rest Easy would vacatethe two warehouses. The four lodging buildings would either be returned to the Army forconversion to non-lodging uses, or be demolished by Rest Easy in coordination with the garrisoncommander. For the purposes of analysis, the EA assumes that the buildings would bedemolished.

A support lease for use of part of the interior of Building S-79 (Parcel E) might also be executedto allow for the continued storage of furniture and goods until the new hotel is completed. At theend of the IDP or as the new hotel became operational, the support lease would terminate andRest Easy would vacate the space.

2.4 LODGING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROMDETAILED STUDY

Sources of Lodging Services. The Army now provides transient lodging to Soldiers, theirdependents, and other authorized patrons. In lieu of privatizing the function, the Army couldchoose to discontinue all lodging operations on Army installations. This would requireprospective lodging patrons to rely entirely on private-sector hotels and motels for their lodging.Eliminating on-post lodging would lengthen Soldier’s workdays because of commuting, increasetheir transportation costs (Without specific authorization, personnel on TDY might be ineligiblefor rental vehicle reimbursement), and, in some instances, cause them to encounter lodgingshortages, or room rates in excess of their lodging per diem, in adjacent communities. Localhospitality providers could experience wide swings in occupancy rates. Furthermore, movingSoldiers and their families off-post would increase commuting distances and the use of singleoccupancy vehicles, which would be in direct conflict with the Army’s mandates to reducegreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At Fort Drum, termination of the Army’s lodging programwould result in abandoning eight buildings, five buildings with 261 lodging rooms and threestorage buildings. If the Army chose to demolish these buildings, it would incur substantial costs,and such action could contravene the Army’s policy to manage its resources to optimal potential.For those reasons, this alternative is not feasible and is not evaluated in detail in this EA.



3-1

SECTION 3.0AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 LAND USE

3.1.1 Affected Environment

Fort Drum occupies 107,265 acres along the Black River in portions of Jefferson and Lewiscounties in upstate New York. Watertown is 10 miles to the southwest, and the installation isabout 70 miles north of Syracuse, New York, and 30 miles south of Canada. The PAL footprint,in the western portion of the Cantonment Area in the southwest corner of the installation, is inJefferson County. All the PAL parcels are in the installation’s Cantonment Area.

The land use designation for Parcels A, D, and E is community, which is defined as lands thatencourage a mix of uses (US Army 2011a). Facilities allowed within lands designated ascommunity include religious, family support, personnel service, professional, medical,community, housing, commercial, and recreational. The designated land use for Parcel C isresidential, which defines areas used primarily for family housing, senior unaccompaniedhousing, family services, and other neighborhood services associated with community land usesnearby. Parcel C is designated as an undeveloped housing area in the Residential CommunitiesInitiative (RCI) developed for Fort Drum (USACE Mobile District 2004) and is east of theBoulder Creek Housing Area. Land uses adjacent to Parcel C are community and residential. Noland use incompatibilities in or adjacent to the proposed PAL parcels are known to exist.

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences

3.1.2.1 Preferred Alternative

No effects would be expected. No land use incompatibilities would be created fromimplementing the PAL program. The new build site is in a developable area, and is not identifiedas having any environmental constraints for development (US Army 2011a). Surrounding landuses would not interfere with use of the proposed PAL sites for Army lodging, and use of theproposed parcels for lodging would not conflict with adjacent land use.

3.1.2.2 No Action Alternative

No effects on land use would be expected. The proposed PAL action would not be implementedunder the No Action Alternative; therefore, the No Action Alternative would not result in anychanges in land use.

3.2 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES


Aesthetics and visual resources are the natural and man-made features on the installationlandscape. They include cultural and historic landmarks, landforms of particular beauty orsignificance, water surfaces, and vegetation. Together, those features form a viewer’s overallimpression of the area or its landscape.



3-2

The PAL program area is in the St. Lawrence Valley Ecoregion of Fort Drum (US Army 2011b).This ecoregion is characterized by vegetative communities that are associated with clay-loamsoils, such as grasslands dominated by grass and forb species. Although the PAL programparcels are in developed areas of Fort Drum, the surrounding landscape is primarily forestedupland habitat, interspersed with forested wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, and scrub uplandhabitat. The Cantonment Area at Fort Drum is in an area of relatively flat topography, scatteredwith low-lying areas. Buildings vary in size, with a majority constructed between the 1970s andpresent day. The existing buildings that are included in the PAL program were constructed in1941 (Parcel D and Parcel E) and 1986 (Parcel A). Most buildings are separated by grassy areasand other landscaped areas containing ornamental trees and shrubs. The visual landscape in thePAL area reflects the support functions and activities of the Fort Drum Cantonment Area andsome open and treed vistas. Views from the PAL parcels vary from urban and industrial, toforested vistas. Overall, the visual impression of Fort Drum is one of focused activity in amilitary environment that blends past development with present conditions in an attractivemanner wherever possible. Because maintenance is provided at a relatively high level, there islittle trash or debris. The installation has a general appearance of cleanliness and order.



Short-term minor adverse and long-term minor beneficial effects on aesthetics and visualresources would be expected. Short-term minor adverse effects would result from constructionactivities, which are inherently aesthetically displeasing. During the construction and renovationphases of the PAL program, views from various vantage points on the installation would bedisrupted by construction equipment and construction material staging areas. The visuallydisrupting effects from renovation and construction activities would be for a short term andlocalized to the areas under renovation/construction. Renovation and construction activitieswould be limited to daylight hours; therefore, nighttime activities and associated lighting wouldnot occur.

Long-term minor beneficial effects would be expected from the overall improvement in theaesthetic appeal of the lodging areas that would be part of the LTH lease. Renovations to repairor update the exterior of the Fort Drum Inn would further improve the building’s appearance.The proposed new hotel would be constructed as a modern lodging facility in accordance withestablished installation design guidelines (US Army 2011c). Demolition of the four WWIIlodges in Parcel D would create more open vistas and green space.


Long-term minor adverse effects on aesthetics and visual resources would be expected. TheArmy would continue to perform regular maintenance on existing lodging, but those activitieswould be conducted on a constrained budget. Without implementing the PAL program, the Armywould forego opportunities to leverage private-sector financing for the lodging function.Aesthetic and visual appeal of lodging facilities could decline, given current funding levels.



3-3

3.3 AIR QUALITY


The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 and New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulate air quality in New York. The Clean Air Act(Title 42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 7401-7671q), as amended, gives EPA responsibility toestablish the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Title 40of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 50) that set acceptable concentration levels for sixcriteria pollutants: particulate matter (measured as both particulate matter less than 10 microns indiameter [PM10] and, fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter [PM2.5]), sulfurdioxide [SO2] , carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO

X), ozone, and lead. Short-term

NAAQS (1-, 8-, and 24-hour periods) have been established for pollutants contributing to acutehealth effects, and long-term NAAQS (annual averages) have been established for pollutantscontributing to chronic health effects. Each state has the authority to adopt standards stricter thanthose established under the Federal program; New York State (NYS) has adopted slightly stricterstandards for NO

X(0.05 parts per million) and 3-Hour SO2 (0.050 parts per million), and has

standards for total suspended particulates (TSP), and non-methane hydrocarbons (NYSDEC2012a).

Federal regulations designate Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) in violation of the NAAQSas nonattainment areas. Federal regulations designate AQCRs with levels below the NAAQS asattainment areas. According to the severity of the pollution problem, nonattainment areas can becategorized as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. Jefferson County (and thereforeFort Drum) is in the Central New York Intrastate AQCR (AQCR 158) (40 CFR 81.127). EPAhas designated Jefferson County as in moderate nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone (O3) NAAQS(USEPA 2012a).

Fort Drum is considered a major source of air emissions and holds a Title V operating permit(No. 6-9906-00006/00076), which was issued in 2008 and expires in 2013 (NYSDEC 2012b).The permit requirements include annual inventory for all significant stationary sources of airemissions and covers monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Fort Drum’s 2011installation-wide air emissions for all significant stationary sources are tabulated in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1.2007 annual emissions for significant statutory sources at Form Drum

PollutantEmissions(tons/year)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 18.5

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 47.1

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 0.6

Fine particulate matter (PM10) 17.5

Source: US Army 2011d

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. GHGs are components of the atmosphere that trap heatrelatively near the surface of the earth, and therefore contribute to the greenhouse (or heattrapping) effect and climate change. Most GHGs occur naturally in the atmosphere, but increasesin their concentration result from human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Globaltemperatures are expected to continue to rise as human activities continue to add carbon dioxide



3-4

(CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and other GHGs to the atmosphere. Whether rainfall will increaseor decrease remains difficult to project for specific regions (USEPA 2012b; IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change 2007).

EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, outlinespolicies intended to ensure that Federal agencies evaluate climate-change risks andvulnerabilities, and to manage the short- and long-term effects of climate change on theiroperations and mission. The EO specifically requires the Army to measure, report, and reduce itsGHG emissions from both direct and indirect activities. The Department of Defense (DoD) hascommitted to reducing GHG emissions from non-combat activities 34 percent by 2020 (DoD2010). In addition, the CEQ recently released draft guidance on when and how Federal agenciesshould consider GHG emissions and climate change in NEPA analyses. The draft guidanceincludes a presumptive effects threshold of 27,563 tons per year (25,000 metric tons per year) ofCO2 equivalent emissions from a Federal action (CEQ 2010).



Short- and long-term minor adverse effects would be expected. Implementing the PreferredAlternative could affect air quality through airborne dust and other pollutants generated duringconstruction, and by introducing new stationary sources of pollutants, such as boilers. Air qualityeffects would be considered minor unless the emissions would be greater than the GeneralConformity Rule applicability thresholds, would exceed the GHG threshold in the draft CEQguidance, or would contribute to a violation of any Federal, state, or local air regulation.

Construction emissions were estimated for fugitive dust, on- and off-road diesel equipment andvehicles, worker trips, architectural coatings, and paving off-gases. Operational emissions wouldprimarily be caused by heating emissions for the building and patron vehicle trips. The estimatedemissions from the Preferred Alternative would be below the General Conformity Ruleapplicability thresholds; therefore, the General Conformity Rule does not apply (Table 3-2).These effects would be minor. A Record of Non-Applicability and Emission Calculations are inAppendix A.

Table 3-2.Annual air emissions compared to applicability thresholds

Activity

Emissions(tons/year)

De minimisthreshold

Would emissionsequal/exceed deminimis levels?CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

Construction 8.4 15.8 2.5 0.0 2.3 1.0100(50)a No

Operations 0.4 0.4 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Note: SOx = oxides of sulfur, VOC = Volatile Organic Compound, NOx = oxides of nitrogena

De minimis threshold for VOC is 50 tons per year.

For analysis purposes, it was assumed that all the construction/demolition would be compressedinto one 12-month period. Therefore, regardless of the ultimate implementation schedule, annualemissions would be less than those shown here. Small changes in the facilities’ siting, theultimate design, and moderate changes in the quantity and types of equipment used would not



3-5

have a substantial influence on the emission estimates, and would not change the determinationunder the general conformity rule or level of effects under NEPA.

The leased hotel on Parcel C would be equipped with individual furnaces or boilers for heating.These stationary sources of air emissions could be subject to Federal and state air permittingregulations, including New Source Review, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, NationalEmission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, or New Source Performance Standards.Operational emissions could be reduced by using more energy-efficient units than previouslyused in the lodging slated for renovation and storage. The new lodging facility would be owned,operated, and maintained by Rest Easy and IHG on property leased by Fort Drum. In general,leased activities would not be considered under the direct control of Fort Drum.

These leased activities would normally be considered tenants and Rest Easy and IHG would needto perform an air quality regulatory analysis to determine if any Clean Air Act permitting isrequired for operating any sources of air emissions. However, leased activities may beconsidered under common control when they also have a contract-for-service relationship toprovide goods or services to a military controlling entity at that military installation. Given thevariety and complexity of leased and contract-for-service activities at Fort Drum, case-by-casedeterminations would be necessary to determine if the existing sources of emissions wouldremain on, or new sources would be added to, Fort Drum’s Title V permit.

NYSDEC outlines requirements with which the developer must comply when constructing thenew facilities, such as controlling fugitive dust and open burning. All persons responsible for anyoperation, process, handling, transportation, or storage facility that could result in fugitive dustwould take reasonable precautions to prevent such dust from becoming airborne. Reasonableprecautions might include using water to control dust from building construction, road grading, orland clearing. In addition, construction would be accomplished in full compliance with currentNYSDEC Chapter III-Air Quality Regulations requirements, with compliant practices orproducts. These requirements include the following:

Control of Open Burning and Incineration (NYSDEC Chapter III, Part 215)

Control of Particulate Emissions (NYSDEC Chapter III, Subpart 257-3)

Control of Organic Emissions (NYSDEC Chapter III, Part 212)

Control of Fuels (NYSDEC Chapter III, Part 225)

This listing is not all-inclusive; the Army and any contractors would comply with all applicableair pollution control regulations. Beyond the best management practices (BMPs), no mitigationmeasures would be required for the Preferred Alternative.

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. Under the Preferred Alternative, allconstruction/demolition activities combined would generate approximately 1,324 tons (1,201metric tons) of CO2. A minute increase in GHG would result from implementation of the PALprogram. Regardless, the GHG emissions associated with the Preferred Alternative would bewell below the CEQ threshold. By using new heating and cooling systems and centrally locatingthe lodging, Fort Drum would be taking steps to help the Army reach its GHG reduction goals inaccordance with EO 13514.



3-6


Selecting the No Action Alternative would result in no effect on ambient air quality. Noconstruction would occur, and no new lodging operations would take place. Ambient air-qualityconditions would remain as described in Section 3.3.1.

3.4 NOISE


Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of vibrations that travel through a medium, such asair, and are sensed by the human ear. Noise is defined as any sound that is undesirable because itinterferes 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, distancebetween the noise source and the receptor, receptor sensitivity, and time of day. Noise is oftengenerated by activities essential to a community’s quality of life, such as construction orvehicular 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 asound pressure level to a standard reference level. Hertz are used to quantify sound frequency.The human ear responds differently to frequencies. A-weighing, measured in A-weighteddecibels (dBA), approximates a frequency response expressing the perception of sound byhumans. Sounds encountered in daily life and their dBA levels are provided in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3.Common sounds and their levels

Outdoor

Sound level

(dBA) Indoor

Motorcycle 100 Subway train

Tractor 90 Garbage disposal

Noisy restaurant 85 Blender

Downtown (large city) 80 Ringing telephone

Freeway traffic 70 TV audio

Normal conversation 60 Sewing machine

Rainfall 50 Refrigerator

Quiet residential area 40 Library

Source: Harris 1998

The dBA noise metric describes steady noise levels, although very few noises are, in fact,constant. Therefore, A-weighted day-night sound level (DNL) has been developed. DNL isdefined as the average sound energy in a 24-hour period with a 10-dB penalty added to thenighttime levels (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). DNL is a useful descriptor for noise because (1) it averagesongoing yet intermittent noise, and (2) it measures total sound energy over a 24-hour period. Inaddition, equivalent sound level (Leq) is often used to describe the overall noise environment. Leq

is the average sound level in dB.



3-7

The Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-574) directs Federal agencies to comply with applicableFederal, state, and local noise control regulations. In 1974 EPA provided information suggestingthat continuous and long-term noise levels in excess of DNL 65 dBA are normally unacceptablefor noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches, and hospitals.

Neither NYS nor Jefferson County maintains noise ordinances. Watertown municipal codeincludes a general nuisance noise ordinance without specific not-to-exceed sound levels.

Both on- and off-post individuals could be subjected to multiple sources of noise during the dayincluding local road traffic, aircraft overflights, rotorcraft (helicopter) activities, and naturalnoises such as the rustling of leaves and bird vocalizations. Training exercises in the Range Areaon south-post near Wheeler-Sack Army Airfield (WSAAF) include small- and large-calibertraining ranges, firing of mortar and artillery munitions, rotary wing gunnery training, and missilefire training. WSAAF is approximately 3 miles from the Preferred Alternative locations.Background noise levels (Leq and DNL) were estimated for the surrounding areas using thetechniques specified in the American National Standards Institute’s Quantities and Proceduresfor Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound Part 3: Short-term measurements withan observer present (ANSI 2003). The parcels are in areas that would normally be consideredquiet urban residential or quiet suburban. Table 3-4 outlines the closest receptors to theconstruction and renovation activities.

Table 3-4.Estimated existing noise levels

Location

Closest noise sensitive areaEstimated existing sound levels

(dBA)

Distance Direction Type Land use category DNL

Leq

(daytime)

Leq

(nighttime)

Parcel A 630 ft

(190 m)

East School Quiet SuburbanResidential

53 48 42

Parcel C 480 ft

(147 m)

West Residence

Parcel D 77 ft

(23 m)

West Residence

Source: ANSI 2003

Note: ft = feet; m = meter



Short-term minor adverse effects would be expected. Short-term increases in noise would resultfrom the use of construction equipment.

Table 3-5 presents typical noise levels (dBA at 50 feet) that EPA has estimated for the mainphases of outdoor construction. Individual pieces of construction equipment typically generatenoise levels of 80 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. With multiple items of equipment operatingconcurrently, noise levels can be relatively high in the daytime at locations within severalhundred feet of active construction sites. The zone of relatively high construction noise typicallyextends to distances of 400 to 800 feet from the site of major equipment operations. Locations



3-8

farther than 800 feet from construction sites seldom experience noteworthy levels of constructionnoise.

Table 3-5.Noise levels associated with outdoor construction

Construction phase

Leq(dBA)

Ground clearing 84

Excavation, grading 89

Foundations 78

Structural 85

Finishing 89

Source: USEPA 1971

Given the temporary nature of proposed construction and demolition activities and the limitedamount of noise that construction equipment would generate, this effect would be minor. Noisefrom construction activities would be minimal and confined primarily to construction areas.Limited truck and worker vehicle traffic might be audible at some nearby locations. These effectswould be negligible.

No long-term increases in the overall noise environment (e.g., Leq, DNL) would be expected from

implementing the Preferred Alternative. No military training activities, use of weaponry,demolitions, or aircraft operations would occur. Therefore, no long-term changes in the existingnoise environment associated with these sources would be expected.


Selecting the No Action Alternative would result in no effect on the noise environment. Noconstruction or demolition would occur, and no new lodging operations would take place. Noiseconditions would remain as described in Section 3.4.1.

3.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS


Ecoregions at Fort Drum include the Black River Valley, Eastern Ontario Plains, Indian RiverTransition, St. Lawrence Valley, and Western Adirondack Transition. The PAL program area isin the St. Lawrence Valley Ecoregion (US Army 2011b). Elevations in the St. Lawrence Valleyecoregion range from 410 to 747 feet above mean sea level, with an average elevation of 580 feetand an average slope of 2.9 percent. Elevations at Fort Drum range from approximately 400 feetabove mean sea level at the western boundary to approximately 900 feet above mean sea level atthe northeastern boundary (USACE Mobile District 2004).

Soils of the St. Lawrence Valley Ecoregion are characterized as clay-loam (US Army 2011b).Soils in the PAL program area are underlain by Pleistocene silty sand up to 120 feet thick thatform the Black River delta (Pine Plains), sandy tills with gravel, and silty clay lacustrine deposits(USACE Mobile District 2004). Unconsolidated sediments are underlain by the TheresaFormation of Upper Cambrian age, which ranges from 0 to 40 feet thick (USACE Mobile District



3-9

2004). The Theresa Formation is underlain by Potsdam Sandstone, also of the Cambrian age.Potsdam Sandstone is a medium- to thickly bedded, tan, grayish-white, quartz sandstone withsiliceous and calcareous cement and a basal conglomerate zone, and represents the primarybedrock aquifer (deep groundwater supply) in the area.

Generally, Plainfield sands dominate soils the PAL program area, which are dark brown toyellowish-brown (2–3 feet below the ground surface) and are underlain by a yellowish-brownsand substratum (5 feet or more below ground surface). This soil is highly permeable with a lowwater-holding capacity and can be subject to wind erosion in lowland areas that are unvegetated.Shallow groundwater wells that include Fort Drum and domestic water supply wells are screenedin the Plainfield sand. Plainfield sand is underlain by lacustrine silt and clay up to 70 feet thickthat was deposited in ancient Lake Iroquois. The silty clay is underlain by a thin, clayey graveland till zone and a sandy boulder till, both less than 10 feet thick.

PAL Parcels A, D, and E are on developed land in Fort Drum. Soils in Parcel A are dominatedby Wareham Series loamy fine sands; Benson-Galoo Complex, Granby Series, and Galway Seriessoil types are also present. These soils series represent silt loams on slopes ranging from 0 to 8percent, or mucky, loamy fine sands on slopes up to 3 percent (USDA NRCS 2012). Soils inParcel D and Parcel include Plainfield sand, 0–8 percent slopes, with Plainfield-Windsor soilsalso present in Parcel D.

Parcel C contains undeveloped land, and is the proposed site for a new lodging facility. Soils inthis parcel consist of Amenia and Nellis Series soils, with a small amount of Udorthents, refusesubstratum soils present. The Amenia and Nellis Series consist of silt loams on slopes rangingfrom 0 to 15 percent.

All the Amenia Series soils and the Nellis loam, 3–8 percent slopes, in Parcel C; and the Galwaysilt loam soils of Parcel A are classified as prime farmland (USDA NRCS 2012). The Nellisloam, 8–15 percent slope soils in Parcel C, and the Wareham soils in Parcel A are consideredfarmland of statewide importance. However, the Army’s Environmental Law Division hasdetermined that the Farmland Protection Policy Act does not apply to land withdrawn for militaryor national defense purposes and is, therefore, not subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act.All the soils in Parcel C, with the exception of the Udorthents soils, are classified as hydric, andall the soils in Parcel A are classified as hydric, except for the Benson-Galoo and Galway soiltypes (USDA NRCS 2012).



Short-term minor adverse effects on soils would be expected from implementing the PreferredAlternative. In the short term, some vegetation removal or soil disturbance would be expectedduring site preparation and construction proposed for Parcel C, and demolition of the WWIIlodges in Parcel D. No vegetation removal is associated with demolition of the WWII lodges;however, soil disturbance would be expected. Vegetation removal, demolition, and other sitepreparation and construction-related activities would be expected to increase soil exposure,making soils more susceptible to erosion by wind or water. Such effects would be minimized byusing appropriate site-specific BMPs for controlling erosion and runoff. Examples of erosioncontrol devices that could be used include silt fencing for construction areas, and placing gravelor planting native plants for final stabilization. Installing a 3-foot silt fence typically involvesburying approximately 6 inches of the fencing below ground to capture silt, sand, and debris from



3-10

storm water runoff. The fence would remain in place until construction is completed and allexposed soils are stabilized as a result of revegetation.

Construction of the new hotel on Parcel C would be conducted in accordance with applicableFederal, state, and installation regulations to ensure appropriate erosion and sediment control isprovided. All construction activities would be conducted in accordance with a site-specific StormWater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and in accordance with requirements of the NYSPollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges fromConstruction Activity, GP-0-08-001. In addition, special authorization from NYSDEC Region 6would be obtained for construction activities that disturb 5 acres or more of land in accordancewith NYS Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Dischargesfrom Construction Activity, GP-0-10-001, and would require preparation of a Water Quality andQuantity Control Plan and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

No effect on soils would be expected for PAL parcels A and E, because project activities wouldbe limited to interior and exterior building renovations and would not include ground-disturbingactivities.

No effects on geologic or topographic conditions, or on prime farmland, would be expected underthe Preferred Alternative.


No effects on geologic or topographic conditions, or soils would be expected from implementingthe No Action Alternative. No ground-disturbing activities would occur.

3.6 WATER RESOURCES


Precipitation. The mean total annual precipitation at Fort Drum is 43.2 inches with a monthlymean of 3.6 inches (The Weather Channel 2012). On average, the least amount of precipitationoccurs in February and March (2.7 inches for each month), and the most precipitation occurs inNovember (4.6 inches).

Surface Water. Fort Drum’s surface water resources are in the Black River (Hydrologic UnitCode 04150101) and Indian River (Hydrologic Unit Code 04150303) watersheds. The BlackRiver flows westward toward Lake Ontario, and the Indian River flows into the OswegatchieRiver, which drains into the St. Lawrence River. The PAL parcels are in the West Creek andPleasant Creek subwatersheds of the Indian River Watershed, and the Black River subwatershedin the Black River watershed (US Army 2011b). No streams are in any of the PAL parcels;however, Pleasant Creek is east of Parcel C and northwest of Parcel A, and the Black River issouth of Parcels D and E.

Surface water quality at the installation is monitored as part of routine data assimilation under theIntegrated Training Area Management program, following the Fish and Wildlife ManagementImplementation Plan, and the general water quality program administered by the state (USACEMobile District 2004). Typical parameters collected include dissolved oxygen, total alkalinity,total hardness, conductivity, and pH. Total alkalinity and hardness levels have been slightlylower than those routinely reported by NYSDEC for freshwater communities (USACE MobileDistrict 2004).



3-11

NYS classifies waterbodies in the vicinity of PAL parcels as Class C surface waterbodies. ClassC waterbodies are suitable for fish propagation and survival, and sport fishing. Water quality issuitable for primary and secondary contact recreation (USACE Mobile District 2004; US Army2011b).

The Clean Water Act section 303(d) requires states to identify and develop a list of impairedwaterbodies for which technology-based and other required controls have not provided attainmentof water quality standards. All the waterbodies in the vicinity of PAL parcels meet NYS waterquality standards (NYSDEC 2012c; USACE Mobile District 2004).

Wetlands. PAL Parcels D and E do not contain any wetlands. Parcel A contains a 0.6-acrewetland, and Parcel C contains approximately a 0.4-acre wetland (Figure 3-1).

Groundwater. Fort Drum uses two primary producing aquifers as a source of water in theCantonment Area near WSAAF (US Army 2011b). Eleven wells are associated with these twoaquifers, and these wells have the capacity to produce between 100–150 gallons per minute. Nospecific data on groundwater quality were identified for the PAL parcels.

Floodplains. None of the PAL parcels is within a 100-year floodplain (USACE Mobile District2004).



Short- and long-term minor adverse effects on water resources would be expected fromimplementing the Preferred Alternative.

In the short term, staging, site preparation, demolition, and new construction activities in PALParcels C and D would be expected to involve some soil disturbance or compaction andvegetation removal (Parcel C). These activities could result in an increase in dissolved solid,sediment or other waterborne pollutants in surface water runoff that could reach groundwaterthrough infiltration through the porous soils, either during overland sheet flow or infiltration ofstorm water runoff.

The NYSDEC Storm Water Program requires permit coverage for storm water discharges fromconstruction activities disturbing more than 1 acre of land. Rest Easy would develop a site-specific SWPPP for the new hotel construction project proposed for Parcel C. The SWPPP wouldspecify BMPs that address common erosion control practices, which would reduce the potentialfor movement of sediments on the site during construction and minimize sedimentation intonearby waterbodies. The SWPPP also would detail the appropriate methods for collection,treatment, or discharge of storm water runoff after construction. Construction plans and the newfacility would be designed, constructed, and maintained by Rest Easy in accordance with theNYS Stormwater Design Manual and all applicable storm water management regulations andpermits. Potential adverse effects on the groundwater and surface water systems would beminimized by using appropriate site-specific BMPs to control erosion and runoff in accordancewith all applicable Federal, state, and installation regulations, and by preparing and adhering tosite-specific SWPPPs and the requirements of the NYS Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemGeneral Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activity, GP-0-08-001.



3-13

Long-term minor adverse effects on water resources would be expected from constructionactivities proposed for Parcel C, in association with the net loss of pervious ground cover(vegetation) and surface soils, and the net increase in impervious surface area. Increasedimpervious surface areas associated with driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, and rooftops canresult in increased runoff (in the forms of increased volume, velocity, and peak flows), increasederosion, increased pollutant loads (e.g., dissolved solids, petroleum hydrocarbon debris fromvehicles) and sediment loads, and reduced ground absorption and infiltration of runoff that wouldotherwise recharge groundwater aquifers. Long-term minor adverse effects would be minimizedby complying with all applicable regulations for storm water management, applicable permits,and incorporating BMPs for storm water management into the site design. Any minor adverseimpacts resulting from new impervious surface associated with the new hotel would be furtheroffset by the demolition of the WWII lodging on Parcel D, which would result in replacingimpervious surfaces with vegetated cover, or nonvegetated, land-stabilizing gravelscaping.

Constructing the new hotel in Parcel C could affect up to 0.4 acre of palustrine wetlands, resultingin long-term minor adverse effects on wetlands. The wetland data available for Parcel C are froma wetland delineation and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional wetlanddetermination that is no longer valid (US Army 2012a). An inspection of the existing wetlanddelineation would be conducted to determine if the existing wetland data is still valid or if a newwetland delineation is needed. Once the existing wetland delineation has been verified orupdated, the USACE would need to review and verify the wetland boundaries before siting of thenew hotel. Siting of the new building in Parcel C would be conducted to avoid wetlands to theextent practicable; however, it is expected that some wetland impacts would be unavoidablebecause of the location of the wetland habitat in Parcel C (Figure 3-1). To fill wetlands, LendLease and Rest Easy would be required to obtain permits for any wetland draining or fillingactivities from the New York District of the USACE. Compensatory mitigation would berequired for wetland impacts.

Demolition activities proposed for Parcel D could result in negative effects on water resources,from storm water runoff, erosion and sedimentation. During and after the demolition of theWWII lodges in Parcel D, appropriate BMPs would be used to protect water resources, and thesite would be revegetated to stabilize exposed soils. As a result of a reduction in the amount ofimpervious surfaces, a slight decrease in storm water runoff, and a slight increase in groundwaterrecharge could occur. However, if water is used as a dust suppression measure duringdemolition, the net increase in groundwater recharge would be expected to be zero.

No effects on surface water, wetlands, or groundwater resources would be expected on PALParcels A and E, because the only activities on these parcels would be limited to interior andminor exterior building renovations.

No effects on floodplains would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative.


No effects on water resources would be expected under the No Action Alternative.



3-14

3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES


3.7.1.1 Vegetation

The loam and clay soil types that are associated with the Fort Drum Cantonment Area supportcommon vegetative communities that occur within the St. Lawrence Valley ecoregion, includinggrasslands associated with clay-loam soil types, shrub thickets, and successional and maturenorthern hardwood forests (US Army 2011b). Grassland communities are dominated by forbs,including timothy (Phleum pratense), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), Kentucky bluegrass(Poa pratensis), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), and vetch (Vicia cracca). Common shrub species inareas that are in the process of converting from grassland to shrub habitat include dogwood(Cornus spp.), cherry (Prunus spp.), and meadowsweet (Spiraea alba). Tree species associatedwith successional and mature northern hardwood forest communities include maple (Acer spp.),yellow birch (Betula allegheniensis), gray birch (B. populifolia), American beech (Fagusgrandifolia), northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis).The understory of the forest communities is similar to what is described for the grassland andshrub communities above. Although the Cantonment Area contains some invasive speciespopulations, the focus of invasive species management at Fort Drum is in areas outside theCantonment Area.

Vegetation of the developed PAL parcels (Parcels A, D, and E) is a mixture of landscaping trees,ornamental shrubs, and maintained lawns. Vegetation in Parcel C is a mixture of grassland,shrub, and mixed hardwood and pine forest habitat. Grasslands in the Cantonment Area aredominated by a mixture of native and introduced species such as common hairgrass(Deschampsia flexuosa), stiff-leaved aster (Ionactis linariifolius), poverty oat grass (Danthoniaspicata), timothy, Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa), old-field cinquefoil (Potentilla simplex),and vetch (USACE Mobile District 2004). Shrublands support blueberry (Vaccinium sp.),serviceberry (Amelanchier sp.), and scattered oak trees (Quercus spp.) but also have anherbaceous component composed of timothy, old-field cinquefoil, rough-leaved goldenrod(Solidago patula), and meadowsweet. Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) is the primary coniferspecies in the forested regions of the Cantonment Area, and eastern hemlock is the second mostcommon conifer species. Dominant deciduous tree species are aspen (Populus sp.), black cherry(Prunus serotina), red maple (A. rubrum), sugar maple (A. saccharum), American beech, andnorthern red oak (Quercus rubra).

Emergent palustrine wetland systems support herbaceous species such as forbs, grasses, andsedges, while forested wetlands primarily feature trees like red maple, alder (Alnus sp.), andAmerican elm (Ulmus americana) (USACE Mobile District 2004). A small amount(approximately 0.4 acre) of palustrine wetland habitat also is in Parcel C. Appendix 5 of the FortDrum Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) contains a detailed list of plantspecies associated with Fort Drum (US Army 2011b).

3.7.1.2 Wildlife

Wildlife species tolerant of human activity would be expected to occur in lodging areas andadjacent natural vegetation in the Cantonment Area. Common mammals include the red fox(Vulpes vulpes), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),woodchuck (Marmota monax), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), meadow vole (Microtuspennsylvanicus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and deer mouse (P. maniculatus)



3-15

(USACE Mobile District 2004). Birds typically found in the open uplands of Fort Drum are thesavannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), commonnighthawk (Chordeiles minor), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), eastern bluebird (Sialiasialis), and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). Many bird species commonlyoccur in the late successional forest habitat, similar to what is present on Parcel C, includingcerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulean) and red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpeserythrocephalus), two species of interest because of their recent population declines. Commonbird species associated with shrublands and early successional forest habitats, which are alsopresent in Parcel C, are American woodcock (Scolopax minor), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus),brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), black-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus), blue-winged warbler (Vermivora cyanoptera), golden-winged warbler (V. chrysoptera), prairie warbler(Setophaga discolor), Canada warbler (Cardellina canadensis), and willow flycatcher(Empidonax traillii). While Parcel C contains habitat to support bird species associated withsuccessional forest habitats, most of these bird species are not known to occur within this parcel(US Army 2012b).

No streams or waterbodies are in any of the PAL parcels; therefore, no fish species occur in thePAL program area. Appendix 6 of the Fort Drum INRMP contains a detailed list of wildlifespecies associated with Fort Drum (US Army 2011b).

White-tailed deer are a management concern in the Cantonment Area. The Cantonment Area isfenced, and although this limits the movement of deer in and out of the Cantonment Area, deercan and do jump the fence, and can walk in and out of open gates. In an attempt to manage thedeer population and reduce deer-vehicle collisions and impacts of deer on vegetation, archeryhunting is allowed in designated areas of the Cantonment Area. Archery hunting in theCantonment Area is restricted to active and retired military personnel, military dependents, andDoD civilian staff and contract personnel.

3.7.1.3 Sensitive Species

Flora. No federally listed plant species are known to occur at Fort Drum. A total of 22 statelisted plant species have been documented at Fort Drum, as determined by the NYS NaturalHeritage Program (US Army 2011b). Because of the developed nature of PAL Parcels A, D, andE, no state-listed flora are expected to occur on these parcels. Parcel C has not been surveyed forthe presence of sensitive or rare plant species; however, of the 22 state-listed species that occur atFort Drum, three-seeded mercury (Acalypha virginica) has the potential to occur. Three-seededmercury is a New York endangered species, and is frequently found along roadsides and in vacantlots and fallow fields at Fort Drum. There is a low potential for three-seeded mercury to occurwithin Parcel C due to it’s rarity. The common three-seeded mercury (A. rhomboidea) is morelikely to occur within Parcel C, which is more widespread (US Army 2012b).

Appendix 7 of the Fort Drum INRMP contains a complete list of state-listed species that occur atFort Drum (US Army 2011b).

None of the NYS Natural Heritage Program rare ecological communities that have beenidentified at Fort Drum is associated with the PAL parcels.

Fauna. The endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is the only federally listed species known tooccur on Fort Drum and was first confirmed at the installation in 2006 (US Army 2011b).Indiana bat is also listed in New York as an endangered species, and NYSDEC has also identifiedIndiana bat as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need, due to declines in their population.



3-16

Indiana bats are known to roost and forage in the Fort Drum Cantonment Area (US Army 2011b).Fort Drum received a Biological Opinion from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on 2February 2012 for potential impacts to Indiana bat resulting from proposed wind energy projectsand use of smoke in training areas (USFWS 2012). To provide protection for known roosting andforaging sites for this species, Fort Drum has established the Bat Conservation Area, a 2,200-acrearea located primarily in the Cantonment Area. This area was established to provide continuity ofthe known habitat and roosting sites for Indiana bat located in the Cantonment Area, and alongWest Creek and Pleasant Creek corridors. Tree cutting and application of herbicides is restrictedwithin the Bat Conservation Area without further consultation with USFWS.

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was removed from the Federal list of threatened andendangered wildlife on 9 July 2007 (US Department of the Interior 2007). The bald eagle andgolden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16U.S.C. 703–712), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668–668c). Nearlyall bird species that occur at Fort Drum are protected by the MBTA. A total of 31 state-listedwildlife species also occur at Fort Drum (US Army 2011b).

Because of the developed nature of PAL Parcels A, D and E, sensitive wildlife species are notexpected to occur on these parcels. Parcel C has not been surveyed for the presence of sensitivewildlife species. Of the Federal and state listed wildlife species that have been documented atFort Drum (US Army 2011b), only the Indiana bat has been identified as having the greatestpotential to occur in Parcel C, as determined from information contained in the Fort DrumINMRP (US Army 2011b) and personal communication received during preparation of this EA(US Army 2012b).

Appendix 7 of the Fort Drum INRMP contains a complete list of Federal and state listed wildlifespecies that occur at Fort Drum (US Army 2011b).



Short-term minor adverse effects and long-term minor adverse effects on biological resources ofParcel C would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative at Fort Drum, asdescribed below.

Vegetation. Long-term minor adverse effects on vegetation would be expected from removingvegetation when constructing the new hotel in Parcel C. All disturbed areas would be revegetatedwith native species when construction is complete. Trees cut from the site could be sold asmarketable timber, depending on the amount and value of the trees removed. Tree cuttingrestrictions are required for protection of Indiana bat, and these are described below for sensitivespecies.

Wildlife. Short-term minor adverse effects on wildlife inhabiting Parcel C, and long-term minoradverse effects to the wildlife habitat of Parcel C would be expected from implementing thePreferred Alternative. Parcel C is in the Cantonment Area, which is largely developed. Landclearing and construction activities associated with a new hotel in Parcel C could displaceresident wildlife and cause any resident white-tailed deer to temporarily move to another area onFort Drum (USACE Mobile District 2004). Permanent removal of wildlife habitat would alsooccur on Parcel C. Because Parcels A, D, and E provide little to no wildlife habitat, and



3-17

disruptive actions would be limited to the demolition of the four WWII lodges at the end of theIDP, no adverse effects on wildlife would be expected in those parcels.

Sensitive Species. Short-term minor adverse effects on sensitive species inhabiting Parcel Cwould be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. Parcel C contains suitablehabitat that could support the sensitive species described in Section 3.7.1.3; however, this parcelis not part of a large, contiguous tract of undeveloped land, which reduces the likelihood forsensitive wildlife species to occur. There are no federally listed plant species known to occur atFort Drum; however, a NYS endangered species, the three-seeded mercury, might occur in ParcelC. Although Federal facilities are not required to mitigate effects on state-listed species,installations are encouraged to cooperate with state authorities in an effort to conserve state-listedspecies that could be affected by Federal actions.

In a letter from USFWS in 2003 as part of coordination conducted by Fort Drum for the EAprepared for the RCI, in which Parcel C is located, the USFWS indicates that no federally listedspecies are under its jurisdiction in the RCI area (USACE Mobile District 2004). However, sincethe RCI EA was prepared, the federally endangered Indiana bat has been documented in theCantonment Area. The Biological Opinion received from USFWS for proposed wind energyprojects and training exercises that involve smoke (USFWS 2012) stated that other activities,such as construction, forest management, establishment of easements, other military trainingactivities, mechanical vegetation management, prescribed fire, pesticide application, wildlifemanagement/vertebrate pest control activities, and outdoor recreation activities would not beexpected to result in adverse effects to Indiana bat.

Fort Drum has established the Bat Conservation Area, a 2,200-acre area located primarily withinthe Cantonment Area that protects known roosting and foraging areas for Indiana bat at FortDrum. The Bat Conservation Area provides continuity of the known habitat and roosting sites forIndiana bat located in the Cantonment Area, and areas along West Creek and Pleasant Creekcorridors. Tree cutting and application of herbicides is restricted with the Fort Drum BatConservation Area unless further consultation with USFWS is performed. To ensure protectionof Indiana bat, cutting of trees in Parcel C would be restricted from 16 April to 15 October, whenbat species, including the Indiana bat, are most likely to be roosting in trees. Fort Drum hasinitiated consultation with the USFWS, requesting information on federally listed species thatcould be affected from implementing the PAL program at Fort Drum, including birds protectedby the MBTA that might occur in Parcel C. Copies of agency correspondence are provided inAppendix B.

No effects on biological resources on the developed PAL parcels (Parcels A, D and E) would beexpected because these parcels are developed and contain little to no native vegetation.Furthermore, activities associated with these parcels would not affect biological resourcesbecause they are limited to renovations to the interior and exterior of the existing buildings anddemolition of the WWII lodges in Parcel D at the end of the IDP.


No effects on biological resources would be expected under the No Action Alternative. Novegetation or animal species would be disturbed under the No Action Alternative.



3-18

3.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES


Fort Drum is responsible for identifying, evaluating, and protecting important cultural resourceson the installation in compliance with the NHPA and other Federal laws, regulations, andstandards. Managing cultural resources on the installation is guided, in accordance with ArmyRegulation 200-1, by an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP), which isupdated every 5 years. That plan integrates cultural resources management into other mission-related activities.

The most recent Fort Drum ICRMP was prepared in 2010. It contains detailed information onarea prehistory and history, including a history of Fort Drum itself. The ICRMP contains adiscussion of regulatory frameworks and compliance status, party and agency roles andresponsibilities, studies conducted to date, known site data, standard operating procedures(SOPs), and memoranda and agreements applicable to managing cultural resources. EighteenSOPs in the ICRMP define protocols for cultural resource management practices such asaccidental or inadvertent discoveries, which can be used to avoid significant impacts on culturalresources during project construction, renovation, or operation (US Army 2010a).

As an overview, numerous cultural resources studies have been conducted at Fort Drum.Resource types associated with the installation include buildings, structures, objects, sites, andone historic landscape that are eligible for listing or have been listed on the NRHP.

3.8.1.1 Archaeological Sites

As of 2010, approximately 87 percent of Fort Drum had been systematically inventoried forarchaeological resources and the action resulted in the identification of more than 940archaeological sites (US Army 2010a). Prehistoric and historic-era archaeological resources havebeen identified through surveys at Fort Drum. Known archaeological sites range from transientPaleo-Indian occupations to WWII firing points. Once identified, recorded archaeological sitesare added to Fort Drum’s geographic information system (GIS) data layers and to the CulturalResources Program (CRP) inventory. All archaeological sites are treated as NRHP-eligible andprotected until receipt of a New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO) concurrencefor resources determined not eligible for NRHP listing (US Army 2010a).

The Area of Potential Effect for the proposed PAL undertaking includes the buildings andstructures that would be conveyed or leased, areas of any potential ground disturbance, andhistoric landscape areas in the vicinity of the PAL footprint. The PAL footprint includes existinglodging in Parcels A and D, and an undeveloped portion of Parcel C. Parcel E involves the use ofonly a portion of the interior of an existing warehouse. The existing developments have littlepossibility for containing intact archaeological resources because of the extensive disturbancefrom construction.

Parcel C is undeveloped and was surveyed in 2001, 2003, and 2004 by the Fort Drum CRP.During those surveys, prehistoric and historic cultural materials were identified. Prehistoricmaterials consisted of several non-diagnostic pieces of stone tool manufacture by-products.Historic materials consisted of debris associated with the installation’s Farmstead Occupationperiod. Because of the lack of significant cultural material recovered and intact cultural featuresidentified, the Fort Drum CRP determined that no further archaeological testing of Parcel C wasrequired after the 2004 field effort (US Geological Survey n.d.).



3-19

3.8.1.2 Native American Resources

Two traditional cultural properties have been identified on the installation; however, no NativeAmerican resources have been identified on any of the PAL parcels (US Army 2010a). FortDrum has initiated consultation with the Oneida Indian Nation, the Onondaga Nation, and the St.Regis Mohawk Tribe regarding the proposed PAL project. Copies of the coordination letters sentto the tribes and responses received are in Appendix B.

3.8.1.3 Historic Architecture

Fort Drum contains one historic landscape, the LeRay Mansion Historic District. Within thehistoric landscape are five designated historic buildings. In addition, in 2003 the USACEResearch and Development Center conducted a Needs Assessment for Historic LandscapesIdentification. The assessment identified five potentially significant landscapes on theinstallation, including: WWII Officer’s Loop, General’s Row, Division Hill, 1920 Pine Camp,and the Solstice Site. Fort Drum’s review of the assessment rejected the inclusion of WWIIOfficer’s Loop, General’s Row, and Division Hill as historic landscapes, as these sites no longermeet the criteria for an historic landscape, due to the absence of historic architecture (US Army2012c). The 1920 Pine Camp is currently being managed as an archaeological site, and theSolstice Site is currently being managed as one of the two traditional cultural propertiesmentioned in Section 3.8.1.2. The installation also has 13 cemeteries and 5 monuments (USArmy 2010a).

None of the existing structures in the PAL parcels is listed, or is eligible for listing, in the NRHP.The Fort Drum Inn, in Parcel A, was constructed in 1986 and does not meet NRHP eligibilityrequirements. Although the WWII Officer’s Loop is considered a potentially significantlandscape district, the Officer’s Loop WWII lodges, in Parcel D, were constructed in 1941 andare considered temporary wooden structures, and are not eligible for the NRHP (US Army 2012dand Garner 1993). Building S-79, in Parcel E, was also constructed in 1941 and does not meetNRHP eligibility requirements (US Army 2012d and Garner 1993).

In accordance with the requirements set forth in section106 of the NHPA, a coordination letterregarding the proposed action was sent to the NYSHPO (Appendix B).



No adverse effects on archaeological sites, Native American resources, or historic architecturewould be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative.

Archeological Sites. No adverse effects on archaeological sites would be expected fromimplementing the Preferred Alternative. The involved parcels contain no NRHP-eligiblearchaeological sites.

Native American Resources. No adverse effects on Native American resources would beexpected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. The involved parcels do not contain anyidentified resources of significance to a Native American tribe.

Historic Architecture. No adverse effects on historic architecture would be expected under thePreferred Alternative. None of the existing structures in the PAL parcels are listed, or are eligible



3-20

for listing, on the NRHP, nor are they in an NRHP-eligible, or potentially eligible historic districtor landscape. Maintenance, repair, and renovation of the existing structures would be limited tothe Fort Drum Inn, which was built in 1986, and the four wooden WWII lodges, which have beendetermined ineligible for the NRHP. Furthermore, the only structure being conveyed to RestEasy (leaving Federal control) is the Fort Drum Inn. The WWII lodges and warehouses would beused under a support lease and remain within Federal control. As approved by the programmaticagreement between DoD, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, National Conference ofState Historic Preservation Officers, and the Historic American Buildings Survey/HistoricAmerican Engineering Record regarding the demolition of WWII temporary buildings (AdvisoryCouncil on Historic Preservation 1986 and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1991), thefour WWII lodges would be demolished at the end of the IDP.

Parcel C was originally part of a ground lease for RCI program established for Fort Drum. Aprovision would be included in Exhibit E of the ground lease regarding accidental or inadvertentdiscoveries of archaeological sites, Native American resources, or historic architecture. The leaseprovision would be based on SOP 7 in the ICRMP, which establishes steps to take when theaccidental discovery of potential archaeological resources occurs on a project. Rest Easy wouldfully comply with management measures identified in the lease documents.


No effects on cultural resources would be expected under the No Action Alternative. All Armyactions affecting the involved parcels would conform to installation policies, the ICRMP, andrelevant regulatory frameworks.

3.9 SOCIOECONOMICS


This section describes the economy and the sociological environment of the region of influence(ROI) surrounding Fort Drum. An ROI is a geographic area selected as a basis on which socialand economic impacts of project alternatives are analyzed. The ROI for the social and economicenvironment is defined as Jefferson County, New York. Socioeconomic data for NYS and theUnited States are presented for comparative purposes.

3.9.1.1 Regional Economy

Employment and Industry. Civilian labor force and unemployment data are shown in Table 3-6.The region’s labor force increased 11 percent between 2000 and 2010, which is higher than thestate and national labor force growth of 5 percent and 8 percent, respectively. The ROI 2010annual unemployment rate was 10 percent, which is the same as the national unemployment rateand is 1 percent higher than the state unemployment rate (9 percent). As of December 2011 (themost recent unemployment data available), preliminary unemployment data indicate a 10 percentunemployment rate for the ROI, and an 8 percent unemployment rate for the state and the nation(BLS 2012).



3-21

Table 3-6.Labor force and unemployment

Location2000 civilianlabor force

2010 civilianlabor force

Percent changein labor force,

2000–2010

2010 annualunemployment

percent

ROI 45,041 49,859 11% 10%

New York 9,166,972 9,630,854 5% 9%

United States 142,583,000 153,889,000 8% 10%

Source: BLS 2012

The primary sources of ROI employment were government and government enterprises (whichinclude Federal, military, and state and local government); retail trade; and health care and socialassistance. Those three industry sectors account for more than 60 percent of regionalemployment (BEA 2011). Fort Drum is the largest employer in northern New York, employingmore than 19,400 active duty military personnel and 4,800 civilian personnel (including tenantsand contractor employees) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. For FY 2010, military and civilian payrolls(including tenants and contractors) totaled more than $973 million and $193 million, respectively(US Army 2010b).

Income. ROI income levels were lower than state and national income levels (Table 3-7). TheROI per capita personal income (PCPI) was $22,514, compared to the state level PCPI of $30,011and the national PCPI of $26,059. The ROI median household income was $43,557, compared tothe state median household income of $54,148 and the national median household income of$50,046 (USCB 2011a).

Table 3-7.2010 Income

Location PCPI Median household income

ROI $22,514 $43,557

New York $30,011 $54,148

United States $26,059 $50,046

Source: USCB 2011a

Population. The ROI’s 2010 population was 116,229, which represented an increase of almost4,500 persons since 2000. The ROI’s population growth of 4 percent was higher than the NYSpopulation growth of 2 percent, but lower than the national population growth of 10 percent(Table 3-8).

Table 3-8.Population

Location 2000 population 2010 population

Percent change inpopulation,2000–2010

ROI 111,738 116,229 4,491 (4%)

New York 18,976,457 19,378,102 401,645 (2%)

United States 281,421,906 308,745,538 27,323,632 (10%)

Source: USCB 2012



3-22

3.9.1.2 Quality of Life

Lodging. The Fort Drum lodging facilities are described in Section 2.3. Fort Drum Armylodging data for the past three fiscal years (2009-2011) lists the number of room nightsaccommodated on-post as 97,617 in 2009; 99,887 in 2010; and 98,900 in 2011. Hotel ValuationServices (an independent contractor) conducted a professional market study to assess the FortDrum area hotel market supply and demand conditions. The study analysis projected that theproposed actions to construct a 235-room CWS hotel and to renovate the 111-room HIE on FortDrum would result in 99,470 room nights accommodated on-post. Comparing the Fort DrumArmy lodging historic data to the market study data shows that the projected number of on-postaccommodated room nights would remain about the same.

Emergency Services. The Fort Drum Directorate of Emergency Services provides lawenforcement, physical security, and fire and emergency response on Fort Drum, including thelodging areas. Fort Drum has three fire stations. Medical care for active duty Soldiers, retirees,or family members is available at Fort Drum’s Guthrie Ambulatory Health Care Clinic. Localcivilian hospitals that provide inpatient medical needs are the Samaritan Medical Center and theCarthage Area Hospital.

3.9.1.3 Environmental Justice

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations, was issued by President Clinton on 11 February 1994. The EO requires thatFederal agencies take into consideration disproportionately high and adverse environmentaleffects of governmental decisions, policies, projects, and programs on minority and low-incomepopulations.

According to the 2010 Census, minority populations composed 14 percent of the ROI’spopulation. That is much lower compared to New York’s minority population of 42 percent andthe national minority population of 36 percent (USCB 2011b). The ROI, NYS, and nationalpoverty rate was 14 percent (USCB 2012).

3.9.1.4 Protection of Children

EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks, issued byPresident Clinton on 21 April 1997, requires Federal agencies, to the extent permitted by law andmission, to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that might disproportionatelyaffect children. Children are present at Fort Drum as residents and visitors (e.g., residing inon-post family housing or lodging, using recreational facilities, attending events). The Armytakes precautions for their safety through a number of means, including using fencing, limitingaccess to certain areas, and requiring adult supervision.



EIFS Model Methodology. The economic effects of implementing the proposed action areestimated using the Economic Impact Forecast System (EIFS) model, a computer-basedeconomic tool that calculates multipliers to estimate the direct and indirect effects resulting froma given action. Changes in spending and employment caused by renovation and construction ofFort Drum lodging facilities represent the direct effects of the action. Using the input data and



3-23

calculated multipliers, the model estimates ROI changes in sales volume, income, employment,and population, accounting for the direct and indirect effects of the action.

For purposes of this analysis, a change is considered significant if it is outside the historical rangeof ROI economic variation. To determine that range, the EIFS model calculates a rationalthreshold value (RTV) profile for the ROI. That analytical process uses historical data for theROI and calculates fluctuations in sales volume, income, employment, and population patterns.The historical extremes for the ROI become the thresholds of significance (i.e., the RTVs) forsocial and economic change. If the estimated effect of an action is above the positive RTV orbelow the negative RTV, the effect is considered significant. Appendix C discusses themethodology in more detail, and presents the model inputs and outputs developed for thisanalysis.

EIFS Model Results. Short-term minor beneficial economic effects on the regional economywould be expected from implementing the PAL program. The expenditures and employmentassociated with the Fort Drum lodging renovation and construction would increase ROI salesvolume, employment, and income, as determined by the EIFS model (Table 3-9) and AppendixC). The economic benefits would last for the duration of the development and constructionperiod. Such changes in sales volume, employment, and income would be within historicalfluctuations (i.e., within the RTV range) and would be considered minor.

Table 3-9.EIFS model output

Variable Projected total change Percent change RTV range

Sales (business) volume $10,550,000 0.44% -5.26% to 23.83%

Income $1,871,547 0.08% -3.40% to 18.27%

Employment 55 0.09% -2.73% to 11.12%

Population 0 0.00% -1.02% to 6.44%

Source: EIFS model

Lodging. Long-term minor beneficial effects on lodging would be expected from implementingthe Preferred Alternative. The availability of quality, on-post lodging facilities at a cost thatmeets Government per diem rates is important to Soldiers when they are on TDY or permanentchange of station. It also is important to the Army to be able to accommodate Soldiers andvisitors in suitable lodging equal to that of off-post lodging. Under the Preferred Alternative, thedeveloper would renovate existing lodging and construct new lodging to provide a sufficientnumber of on-post rooms and parking spaces to meet Fort Drum’s lodging requirements. Theinstallation would have modern hotels with amenities preferred by today’s travelers such asInternet access, continental breakfast, business and fitness centers, and guest laundry. Theseimprovements would benefit the quality of life of those who stay at the Fort Drum lodging.

The Hotel Valuation Services hotel market study analysis (see Section 3.9.1.2) concluded that theproposed action would result in little to no change in the number of on-post accommodated roomnights, which would therefore have no adverse effect on off-post hotel demand and the localeconomy. Based on Fort Drum Army Lodging historic data and the market study data, no moreand no fewer rooms would be accommodated on-post. It is possible that Rest Easy (on the basisof future analysis and the availability of project funds) would build a smaller CWS hotel withfewer than 235 rooms (see Section 2.3.2). Under this circumstance, the number of



3-24

accommodated on-post rooms would likely go down, which would also have no adverse effect onthe off-post hotel market or the local economy.

Emergency Services. No effects on law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medicalresponse would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. The subject lodgingbuildings are on Fort Drum property in the jurisdiction of the Fort Drum Directorate ofEmergency Services, which would continue to respond to emergencies at the privatized lodgingfacilities as they do with the existing lodging facilities, at a cost-reimbursable basis to thedeveloper. Rest Easy also would negotiate a multiple services agreement with the localcommunity police, fire, and emergency response service departments to provide additional aid ifneeded. The proposed new hotel on Parcel C would be built to comply with the Fort DrumInstallation Design Guide (US Army 2011c), and would have all the safety requirements requiredby law (such as smoke alarms, fire alarms, sprinklers).

Environmental Justice and Protection of Children. No adverse effects on environmental justiceand the protection of children would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative.The Preferred Alternative of renovation and construction of lodging facilities on Fort Drumwould not result in disproportionate adverse environmental or health effects on low-income orminority populations or children. The Preferred Alternative is not an action with the potential tosubstantially affect human health or the environment by excluding persons, denying personsbenefits, or subjecting persons to discrimination.


The No Action Alternative would be expected to have long-term minor adverse effects on qualityof life. Continuation of the present lodging programs would perpetuate deficiencies in quality oflife for Soldiers, their families, or visitors eligible to use Army lodging. The Army wouldcontinue to do regular maintenance on existing lodging, but those activities would be conductedon a constrained budget. Without implementing the PAL program, the Army would foregoopportunities to leverage private-sector financing for the lodging function. Quality of life forpersonnel using lodging facilities would, in all likelihood, decline given current funding levels.

3.10 TRANSPORTATION


Transportation in and around Fort Drum is achieved mainly via road and street networks,pedestrian walks, trails and bike paths. The transportation system serves installation trafficconsisting of everyday work, living, and recreations trips.

On-Post Roadways and Gate Traffic. Transportation challenges exist on roadways in and aroundFort Drum during the morning and evening peak periods because off-post roadways arecongested and queues form at the gates for access into the installation. Local roadways includeState Route 11 and County Route 342.

The Fort Drum on-post road network primary roadways link the gates with major facilities on theinstallation. The roadways on Fort Drum are classified as primary, secondary, and tertiary.Primary roads serve as main arteries carrying traffic on and off the installation and connecting themain portions of the installation. Table 3-10 provides the average daily traffic counts and peaktraffic at each installation gate.



3-25

Table 3-10.Annual average daily traffic counts at Fort Drum gates

Gate name LocationAverage dailytraffic count

Peak hour trafficcount

Peakhour

Gas Alley (#1) East (Tank Trail) 6,006 402 p.m.

Mt. Belvedere (#2) West (County Route 342) 4,344 256 p.m.

North (#3) West (US 11) 13,158 1,058 p.m.

Black River (#4) South (Nash Boulevard) 3,995 538 p.m.

WSAAF (#5) Southeast (County Route 3) 2,298 181 a.m.

45 Infantry DivisionEast (Martin Street Road – US26)

5,157 669 a.m.

Source: NYSDOT 2008; US Army 2011e

Queues often form at the gates in the morning and afternoon peak periods as people wait to bechecked. Visitors may enter only at the North Gate (#3), commercial vehicles may enter only atthe Gas Alley Gate (#1), and ammunition trucks may enter only at the WSAAF Gate (#5).Interstate (I)-81 is congested during the morning and afternoon peak hours. To alleviate thatcongestion, a new four-lane expressway (I-781) is under construction with access from I-81 andRoute 11 and an exit that leads directly to the North Gate (NYSDOT 2010).

Parking capacity at Fort Drum is appropriate for existing demand. Barracks and larger facilitieshave dedicated parking lots, and parallel parking is provided on many streets. Pedestrian traffic isaccommodated by a system of sidewalks along many streets and walkways between buildings.Troop pathways are provided between foot traffic, high-volume areas.

Off-Post Roadways. Fort Drum is approximately 25 miles southeast of the Canadian border, 70miles north of Syracuse, and 140 miles northwest of Albany, New York. I-81 is the closestinterstate to the installation and runs north-south parallel to US Highway 11, both to the west.Annual average daily traffic for I-81 near the installation is 21,912 at Exit 47 southwest of Mt.Belvedere Gate, and 9,090 near Exit 48 north of the installation access point (NYSDOT 2008).

Air, Rail, and Public Transportation. The closest airport to the PAL footprint area is WSAAF,about 2 miles northeast of the Cantonment Area, and the closest commercial airport is WatertownInternational Airport approximately 11 miles west of the installation. Rail spurs run throughoutthe installation.



Short-and long-term minor adverse effects on transportation would be expected fromimplementing the Preferred Alternative. Short-term effects would be due to construction-relatedtraffic. Long-term effects would be due to change in on- and off-post traffic from the proposedhotel. Construction vehicles would be scheduled and routed to minimize conflicts with othertraffic. During these phases, construction vehicles and day labor traffic would be expected tohave a minor adverse effect.



3-26

On-Post Roadways, Gate Traffic, and Parking. The proposed hotel would generate 2,045vehicle trips per day on weekdays either originating at or destined to Parcel C. Specifically,traffic from patrons and staff would be rerouted to Parcel C as opposed to off-post hotels andParcel D. In general, that would correspond to a net increase in the miles traveled on theinstallation, and a small net benefit by reducing traffic passing through the gates each morningand evening. Parcel C can be accessed from Mt. Belvedere Boulevard, Enduring Freedom Drive,South Riva Ridge Loop or all roadways. The project is in the preliminary design stage; ingressand egress issues would be taken into consideration before actual construction.

Individuals accessing the new hotel would use similar gates as currently used to access theexisting lodging facilities. A small increase in traffic would result; however, it is not expectedthat traffic at any gate would change substantially from implementing the Preferred Alternative.

The project is currently in the preliminary design stage; and adequate parking would be providedfor the additional lodging facilities.

Off-Post Roadways. The net increase in lodging would constitute a corresponding increase ofapproximately 740 vehicle trips per day at full occupancy either originating at, or destined to theinstallation (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2003). Many of these trips would occur at peakperiods, and would account for some small amount of off-post traffic. This would constitute aminute change in off-post traffic, and not appreciably affect any nearby roadways orintersections. Notably, overall increases in the traffic would be due to the changes in missionrequirements, and not PAL in and of itself. Effects on off-post roadways would be minor.

Air, Rail, and Public Transportation. The Preferred Alternative would have no appreciableadverse effect on air, rail, or public transportation.


Selecting the No Action Alternative would result in no effect on transportation resources. Noconstruction would occur, and no new lodging operations would take place. Traffic andtransportation conditions would remain as described in Section 3.10.1.

3.11 UTILITIES


All utility services, including water, wastewater, gas, electricity, and communications, areavailable near the proposed parcels. The utility components discussed in this section are watersupply, sanitary sewer and wastewater systems, storm water drainage, electricity, natural gas, andsolid waste management.

Potable Water. Watertown’s water plant supplies potable water to the installation bytransmission system operated by the Development Authority of the North Country (DANC). Theinstallation also operates 11 wells near WSAAF. This mix provides 40 percent well water and 60percent DANC-supplied water. DANC services all Fort Drum and surrounding counties with itswater treatment facilities from the main water source—the Black River. Lake Ontario alsoprovides water supply to the installation. DANC pumps water from Watertown’s clearwell usingone of three 75-horsepower centrifugal pumps through a 20-inch ductile iron pipeline to FortDrum’s 750,000-gallon ground storage tank on the installation (DANC 2010).



3-27

Wastewater System – On-Post. Most of the sewer lines on-post (99 percent) are separate sanitaryand storm sewers. All sanitary wastewater collected on Fort Drum is sent off-post for treatmentthrough three connections: (1) North Gate pump station; (2) Old Fort Drum wastewater treatmentplant off Nash Boulevard; and (3) gravity connection at Military Road near the housing east ofthe Belvedere Gate. The total sanitary wastewater flow from Fort Drum rarely exceeds 2.5million gallons daily (mgd). The capacity of the existing collection system and off-postconnections is ample. For example, the North Gate pump station is rated for 8 to 10 mgd, but theaverage daily wastewater flow from Fort Drum was only approximately 1.6 mgd in FY 08 (USArmy 2011f). The existing infrastructure for wastewater conveyance could easily support a 50percent increase in demand.

Wastewater System – Off-Post. Sanitary wastewater from Fort Drum is piped to the wastewatertreatment plant in Watertown via a pipeline owned and operated by DANC. DANC is contractedto treat Fort Drum sanitary wastewater, and DANC meters the off-post connections. The pipefrom Fort Drum to the Watertown treatment plant varies in size from 12 to 36 inches. This lineserves Fort Drum and the town of LeRay. The capacity of the pipeline is 10 mgd; the capacitycould be increased to 16 mgd if another pump were added. The 12-mile DANC pipeline goes tothe Watertown wastewater treatment plant, owned and operated by Watertown. Flow peaks in thespring and fall because 40 percent of the area served has combined sewers, which collect bothsanitary wastewater and storm water. The existing infrastructure for off-post wastewatertreatment could easily support a 50 percent increase in demand from Fort Drum.

Storm Water System. Most of the installation is in the St. Lawrence River Basin. A smallportion of land at the southern end of the installation drains to the Black River Basin. The BlackRiver flows westward across Training Area 6 near the southern boundary of Fort Drum, south ofWSAAF. No perennial streams drain into the Black River from Fort Drum. The greatest amountof surface runoff typically occurs in April, when the spring snowmelt occurs.

Solid Waste. Fort Drum's solid waste is consolidated for transport at the installation’s transferstation just north of Iraqi Freedom Drive to the DANC municipal solid waste landfill. Recyclablematerials are separated from solid waste before being transported off the installation by theDirectorate of Public Work’s Environmental Division’s Solid Waste and Recycle Program, andprivate vendors collect and transport the separated materials. In 2010 Fort Drum’s RecycleProgram generated 2,589 tons of recyclable materials transported off-post by vendors, anddisposed of 8,500 tons of solid waste and construction debris to the DANC Rodman Regionallandfill. Fort Drum requires construction and demolition (C&D) contractors to dispose of solidwaste generated during C&D activities undertaken on-post. The contractors are responsible forcoordinating with local or regional landfills to secure agreements for appropriate disposal of solidwaste (US Army 2010c).

Electricity. The Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation supplies power to Fort Drum at a numberof connection points. Two main substations supply power to the Cantonment Areas, both withcapacities of 15 megawatts. These substations are configured to receive hardware for additionalcapacity, if necessary. The average monthly demand in FY 02 was approximately 16.1megawatts, and the average monthly use on-post was 770 megawatt-hours. The existingelectrical infrastructure could easily support a 50 percent increase in demand (US Army 2011f).

Natural Gas. Fort Drum purchases natural gas, with transport delivery through the NiagaraMohawk distribution system. Two active pipelines connect to the Niagara Mohawk system: a 6-inch pipeline at Main Street, and a 12-inch pipeline at North Memorial. Most of the gas passesthrough the 12-inch connection and is reduced from a distribution pressure of 45 pounds per



3-28

square inch (psi) to 15 psi for on-post use. A third system is under construction to service theairfield and connect into the existing installation’s distribution as a full-capacity backup to theexisting 12-inch service. In addition, on-post distribution pressure could be raised from 15 psi to30 psi to increase capacity. The existing natural gas distribution system could easily support a 50percent increase in demand (US Army 2011f).

Other Heating Fuels (Oil, Propane). Localized propane and fuel oil systems are used forheating in some remote locations of the installation. These fuels are contained in building-specific tanks. No significant on-post infrastructure is associated with these energy sources, andtheir use would be expected to decrease if further conversion to natural gas occurred.



Short and long-term minor adverse effects on utilities would be expected. These effects would belimited to solid waste because of added debris from construction of the new lodging facilities andrenovation of existing building to the landfill. The existing infrastructure for all other utilitieswould be adequate for projected demands from the proposed lodging facilities.

Implementing the Preferred Alternative would generate approximately 895 tons of C&D debris(Table 3-11). Approximately half of the debris would be recycled, which would result in 447tons of nonhazardous C&D debris for disposal in the Rodman Regional Landfill.

A slight increase on utility systems usage would be expected from implementing the PreferredAlternative as responsibility of utilities would be transferred to Rest Easy and IHG. Utility linesexist at the adjacent residential and commercial properties with full utility service, alleviating theneed for new service connections. The quantities of potable water, wastewater, electricity,natural gas, and solid waste that the occupants in the proposed lodging would produce mightcause a slight increase in utility usage. Note that the overall utility needs per lodging unit wouldbe lower than existing, because newer construction would conform to the Leadership in Energyand Environmental Design standards. As a result of the Preferred Alternative, Rest Easy and IHGwould need to establish separate metered utility service for potable water, electricity, natural gas,and communications.

Table 3-11.Summary of construction and renovation debris

Action Type

Debrisgeneration

rate(lb/sq ft)

Debrisgenerated

(tons)

Quantity recycled(50%)(tons)

Total quantitydisposed of in the

landfill(tons)

Construction Nonresidential4.4 284.4 142.2 142.2

129,250 sq ft

Renovation Nonresidential20.0 610.5 305.3 305.3

57,320 sq ft

Total 24.4 894.9 447.4 447.4

Source: USEPA 1998



3-29


No effects on utility systems would be expected from implementing the No Action Alternative,under which the environmental baseline would not change. Utility conditions would remain asdescribed in Section 3.11.1.

3.12 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES


According to GIS data and an environmental questionnaire that installation personnel completedfor the PAL effort, no installation restoration program sites or known ordnance sites are on orabutting the proposed PAL sites that would have an effect on the environmental condition of theselected properties. However, according to installation GIS data, a former landfill was located tothe northeast of Parcel C near what is now the intersection of Mt. Belvedere Boulevard andEnduring Freedom Drive. The former landfill, referred to as FTD-010, consisted of constructiondebris that was held in an area off Pearl Street from 1978 to 1980. Pearl Street no longer exists;however, segments of the former street are now part of a trail system that bisects Parcel C. Theconstruction debris was removed in 1986 as part of road construction (Mt. Belvedere Boulevardand Enduring Freedom Drive) in the new cantonment area. No further action is necessary.

Parcel E is within an industrial section of the Cantonment Area, and restoration sites are nearby;however, only Building S-79 in Parcel E is being proposed for transfer, not the land area. Thereare no aboveground storage tanks within or adjacent to the subject properties; however, buildingsin Parcel D and E were once served by fuel oil underground storage tanks that ranged from 500 to1,000 gallons. The underground storage tanks were installed in 1969 and 1974, and all wereremoved in the late 1990s. No spills were associated with the tanks (US Army 2012e).

In addition, no indications exist that special hazards such as polychlorinated biphenyls or radonare present. Other special hazards that are likely present on the proposed PAL sites are thefollowing:

Pesticides. Pesticides are listed commercial products that become a hazardous waste whendiscarded in a manner not consistent with their intended use. In addition, 40 CFR 261.2(c)(1)(B)(ii) states that the commercial chemical products listed in 40 CFR 261.33 are not solidwastes (and therefore are not hazardous wastes) if they are applied to the land and that is theirordinary manner of use. Therefore, if pesticides are identified in soils around the buildings andthey were used for their intended purposes, their presence in the soil would not constitute arelease. Therefore, they would not affect the environmental condition of property.

Only trained personnel may apply pesticides, and pesticides may be applied only in a mannerconsistent with the directions for the specific type of pesticide, Federal law, and the Fort DrumIntegrated Pest Management Plan.

Lead-Based Paint. Because the buildings in Parcels D and E were constructed before 1978, it islikely that Lead-based Paint (LBP) is present. LBP has been encapsulated at the lodging byrepainting and wall-covering work. Army policy calls for controlling LBP by using in-placemanagement (as opposed to mandated removal procedures). In-place management is used toprevent deterioration over time for those surfaces likely to contain LBP, followed by replacementas necessary. Major renovations and unit demolition would require that LBP be removed inaccordance with state and Federal guidelines.



3-30

The visual site inspection performed for the PAL program identified peeling paint at some of thebuildings; however, no paint chips were observed on the ground surface.

Asbestos-Containing Material. An Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) inspection conductedat Fort Drum in 1990 included lodging buildings in Parcels A and D. The building in Parcel Ewas sampled in 1997. Much of the ACM in the Parcel D lodging has been abated duringrenovation efforts. Remaining ACM in Parcel D buildings is in floor tile and transite panels. Inthe Parcel E building, ACM was identified in roof tar and mastic. The survey did not identify anyACM in the Fort Drum Inn. As long as ACM remains non-friable, it does not pose a significanthealth risk.

Mold. Fungi are present almost everywhere in indoor and outdoor environments. Molds or fungitypically grow on common building components (e.g., walls, ventilation systems, support beams)that are chronically moist or water-damaged. Elevated fungal exposure in humans can result influ-like symptoms, including runny nose, eye irritation, cough, congestion, and aggravation ofasthma. Inhalation of fungal spores, fragments, or metabolites (e.g., mycotoxins, VolatileOrganic Compounds) from a variety of fungi can lead to or exacerbate allergic reactions or causetoxic effects, or cause infections.

During the visual site inspection, mold was observed in some mechanical rooms; according tolodging personnel, mold is sometimes an issue in the summer months around air conditioningunits. When mold is found, maintenance personnel remove it and try to correct what is causingthe mold.



No adverse effects would be expected from implementing the Preferred Alternative. Allhazardous materials and waste associated with renovation, construction, and lodging managementwould be handled and disposed of in accordance with local, state, and Federal regulations andestablished installation procedures. Additional potentially hazardous materials that could befound on-site during PAL project-related activities include paints, solvents, and petroleumproducts. The construction contractors would be responsible for preventing spills byimplementing proper storage and handling procedures.


No adverse effects regarding hazardous and toxic substances would be expected under the NoAction Alternative. Current environmental management procedures would continue to beimplemented in accordance with applicable laws.

3.13 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY

The PAL parcel that has been selected as the new build site, Parcel C, has been subject toprevious environmental review as part of the RCI program at Fort Drum. Parcel C was selectedfor potential development as part of the RCI program because of its central location in theCantonment Area and suitability for development (i.e. lack of environmental constraints). Futuredevelopment in the North Post area, adjacent to Parcel C, includes infill of underutilized parcelsand improvements to the roadway and signage system. Expansion of the existing utilities in the



3-31

North Post area could also be conducted to support more dense development in the North Postarea (US Army 2011a).

The Army’s long-term plans for the North Post area immediately surrounding Parcel C includeenhancement of the community areas to create walkable community hubs, and development ofthe open area surrounding the Garrison Headquarters and landscaping improvements to theParade Field. Improvements identified for the North Post Community Center includeconsolidation of the current community support facilities to form a centrally located communitycenter, using a design that encourages pedestrian usage and reduces the number of vehicle-dependent trips. North Post Parade Field improvements include establishment of the parade fieldas a prominent civic space in the central core of North Post, by organizing site elements to ensurephysical and visual connection with existing landmark buildings. Improvements in the CentralCommunity Area of Fort Drum include consolidation and simplification of parking and trafficcirculation in the area, and enhancement of existing community assets through expansion andprovision of additional complementary uses. Other Fort Drum projects planned for the NorthPost area include RCI actions, establishment of a multi-purpose trail along Po Valley Road, andinstallation of a landscaping buffer between the Fort Drum Industrial Area and South Post (USArmy 2011c).

Cumulatively these projects and improvements would result in minor adverse effects on naturalresources. The removal of habitat for wildlife living within areas to be developed would forcewildlife to relocate to other areas of suitable habitat, and result in the loss of some individuals,and the overall reduction in habitat would be expected to cause some reduction in the localpopulations of some species, though not to a degree that any species’ population would becritically reduced. Other construction or development projects in the Fort Drum region couldproduce air emissions, noise, economic benefits, water pollution, or other effects typicallyassociated with such activities. However, the magnitude of effects that would result fromimplementing the Preferred Alternative would not be sufficient to substantially contribute to thecumulative effects. The Preferred Alternative would not result in significant impacts on any ofthe environmental resources analyzed in this EA. The analysis identified minor adverse effectsrelated to aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, noise, geology and soils, water resources,biological resources, transportation, and utilities. Beneficial effects were identified for aestheticsand visual resources, and socioeconomics. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would have avery minor contribution to cumulative effects in the ROI.

Cumulative, long-term benefits to visual/aesthetics, and socioeconomics would be expected;along with reduced energy consumption associated the new and renovated facilities. In additionto the PAL action, a number of other economic development projects planned in and around FortDrum would likely have short- and long-term beneficial effects on the local economy byincreasing employment, income, and business sales volume. Other commercial, residential, andinfrastructure development or improvements would also continue to occur off-post within theROI. The additional cumulative benefits of the current and Reasonably Foreseeable FutureActions would help to offset the overall adverse cumulative effect.

3.14 MITIGATION SUMMARY

Mitigation actions are used to reduce, avoid, or compensate for significant adverse effects.Mitigation of adverse effects associated with implementing the PAL Program at Fort Drumincludes compensatory wetland mitigation, as determined through correspondence with theUSACE New York District regarding wetland impacts, and tree-cutting restrictions for protectionof bat species, including the federally endangered Indiana bat.



3-32




4-1

SECTION 4.0CONCLUSIONS

This EA has been prepared to evaluate the potential effects on the natural and humanenvironment associated with implementing the PAL program at Fort Drum. The EA examinesthe proposed action (Preferred Alternative) and a No Action Alternative. The No ActionAlternative is prescribed by CEQ regulations to serve as the baseline against which the proposedaction and alternatives are analyzed.

This EA evaluates potential long- and short-term effects on land use, aesthetic and visualresources, air quality, noise, geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, culturalresources, socioeconomics (including environmental justice and protection of children),transportation, utilities, and hazardous and toxic substances.

Implementing the Preferred Alternative would be expected to result in a combination of short-and long-term minor adverse and beneficial effects. Short-term minor adverse effects onaesthetics and visual resources, air quality, noise, geology and soils, water resources, biologicalresources, transportation, and utilities would be expected, associated with construction andrenovation activities. Long-term minor adverse effects would be expected on air quality fromstationary, area, and mobile emissions; on water resources from wetland effects and ground-disturbance activities; on vegetation, including wildlife habitat, from the permanent vegetationremoval associated with development of the new lodging facility; on transportation from trafficimpacts during construction and implementing the PAL program; and on utilities from theincrease in solid waste (C&D debris). Short-term minor beneficial effects on the local economywould be expected from expenditures and employment associated with lodging renovation andconstruction. Long-term minor beneficial effects on aesthetic and visual resources andsocioeconomics (quality of life) would be expected from the overall improved quality of thelodging facilities.

Mitigation of adverse effects associated with implementing the PAL Program at Fort Druminclude compensatory wetland mitigation, as determined through correspondence with theUSACE New York District regarding wetland impacts, and tree-cutting restrictions for protectionof bat species, including the federally endangered Indiana bat.

For each resource, the predicted effects from both the proposed action, identified as the Army’sPreferred Alternative, and the No Action Alternative are summarized in Table 4-1.

Implementing the Preferred Alternative would not be expected to result in significant effects onthe natural or human environment. Issuance of a FNSI would be appropriate, and anenvironmental impact statement need not be prepared before implementing the proposed action.



4-2

Table 4-1.Summary of potential environmental and socioeconomic consequences

Environmental and socioeconomic effects

Resource Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative

Land use No effect No effect

Aesthetic and visual resources Short-term minor adverseLong-term minor beneficial


Air quality Short-term minor adverse


No effect

Noise Short-term minor adverse No effect

Geology and soils Short-term minor adverse No effect

Water resources Short-term minor adverse


No effect

Biological resources Short-term minor adverse

Long-term minor adverse No effect

Cultural resources No effect No effect

Socioeconomics Short-term minor beneficial

Long-term minor beneficial


Transportation Short-term minor adverseLong-term minor adverse

No effect

Utilities Short-term minor adverse


No effect

Hazardous and toxic substances No effect No effect



5-1

SECTION 5.0REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 1986. Programmatic Agreement among the UnitedStates Department of Defense, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and theNational Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. <http://www.achp.gov/pa6.pdf>.Accessed April 16, 2012.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 1991. Amendment to the ProgrammaticMemorandum of Agreement among the United States Department of Defense, the AdvisoryCouncil on Historic Preservation, the National Conference of State Historic PreservationOfficers, and the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Recordregarding Demolition of World War II Temporary Buildings.<http://www.achp.gov/pa7.pdf>. Accessed April 16, 2012.

ANSI (American National Standards Institute). 2003. American National Standard Quantitiesand Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound. Part 3: Short-term measurements with an observer present. 2003. ANSI S12.9-1993 (R2003)/Part 3.American National Standards Institute.

BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2011. Total Employment by Industry.<http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/default.cfm?selTable=CA25>. Accessed March 2012.

BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2012. Local Area Unemployment Statistics.<http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment>. Accessed March 2012.

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2010. Memorandum for Heads of FederalDepartments and Agencies on Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects ofClimate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Council on Environmental Quality,Washington, DC.<http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/Consideration_of_Effects_of_GHG_Draft_NEPA_Guidance_FINAL_02182010.pdf>. April 24, 2012

DANC (Development Authority of the North Country). 2010. Annual Drinking Water QualityReport for 2010 to Fort Drum Waterline.<http://www.danc.org/files/public/20110629082350459.pdf>. Accessed March 2012.

DoD (Department of Defense). 2010. Installations Practice Energy Conservation.<http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13276>. Accessed March 2012.

Fort Drum GIS. 2012. GIS files for Fort Drum, New York.

Garner, John S. 1993. A Brief History of the Architecture and Planning of Cantonments andTraining Stations in the United States. Technical Report CRC-93 01. U.S. Army ConstructionEngineering Research Laboratories, Champaign, IL.

Harris, C.M. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurement and Noise Control. Acoustical Societyof America, Sewickley, PA.



5-2

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Contribution of Working Group II to theFourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2003. Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual.7th ed. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC.

NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2012a. Air QualityStandards. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8542.html>. Accessed March 2012.

NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2012b. Title V PermitReview Report. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/dardata/boss/afs/permits/699060000600076.pdf>.Accessed March 2012.

NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2012c. Chapter X –Division of Water. Subchapter B: Classes and Standards of Quality and Purity Assignmentsto Fresh Surface and Tidal Salt Waters. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/2485.html>. AccessedMarch 21, 2012.

NYSDOT (New York State Department of Transportation). 2008. New York DOT Average DailyTraffic Counts GIS on Google Earth Map of Fort Drum. Accessed March 2012.

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA.

The Weather Channel. 2012. Monthly Averages for Fort Drum, NY.<http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USNY0513>. AccessedMarch 20, 2012.

US Army. 2010a. Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) 2011-2015. FortDrum, Cultural Resources Section, Environmental Division, Directorate of Public Works,Fort Drum, NY.

US Army. 2010b. Fort Drum Plans, Analysis, and Integration Office. Fort Drum EconomicImpact Statement Fiscal Year 2010, October 1, 2009 – September 30, 2010.<http://www.drum.army.mil/SiteCollectionDocuments/FY10EIB.pdf>. Accessed March2012.

US Army. 2010c. Fort Drum Economic Impact Statement. Fort Drum, New York.<http://www.drum.army.mil/SiteCollectionDocuments/FY10EIB.pdf>. Accessed March2012.

US Army. 2011a. Long Range Component, Fort Drum, New York. Final April 2011.

US Army. 2011b. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. Natural Resources Branch,Environmental Division, Directorate of Public Works and Integrated Training Area Program,Range Branch, Training Division, Directorate of Planning, Training, Mobilization &Security, Fort Drum, NY.

US Army. 2011c. Installation Design Guide. Fort Drum, NY. April 2011.



5-3

US Army. 2011d. 2011 Air Emissions Inventory for Fort Drum. Fort Drum, NY.

US Army. 2011e. Fort Drum Gate Information Map. Fort Drum, NY.

US Army. 2011f. Environmental Assessment for Stationing Actions to Support the Grow theArmy Initiative. Fort Drum, NY.

US Army. 2012a. Personal communication between G. Bingham, U.S. Army Garrison FortDrum, and L. Rivard of Tetra Tech, Inc., Portland, ME.

US Army. 2012b. Personal communication received from C. Dobony, U.S. Army Garrison FortDrum, as part of the review comments submitted to Tetra Tech, Inc. on 18 May 2012 for theFort Drum PAL Draft EA.

US Army. 2012c. Personal communication received from D. Quates, U.S. Army Garrison FortDrum, as part of the review comments submitted to Tetra Tech, Inc. on 18 May 2012 for theFort Drum PAL Draft EA.

US Army. 2012d. Personal communication between L. Rush, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Drum,and B. Locking of Tetra Tech, Inc., Buffalo, NY.

US Army. 2012e. Personal communication between A. Rambone, POL/Storage Tank ProgramManager, Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Division, U.S. Army Garrison FortDrum, New York and G. Hippert of Tetra Tech, Inc., Salisbury, NC. April and May 2012.

US Department of the Interior. 2007. Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 130 Endangered andThreatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From theList of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Monday, July 9, 2007.

US Geological Survey. n.d. 9000 Area, Cantonment (2001.020), Jefferson County, Town ofLeRay, Black River Quadrangle; RCI Survey, Cantonment (2003.024) Jefferson County,Town of LeRay, Black River Quadrangle; FDP 1215, 5m Shovel Test Grid, Cantonment(2004.014), Jefferson County, Town of LeRay, Black River Quadrangle; FDP 1215, Phase II,Cantonment (2004.005,) Town of LeRay, Jefferson County, Black River Quadrangle. FortDrum, Cultural Resources Program, Fort Drum, NY.

USACE Mobile District (U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District). 2004. FinalEnvironmental Assessment for the Residential Communities Initiative at Fort Drum, NewYork. Prepared for Commander, Fort Drum, NY, by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MobileDistrict, with Technical Assistance from Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.

USCB (US Census Bureau). 2011a. 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.<http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?fpt=table>.Accessed January 2012.

USCB (US Census Bureau). 2011b. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics2010.<http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?fpt=table>.Accessed March 2012.



5-4

USCB (US Census Bureau). 2012. State and County QuickFacts.<http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html>. Accessed March 2012.

USDA NRCS (US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2012.Web Soil Survey, Custom Soil Report for selected areas of Fort Drum Parcels A, C-E.<http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx>. Accessed March2012.USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from ConstructionEquipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. NTID300.1. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.

USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Characterization of Building RelatedConstruction and Demolition Debris in the United States. EPA530-R-98-010. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division Office ofSolid Waste.

USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2012a. Nonattainment Status for JeffersonCounty, New York. <http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html#NEW YORK>.Accessed March 2012.

USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2012b. Climate Change - Health andEnvironmental Effects. <http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html>. Accessed March 2012.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Biological Opinion on the Effect of ProposedActivities on the Fort Drum Military Installation (2012–2014) in the towns of Antwerp,Champion, LeRay, Philadelphia, and Wilna, Jefferson County; and the Town of Diana, LewisCounty, New York on the Federally-endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). February 2,2012.



6-1

SECTION 6.0LIST OF PREPARERS

Michael D. Bart, P.G.B.S., Environmental Science, Stephen F. Austin State UniversityYears of Experience: 15

Michelle CannellaGraduate Studies, Mineral Economics, Penn State UniversityB.S., Mineral Economics, Penn State UniversityYears of Experience: 14

Sarah HaughB.A., Geography-Anthropology, University of Southern MaineYears of Experience: 11

Greg HippertB.S. Environmental Science, University of North Carolina–CharlotteYears of Experience: 18

Jennifer JarvisB.S., Environmental Resource Management, Virginia TechYears of Experience: 13

Tim Lavallee, LPES, Inc.M.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts UniversityB.S., Mechanical Engineering, Northeastern UniversityYears of Experience: 20

Bonnie LockingM.A., Anthropology, State University of New York, BuffaloYears of Experience: 15

Samuel PettM.S., Environmental Science and Policy, University of Massachusetts/BostonB.S., Wildlife Biology and Zoology, Michigan State UniversityYears of Experience: 22

Linda RivardB.S., Marine and Freshwater Biology, University of New HampshireYears of Experience: 13

Kristin ShieldsB.A., Environmental Science, Sweet Briar CollegeYears of Experience: 20

Jeff StrongM.S., Technical and Scientific Communication, James Madison UniversityB.A., Computer Information Systems, Eastern Mennonite UniversityYears of Experience: 23



6-2

Linda Tafazoli, LPES, Inc.B.S., Information Systems, Strayer UniversityYears of Experience: 7

Sarah C. WattsM.E.M., Wetland Resource Ecology, Duke UniversityYears of Experience: 14



7-1

SECTION 7.0DISTRIBUTION LIST

Mr. Robert C. McEwen Library (Fort Drum)Attn: Mr. Allen GoudieP-4300 Conway Rd.Fort Drum, NY 13602

Gouverneur Public LibraryAttn: Ms. Charlotte Garofolo60 Church St.Gouverneur, NY 13642

Flower Memorial LibraryAttn: Ms. Barbara Wheeler229 Washington St.Watertown, NY 13601

Lowville Free LibraryAttn: Ms. Sally Brown5387 Dayan St.Lowville, NY 13367

Field SupervisorUS Fish and Wildlife ServiceNew York Field Office3817 Luker Rd.Cortland, NY 13045



7-2




A-1

Appendix ARecord of Non-Applicability and Emission Calculations



A-2




A-4




A-5

Emissions Calculations

Table A-1. Construction equipment use

Equipment TypeNumber of

Units Days on Site Hours per DayOperating

Hours

Excavators Composite 3 115 4 1,380Rollers Composite 3 173 8 4,152Rubber Tired Dozers Composite 3 115 8 2,760Plate Compactors Composite 6 115 4 2,760Trenchers Composite 6 58 8 2,784Air Compressors 6 115 4 2,760Cement & Mortar Mixers 6 115 6 4,140Cranes 3 115 7 2,415Generator Sets 6 115 4 2,760Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 6 230 7 9,660Pavers Composite 1 58 8 464Paving Equipment 2 58 8 928

Note: Emission calculations prepared by LPES, Inc. Smithfield, Virginia. Equipment estimations are based onexperience with similar projects, and techniques outlined in the USAF Air Quality Analysis/Air ConformityApplicability Model (ACAM) guidance documents and the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) URBEMIS urban emission model user's manual.

Table A-2. Construction equipment emission factors (lbs/hour)Equipment CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Excavators Composite 0.5828 1.3249 0.1695 0.0013 0.0727 0.0727 119.6Rollers Composite 0.4341 0.8607 0.1328 0.0008 0.0601 0.0601 67.1Rubber Tired Dozers Composite 1.5961 3.2672 0.3644 0.0025 0.1409 0.1409 239.1Plate Compactors Composite 0.0263 0.0328 0.0052 0.0001 0.0021 0.0021 4.3Trenchers Composite 0.5080 0.8237 0.1851 0.0007 0.0688 0.0688 58.7Air Compressors 0.3782 0.7980 0.1232 0.0007 0.0563 0.0563 63.6Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.0447 0.0658 0.0113 0.0001 0.0044 0.0044 7.2Cranes 0.6011 1.6100 0.1778 0.0014 0.0715 0.0715 128.7Generator Sets 0.3461 0.6980 0.1075 0.0007 0.0430 0.0430 61.0Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.4063 0.7746 0.1204 0.0008 0.0599 0.0599 66.8Pavers Composite 0.5874 1.0796 0.1963 0.0009 0.0769 0.0769 77.9Paving Equipment 0.0532 0.1061 0.0166 0.0002 0.0063 0.0063 12.6

Source CARB 2011

Table A-3. Construction equipment emissions (tons per year [tpy])Equipment CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Excavators Composite 0.4022 0.9142 0.1170 0.0009 0.0502 0.0502 82.5110Rollers Composite 0.9012 1.7868 0.2757 0.0016 0.1248 0.1248 139.2018Rubber Tired Dozers Composite 2.2026 4.5087 0.5029 0.0034 0.1944 0.1944 329.9658Plate Compactors Composite 0.0303 0.0378 0.0059 0.0001 0.0024 0.0024 4.9609Trenchers Composite 0.5893 0.9555 0.2147 0.0008 0.0799 0.0799 68.1167Air Compressors 0.4349 0.9177 0.1417 0.0008 0.0648 0.0648 73.1484Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.0772 0.1134 0.0194 0.0002 0.0077 0.0077 12.5031Cranes 0.7258 1.9441 0.2147 0.0017 0.0864 0.0864 155.3655Generator Sets 0.3980 0.8027 0.1236 0.0008 0.0494 0.0494 70.1416Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1.6355 3.1176 0.4846 0.0031 0.2410 0.2410 268.8956Pavers Composite 0.1363 0.2505 0.0455 0.0002 0.0178 0.0178 18.0811Paving Equipment 0.0247 0.0492 0.0077 0.0001 0.0029 0.0029 5.8593Total 7.56 15.40 2.15 0.0136 0.92 0.92 1228.75

Table A-4. PaintingVOC Content 0.84 lbs/gallonCoverage 400 sqft/gallonEmission Factor 0.0021 lbs/sqft

Building/Facility Wall Surface VOC [lbs] VOC [tpy]All Buildings Combined 129,250 258,500 542.9

Total 129,250 258,500 542.9

Source: SCAQMD 1993



A-6

Table A-5. Delivery of equipment and suppliesNumber of Deliveries 2Number of Trips 2Miles Per Trip 30Days of Construction 230Total Miles 27,600

Pollutant CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Emission Factor (lbs/mile) 0.0219 0.0237 0.0030 0.0000 0.0009 0.0007 2.7Total Emissions (lbs) 605.8 654.5 82.6 0.7 23.6 20.4 75,056.4Total Emissions (tpy) 0.30 0.33 0.04 0.0004 0.01 0.01 37.53

Source: CARB 2011

Table A-6. Surface disturbanceTSP Emissions 37.4 lb/acrePM10/TSP 0.45PM2.5/PM10 0.15Period of Disturbance 30 daysCapture Fraction 0.5

Building/FacilityArea

[acres] TSP[lbs] PM10[lbs] PM10[tons] PM2.5[lbs] PM2.5[tons]All Facilities 5.4 6,014 2,706 1.35 203 0.10Total 5.4 6,014 2,706 1.35 203 0.10

Sources: USEPA 1995 and USEPA 2005

Table A-7. Worker commutes

Number of Workers 30

Number of Trips 2

Miles Per Trip 30

Days of Construction 58

Total Miles 104,400.00Pollutant CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Emission Factor (lbs/mile) 0.0105 0.0011 0.0011 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 1.1Total Emissions (lbs) 1,101.3 115.1 112.7 1.1 8.9 5.5 114,791.2Total Emissions (tpy) 0.55 0.06 0.06 0.0006 0.00 0.00 57.40

Source: CARB 2011

Table A-8. Total construction emissions (tons per year)Activity/Source CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Construction Equipment 7.56 15.40 2.15 0.0136 0.92 0.92 1228.75Painting 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00Delivery of Equipment andSupplies

0.30 0.33 0.04 0.0004 0.01 0.01 37.53

Surface Disturbance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 1.35 0.10 0.00Worker Commutes 0.55 0.06 0.06 0.0006 0.00 0.00 57.40Total Construction Emissions 8.41 15.78 2.52 0.01 2.29 1.04 1323.67

Table A-9. Boiler emissionsGross Area 46,750 sfHeating Requirements 99,000 btu/sfTotal Annual Heat Required 4628 MMBTU

Heating Value150

MMBTU/1000Gallons

Total #2 Oil Used 30.9 103 GallonsPollutant CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5

Emission Factor (lb/1000 gal) 5 24 2.493 0.1 2 2Total Emissions (tons) 0.08 0.37 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03

1. Emission factors for all pollutants were obtained from USEPA's AP-42, Section 1.3. Conservatively assume that PM10 = PM.

2. Assumed sulfur concentration 1 percent

3. Heating requirements obtained from Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, DoE 2003



A-7

References

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2011. EMFAC Emission Rates Database.<http://www.arb.ca.gov/jpub/webapp//EMFAC2011WebApp/rateSelectionPage_1.jsp>.Accessed October 2011.

DOE (US Department of Energy). 2003. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity by CensusRegion for Sum of Major Fuels, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. U.S.Department of Energy, Washington, DC.

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA.

USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant EmissionFactors, AP-42, 5th edition, Vol. I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Characterization of Building RelatedConstruction and Demolition Debris in the United States. EPA530-R-98-010. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, Office ofSolid Waste.

USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Methodology to Estimate theTransportable Fraction (TF) of Fugitive Dust Emissions for Regional and Urban Scale AirQuality Analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/jpub/webapp//EMFAC2011WebApp/rateSelectionPage_1.jsp. Accessed October 2011

http://www.arb.ca.gov/jpub/webapp//EMFAC2011WebApp/rateSelectionPage_1.jsp. Accessed October 2011



A-8




B-1

Appendix BAgency Coordination



B-2




C-1

Appendix CEconomic Impact Forecast System Model



C-2




C-3

Economic Impact Forecast System (EIFS) Model

Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

Socioeconomic impacts are linked through cause-and-effect relationships. Military payrolls andlocal procurement contribute to the economic base for the Region of Influence (ROI). In thisregard, construction and renovation of lodging on Fort Drum would have a multiplier effect onthe local and regional economy. With the proposed action, direct jobs would be created (e.g.,construction jobs), generating new income and increasing personal spending. This spendinggenerally creates secondary jobs, increases business volume, and increases revenues for schoolsand other social services.

The Economic Impact Forecast System

The United States Army (Army), with the assistance of many academic and professionaleconomists and regional scientists, developed Economic Impact Forecast System (EIFS) toaddress the economic impacts of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-required actionsand to measure their significance. As a result of its designed applicability, and in the interest ofuniformity, EIFS should be used in NEPA assessments. The entire system is designed for thescrutiny of a populace affected by the actions being studied. The algorithms in EIFS are simpleand easy to understand, but still have firm, defensible bases in regional economic theory.

EIFS was developed under a joint project of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the USArmy Environmental Policy Institute, and the Computer and Information Science Department ofClark Atlanta University. EIFS is implemented as an online system supported by the USACE,Mobile District. The system is available to anyone with an approved user ID and password.USACE staff is available to assist with the use of EIFS.

The databases in EIFS are national in scope and cover the approximately 3,700 counties, parishes,and independent cities that are recognized as reporting units by Federal agencies. EIFS allowsthe user to define an economic ROI by identifying the counties, parishes, or cities to be analyzed.Once the ROI is defined, the system aggregates the data, calculates multipliers and other variablesused in the various models in EIFS, and prompts the user for forecast input data.

The EIFS Model

The basis of the EIFS analytical capabilities is the calculated multipliers that are used to estimatethe impacts resulting from Army-related changes in local expenditures or employment. Incalculating the multipliers, EIFS uses the economic base model approach, which relies on theratio of total economic activity to basic economic activity. Basic, in this context, is defined as theproduction or employment engaged to supply goods and services outside the ROI or by Federalactivities (such as military installations and their employees). According to economic basetheory, the ratio of total income to basic income is measurable (as the multiplier) and sufficientlystable so that future changes in economic activity can be forecast. This technique is especiallyappropriate for estimating aggregate impacts and makes the economic base model ideal for theEA and environmental impact statement process.

The multiplier is interpreted as the total impact on the economy of the region resulting from a unitchange in its base sector; for example, a dollar increase in local expenditures because of anexpansion of its military installation. EIFS estimates its multipliers using a location quotient



C-4

approach based on the concentration of industries within the region relative to the industrialconcentrations for the nation.

The user inputs into the model the data elements which describe the Army action: the change inexpenditures, or dollar volume of the construction project(s); change in civilian or militaryemployment; average annual income of affected civilian or military employees; the percent ofcivilians expected to relocate because of the Army’s action; and the percent of military livingon-post. Once these are entered into the EIFS model, a projection of changes in the localeconomy is provided. These are projected changes in sales volume, income, employment, andpopulation. These four indicator variables are used to measure and evaluate socioeconomicimpacts. Sales volume is the direct and indirect change in local business activity and sales (totalretail and wholesale trade sales, total selected service receipts, and value-added bymanufacturing). Employment is the total change in local employment because of the proposedaction, including the direct and secondary changes in local employment and the personnel whoare initially affected by the military action. Income is the total change in local wages and salariesbecause of the proposed action, which includes the sum of the direct and indirect wages andsalaries, plus the income of the civilian and military personnel affected by the proposed action.Population is the increase or decrease in the local population as a result of the proposed action.

The PAL program at Fort Drum would require construction of new lodging and renovation ofexisting lodging. The working estimate for the cost of renovation and construction of thesefacilities (about $35,000,000) was divided over the projected 7-year initial development periodand entered as the change in expenditures (about $5,000,000 per year).

The Significance of Socioeconomic Impacts

Once model projections are obtained, the Rational Threshold Value (RTV) profile allows the userto evaluate the significance of the impacts. This analytical tool reviews the historical trends forthe defined region and develops measures of local historical fluctuations in sales volume, income,employment, and population. These evaluations identify the positive and negative changes withinwhich a project can affect the local economy without creating a significant impact. The greatesthistorical changes define the boundaries that provide a basis for comparing an action’s impact onthe historical fluctuation in a particular area. Specifically, EIFS sets the boundaries bymultiplying the maximum historical deviation of the following variables:

Percentincrease

Percentdecrease

Sales Volume X 100% 75%Income X 100% 67%Employment X 100% 67%Population X 100% 50%

These boundaries determine the amount of change that will affect an area. The percentageallowances are arbitrary, but sensible. The maximum positive historical fluctuation is allowedwith expansion because economic growth is beneficial. While cases of damaging economicgrowth have been cited, and although the zero-growth concept is being accepted by many localplanning groups, military base reductions and closures generally are more injurious to localeconomics than are expansions.



C-5

The major strengths of the RTV are its specificity to the region under analysis and its basis onactual historical data for the region. The EIFS impact model, in combination with the RTV, hasproven successful in addressing perceived socioeconomic impacts. The EIFS model and the RTVtechnique for measuring the intensity of impacts have been reviewed by economic experts andhave been deemed theoretically sound.

The following are the EIFS input and output data for the proposed action and the RTV values forthe ROI.

EIFS REPORT

PROJECT NAME

Fort Drum PAL EA

STUDY AREA

36045 Jefferson County, NY

Table C-1. Forecast InputChange In Local Expenditures $5,000,000Change In Civilian Employment 0Average Income of Affected Civilian $0Percent Expected to Relocate 0Change In Military Employment 0Average Income of Affected Military $0Percent of Military Living On-Post 0

Table C-2. Forecast OutputEmployment Multiplier 2.11Income Multiplier 2.11Sales Volume – Direct $5,000,000Sales Volume – Induced $5,549,999Sales Volume – Total $10,550,000 0.44%Income – Direct $886,989Income – Induced $984,558Income – Total (place of work) $1,871,547 0.08%Employment – Direct 26Employment – Induced 29Employment – Total 55 0.09%Local Population 0Local Off-Post Population 0 0.00%

Table C-3. RTV SummarySales Volume Income Employment Population

Positive RTV 23.83% 18.27% 11.12% 6.44%Negative RTV -5.26% -3.40% -2.73% -1.02%



C-6

RTV DETAILED

Table C-4. Sales Volume

Year Value Adj_Value Change Deviation % Deviation

1969 209630 916083 0 0 0

1970 223393 922613 6530 -18723 -2.03

1971 234865 930065 7452 -17801 -1.91

1972 244948 938151 8085 -17168 -1.83

1973 263520 951307 13156 -12097 -1.27

1974 283663 921905 -29402 -54655 -5.93

1975 299641 892930 -28975 -54228 -6.07

1976 321941 907874 14943 -10310 -1.14

1977 344676 909945 2071 -23182 -2.55

1978 387306 952773 42828 17575 1.84

1979 432097 954934 2162 -23091 -2.42

1980 472137 915946 -38989 -64242 -7.01

1981 501631 882871 -33075 -58328 -6.61

1982 528526 877353 -5517 -30770 -3.51

1983 567324 913392 36039 10786 1.18

1984 640342 986127 72735 47482 4.82

1985 707153 1053658 67531 42278 4.01

1986 803864 1173641 119983 94730 8.07

1987 1015487 1574005 400363 375110 23.83

1988 1220043 1659258 85254 60001 3.62

1989 1349451 1740792 81533 56280 3.23

1990 1378157 1695133 -45659 -70912 -4.18

1991 1432999 1690939 -4194 -29447 -1.74

1992 1492415 1701353 10414 -14839 -0.87

1993 1470657 1632429 -68924 -94177 -5.77

1994 1515112 1636321 3892 -21361 -1.31

1995 1550448 1627970 -8351 -33604 -2.06

1996 1605008 1637108 9138 -16115 -0.98

1997 1657020 1657020 19912 -5341 -0.32

1998 1728222 1693658 36638 11385 0.67

1999 1776901 1705825 12167 -13086 -0.77

2000 1853969 1724191 18366 -6887 -0.4



C-7

Table C-5. INCOMEYear Value Adj_Value Change Deviation % Deviation

1969 288296 1259853 0 0 0

1970 308530 1274229 14375 -18548 -1.46

1971 329469 1304697 30468 -2455 -0.19

1972 344854 1320791 16094 -16829 -1.27

1973 371262 1340256 19465 -13458 -1

1974 403187 1310358 -29898 -62821 -4.79

1975 436398 1300466 -9892 -42815 -3.29

1976 470460 1326697 26231 -6692 -0.5

1977 498215 1315288 -11410 -44333 -3.37

1978 552272 1358589 43301 10378 0.76

1979 610177 1348491 -10098 -43021 -3.19

1980 677674 1314688 -33804 -66727 -5.08

1981 734558 1292822 -21866 -54789 -4.24

1982 803280 1333445 40623 7700 0.58

1983 854524 1375784 42339 9416 0.68

1984 949880 1462815 87032 54109 3.7

1985 1030380 1535266 72451 39528 2.57

1986 1137575 1660860 125593 92670 5.58

1987 1336992 2072338 411478 378555 18.27

1988 1528145 2078277 5940 -26983 -1.3

1989 1705910 2200624 122347 89424 4.06

1990 1754752 2158345 -42279 -75202 -3.48

1991 1859974 2194769 36424 3501 0.16

1992 1962640 2237410 42640 9717 0.43

1993 1957368 2172679 -64731 -97654 -4.49

1994 2011411 2172324 -355 -33278 -1.53

1995 2080259 2184272 11948 -20975 -0.96

1996 2159989 2203189 18917 -14006 -0.64

1997 2216468 2216468 13279 -19644 -0.89

1998 2322757 2276302 59834 26911 1.18

1999 2375759 2280729 4427 -28496 -1.25

2000 2487505 2313380 32651 -272 -0.01



C-8

Table C-6. EmploymentYear Value Change Deviation % Deviation

1969 36865 0 0 0

1970 36387 -478 -1230 -3.38

1971 36058 -329 -1081 -3

1972 36058 0 -752 -2.09

1973 37049 991 239 0.65

1974 36947 -102 -854 -2.31

1975 36273 -674 -1426 -3.93

1976 35746 -527 -1279 -3.58

1977 36189 443 -309 -0.85

1978 37490 1301 549 1.46

1979 38346 856 104 0.27

1980 37566 -780 -1532 -4.08

1981 37034 -532 -1284 -3.47

1982 36732 -302 -1054 -2.87

1983 37440 708 -44 -0.12

1984 38746 1306 554 1.43

1985 40590 1844 1092 2.69

1986 43896 3306 2554 5.82

1987 50235 6339 5587 11.12

1988 56623 6388 5636 9.95

1989 60664 4041 3289 5.42

1990 60169 -495 -1247 -2.07

1991 59210 -959 -1711 -2.89

1992 58833 -377 -1129 -1.92

1993 57890 -943 -1695 -2.93

1994 59199 1309 557 0.94

1995 59001 -198 -950 -1.61

1996 59137 136 -616 -1.04

1997 59514 377 -375 -0.63

1998 59738 224 -528 -0.88

1999 60689 951 199 0.33

2000 60941 252 -500 -0.82



C-9

Table C-7. PopulationYear Value Change Deviation % Deviation

1969 88565 0 0 0

1970 88789 224 -492 -0.55

1971 89719 930 214 0.24

1972 90773 1054 338 0.37

1973 90310 -463 -1179 -1.31

1974 89485 -825 -1541 -1.72

1975 90235 750 34 0.04

1976 90488 253 -463 -0.51

1977 90089 -399 -1115 -1.24

1978 89651 -438 -1154 -1.29

1979 89161 -490 -1206 -1.35

1980 88071 -1090 -1806 -2.05

1981 87585 -486 -1202 -1.37

1982 87302 -283 -999 -1.14

1983 87465 163 -553 -0.63

1984 88094 629 -87 -0.1

1985 88954 860 144 0.16

1986 91032 2078 1362 1.5

1987 96360 5328 4612 4.79

1988 103758 7398 6682 6.44

1989 109534 5776 5060 4.62

1990 111549 2015 1299 1.16

1991 112911 1362 646 0.57

1992 114463 1552 836 0.73

1993 114874 411 -305 -0.27

1994 116932 2058 1342 1.15

1995 115361 -1571 -2287 -1.98

1996 114585 -776 -1492 -1.3

1997 113055 -1530 -2246 -1.99

1998 112546 -509 -1225 -1.09

1999 112081 -465 -1181 -1.05

2000 111469 -612 -1328 -1.19

****** End of Report ******



C-10




D-1

Appendix DSolid Waste Calculations



D-2




D-3

Table D-1. Solid waste calculations

ActivityBuilding square

footage Construction debris – lb/sq ft Total construction debris

Construction 129,250 4.40 568,700.00Demolition 0 115.00 0.00Renovation 61,050 20 1,221,000

Pounds 1,789,700.00Tons 894.85

Recycled quantity:Pounds 894,850.00

Tons 447.43Total:

Recycled tons: 447.43Disposed tons: 447.43

Source: USEPA 1998



D-4




Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACM Asbestos-Containing MaterialANSI American National Standards InstituteAQCR Air Quality Control RegionAQCR 158 Central New York Intrastate Air Quality Control RegionArmy US ArmyBEA Bureau of Economic AnalysisBLS Bureau of Labor StatisticsBMP best management practiceC&D construction and demolitionCEQ Council on Environmental QualityCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCO carbon monoxideCO2 carbon dioxideCRP Cultural Resources ProgramDANC Development Authority of the North CountrydB decibeldBA A-weighted decibelde minimis of minimal importanceDNL day-night sound levelDoD Department of DefenseEA environmental assessmentEIFS Economic Impact Forecast SystemEO Executive OrderEPA US Environmental Protection AgencyFNSI Finding of No Significant ImpactFY fiscal yearGHG greenhouse gasGIS geographic information systemHQDA Headquarters, Department of the ArmyI InterstateICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management PlanIDP initial development periodIE&E Installations, Energy, and EnvironmentIHG InterContinental Hotels GroupINRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management PlanLBP Lead-Based Paintlb poundIH&P Installation Housing and PrivatizationLDMP Lodging Development Management PlanLeq equivalent sound levelLTH long-term holdMBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Actmgd million gallons per dayMHPI Military Housing Privatization InitiativeN/A not applicableNAAQS National Ambient Air Quality StandardsNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNHPA National Historic Preservation Act



NOx nitrogen oxidesNRHP National Register of Historic PlacesNYS New York StateNYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental ConservationNYSDOT New York State Department of TransportationNYSHPO New York State Historic Preservation OfficeOASA Office of the Assistant Secretary of the ArmyO3 ozonePAL Privatization of Army LodgingPCPI per capita personal incomePM10 particulate matter (less than 10 microns in diameter)PM2.5 fine particulate matter (less than 2.5 microns in diameter)psi pounds per square inchRCI Residential Communities InitiativeRest Easy Rest Easy, LLCROI region of influenceRTV rational threshold valueSO2 sulfur dioxideSCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management DistrictSOx sulfur oxidesSOP standard operating procedureSWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention PlanTDY temporary dutytpy tons per yearTSP total suspended particulatesUSACE US Army Corps of EngineersU.S.C. United States CodeUSCB US Census BureauUSFWS US Fish and Wildlife ServiceVOC Volatile Organic CompoundWSAAF Wheeler-Sack Army AirfieldWWII World War II

fort drum pal final ea - august 2012

Documents

holiday inn

enduring freedom

final environmental

preliminary

initial business

leveraging

pleasant creek

lawrence valley