Final Fort Lewis Lifestyle Center Ea

Environmental Assessment Construction and Operation of a Lifestyle Center at Fort Lewis, Washington

September 2008

Environmental Assessment

Construction and Operation of a Lifestyle Center at Fort Lewis, Washington

Prepared for

Army and Air Force Exchange Service and U.S. Army Public Works, Fort Lewis

September 2008

ENSR 9521 Willows Road NE Redmond, WA 98052

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ORGANIZATION This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the proposed action by the Army and Air Force Exchange Service to construct a lifestyle center in the main cantonment area of Fort Lewis, Washington. As required by the National Environmental Policy Act and 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 651, the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts are analyzed. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0:

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION summarizes the purpose of and need for the proposed action, describes the scope of the environmental impact analysis process, and describes the proposed action to construct and operate a lifestyle center on Fort Lewis.

SECTION 2.0:

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES considers alternatives for implementing the proposed action.

SECTION 3.0:

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT describes the existing environmental and socioeconomic setting in the project area.

SECTION 4.0:

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES implementing the proposed action.

SECTION 5.0:

REQUIRED PERMITS summarizes the permits that would be required as part of the proposed action.

SECTION 6.0:

LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS identifies persons who prepared and reviewed the document.

SECTION 7.0:

INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED provides a listing of persons contacted/consulted during preparation of this EA.

SECTION 8.0:

DISTRIBUTION LIST indicates recipients of this EA.

SECTION 9.0:

REFERENCES provides bibliographical information for cited sources.

SECTION 10.0:

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS provides a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in this EA.

APPENDICES A Air Quality Modeling Output and Calculations

describes

the

potential

effects

of

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION.................................................................................1-1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1-1 Purpose and Need................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Decisions to Be Made ............................................................................................................................ 1-2 Scope of Analysis................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, and Policies .............................................................................. 1-4 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................................ 1-5 Introduction to the Organization of the Document ............................................................................... 1-5

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...........................2-1 2.1 Site-Selection Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Alternative A – No Action Alternative.................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Alternative B – Construct a Mixed-Use Lifestyle Center on Fort Lewis (Proposed Action).............. 2-1 2.3.1 Project Location ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3.2 Description of Lifestyle Center.................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3.3 Development and Design........................................................................................................... 2-5 2.4 Alternative C – Construct a Retail-Only Lifestyle Center on Fort Lewis ............................................ 2-5 2.5 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated From Detailed Analysis ....................................................... 2-6 2.5.1 Replace Commissary and Car Care Center and Construct New Retail/Housing Area............ 2-6 2.5.2 Replace Commissary and Construct New Retail/Housing Area .............................................. 2-6 2.5.3 Expand PX.................................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.6 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.7 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.7.1 Achievement of Project Objectives ........................................................................................... 2-7 2.7.2 Comparison of Issues by Alternative......................................................................................... 2-7

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .....................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Land Use................................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Regional Setting ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Installation Land Use ................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Soils and Geology .................................................................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.1 Topographic and Geologic Conditions...................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.2 Soils ............................................................................................................................................ 3-3 3.2.3 Prime Farmland.......................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.3 Visual Resources.................................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.3.1 Visual Setting ............................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.3.2 Visually Sensitive Resources..................................................................................................... 3-4 3.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.4.1 Prehistoric and Historic Background......................................................................................... 3-5 3.4.2 Cultural Resource Investigations............................................................................................... 3-5 3.4.3 Historic Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Landscapes ......................................................... 3-5 3.4.4 Traditional Cultural Properties and Uses................................................................................... 3-8 3.5 Water Resources..................................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.5.1 Surface Water............................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.5.2 Groundwater............................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.5.3 Wetlands..................................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.5.4 Floodplains ................................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.6 Air Quality.............................................................................................................................................. 3-9 Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

i

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.7 3.8 3.9

3.10

3.11

3.12

3.6.1 Air Quality Standards .................................................................................................................3-9 3.6.2 Air Quality in the Project Area...................................................................................................3-9 Noise......................................................................................................................................................3-10 Infrastructure .........................................................................................................................................3-11 3.8.1 Roadways, Traffic, and Parking ...............................................................................................3-11 3.8.2 Utilities ......................................................................................................................................3-13 Solid, Hazardous, and Toxic Materials and Waste ..............................................................................3-14 3.9.1 Solid Waste ...............................................................................................................................3-14 3.9.2 Hazardous Material and Hazardous Waste Management........................................................3-14 3.9.3 Site Contamination and Cleanup ..............................................................................................3-14 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................3-15 3.10.1 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................3-15 3.10.2 Fish ............................................................................................................................................3-16 3.10.3 Wildlife......................................................................................................................................3-16 Economic Factors..................................................................................................................................3-17 3.11.1 Regional Economic Activity ....................................................................................................3-17 3.11.2 Pierce and Thurston County .....................................................................................................3-17 3.11.3 Other Shopping Centers, Malls, and Lifestyle Centers in the Region.....................................3-17 Social Factors........................................................................................................................................3-19 3.12.1 Quality of Life...........................................................................................................................3-19 3.12.2 Environmental Justice...............................................................................................................3-20 3.12.3 Protection of Children...............................................................................................................3-20

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................................................................................4-1 4.1 Land Use .................................................................................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ....................................................................4-1 4.1.2 Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action)..............................................................................4-1 4.1.3 Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option) .........................................................................4-2 4.2 Soils and Geology ...................................................................................................................................4-2 4.2.1 Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ....................................................................4-2 4.2.2 Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C (Retail-Only Option) ............4-2 4.3 Visual Resources.....................................................................................................................................4-3 4.3.1 Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ....................................................................4-3 4.3.2 Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action)..............................................................................4-3 4.3.3 Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option) .........................................................................4-4 4.4 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................................4-4 4.4.1 Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ....................................................................4-4 4.4.2 Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C (Retail-Only Option) ............4-4 4.5 Water Resources .....................................................................................................................................4-5 4.5.1 Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ....................................................................4-5 4.5.2 Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action)..............................................................................4-5 4.5.3 Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option) .........................................................................4-6 4.6 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................................................4-6 4.6.1 Conformity Rule .........................................................................................................................4-6 4.6.2 Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ....................................................................4-7 4.6.3 Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action)..............................................................................4-7 4.6.4 Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option) .........................................................................4-8 4.7 Noise........................................................................................................................................................4-9 4.7.1 Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ....................................................................4-9 4.7.2 Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action)..............................................................................4-9 4.7.3 Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option) .......................................................................4-11 Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

ii

September 16, 2008 09004-300-0300

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.8 Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................ 4-11 4.8.1 Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative).................................................................. 4-11 4.8.2 Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action)........................................................................... 4-11 4.8.3 Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option)....................................................................... 4-14 4.9 Solid, Hazardous, and Toxic Materials and Waste ............................................................................. 4-15 4.9.1 Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative).................................................................. 4-15 4.9.2 Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action)........................................................................... 4-15 4.9.3 Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option)....................................................................... 4-16 4.10 Biological Resources............................................................................................................................ 4-16 4.10.1 Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative).................................................................. 4-17 4.10.2 Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action)........................................................................... 4-17 4.10.3 Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option)....................................................................... 4-18 4.11 Economic Factors................................................................................................................................. 4-19 4.11.1 Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative).................................................................. 4-19 4.11.2 Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C (Retail-Only Option).......... 4-19 4.12 Social Factors ....................................................................................................................................... 4-20 4.12.1 Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative).................................................................. 4-20 4.12.2 Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action)........................................................................... 4-20 4.12.3 Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option)....................................................................... 4-22 4.13 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................... 4-23 4.13.1 Land Use................................................................................................................................... 4-23 4.13.2 Soils and Geology .................................................................................................................... 4-24 4.13.3 Visual Resources...................................................................................................................... 4-24 4.13.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 4-24 4.13.5 Water Resources....................................................................................................................... 4-24 4.13.6 Air Quality................................................................................................................................ 4-25 4.13.7 Noise......................................................................................................................................... 4-25 4.13.8 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 4-25 4.13.9 Solid, Hazardous, and Toxic Materials and Waste ................................................................. 4-26 4.13.10 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 4-26 4.13.11 Economic Factors ................................................................................................................. 4-26 4.13.12 Social Factors........................................................................................................................ 4-27

5.0 REQUIRED PERMITS ..................................................................................................................5-1 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ......................................................................6-1 7.0 INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED .....................................................................................................7-1 7.1 Fort Lewis Public Works ....................................................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST....................................................................................................................8-1 9.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................9-1 10.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................10-1 LIST OF APPENDICES A

Air Quality Modeling Output and Calculations

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

iii

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 4-1 4-2 4-3 5-1

Historic Buildings in the Vicinity of the Project Site ...................................................................................3-7 Washington Department of Ecology Maximum Permissible Sound Levels (dBA)..................................3-11 Existing Peak Hour LOS at Intersections in the Project Area....................................................................3-12 2006 Employment by Industry, Pierce and Thurston Counties .................................................................3-18 Median Household Income .........................................................................................................................3-18 Unemployment Rate Trends........................................................................................................................3-19 Race and Poverty in the Fort Lewis Region During 2000 (in Percent) .....................................................3-20 Net Annual Emissions Associated with Construction and Operation of Lifestyle Center Under the Proposed Action (In Tons Per Year).............................................................................................................4-8 Net Annual Emissions Associated with Construction and Operation of Lifestyle Center Under Alternative C (In Tons Per Year) ..................................................................................................................4-9 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels..........................................................................................4-10 Permits and Approvals for the Lifestyle Center ...........................................................................................5-2

LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 2-1 2-2 3-1 3-2

Project Location......................................................................................................................................1-3 Lifestyle Center Project Site...................................................................................................................2-3 Possible Layout of Lifestyle Center .......................................................................................................2-4 Land Use Designations ...........................................................................................................................3-2 Historic Resources ..................................................................................................................................3-6

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

iv

September 16, 2008 09004-300-0300

PURPOSE AND NEED Note To Reader: A fold-out acronym list is provided in Chapter 10 to assist in reading this document.

1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 Introduction

The Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) proposes to construct a lifestyle center on the Fort Lewis Military Reservation (Fort Lewis), Washington. A lifestyle center is a shopping center that combines retail, restaurant, and entertainment venues in an open-air, pedestrian-friendly environment. The proposed lifestyle center would be located in the main cantonment area of Fort Lewis (Figure 1-1), at a site that currently supports the Commissary, Post Exchange (PX), mini-mall, and several other shops and services. AAFES is a joint military activity that provides merchandise and services to active duty, guard, and reserve members, military retirees, and their families (AAFES 2008). Approximately two-thirds of AAFES’ earnings from its retail stores are used to supplement morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) programs such as youth services, recreation centers, arts and crafts, and post functions. The remainder of the earnings are used to build new stores or renovate existing facilities. The lifestyle center is being proposed under AAFES’ Community Development Initiative, which brings new and complementary retail developments to selected military installations. The Initiative is testing the potential for an alternative approach to delivering benefits and services to military families, in order to remain consistent with the current trends in retail development. Fort Lewis is the third military installation, after Fort Bliss, Texas, and Fort Carson, Colorado, to be selected as a site for a lifestyle center. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), AAFES must conduct an environmental impact analysis to inform decision-makers and the public of the likely environmental and socioeconomic consequences of proposed AAFES actions. This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the potential effects of constructing and operating the proposed lifestyle center on Fort Lewis. 1.2 Purpose and Need

Insufficient Facilities for Projected Population Increases. As a result of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), Grow the Army, and Army Transformation actions, the military population at Fort Lewis is increasing. Army growth predictions estimate that over the next 5 years the number of AAFES customers at Fort Lewis will increase by close to 20 percent. The current facilities on Fort Lewis will be unable to provide the necessary levels of service and quality warranted by AAFES customers. Furthermore, military families currently need to drive several miles off the installation to access higher end restaurants and shops, which results in increased fuel usage and a greater risk for traffic accidents. The objective of expanding the retail operations is to meet the needs of the growing and increasingly diverse customer base. Additionally, increased dividends to the MWR fund will provide more on-post services and programs to benefit a larger number of people. Insufficient Variety of Facilities. The current offerings on Fort Lewis lack the variety necessary to capture the interest of some military families. The objective of expanding the service variety of retail operations is to Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

1-1

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

PURPOSE AND NEED take full advantage of the opportunity to provide on-post retail, restaurant, and entertainment amenities to these families by increasing the variety and appeal of on-post offerings. Predicted Strain on Housing and Administrative Space. As a result of increases in the military population on Fort Lewis, current levels of housing and administrative space are also unlikely to meet increased demands. The lifestyle center would be part of an incorporated plan to help ease the housing and administrative growth demands on the installation. 1.3 Decisions to Be Made

The Fort Lewis Garrison Commander is the decision-maker for this action. Based on the findings of this EA, and recommendations by AAFES, the Army will determine whether to implement the Proposed Action or another alternative. If the EA determines that there would be no significant environmental impacts, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) will be published. If it is determined that the Proposed Action would have significant environmental impacts, the decision-maker can decide to publish a Notice of Intent, leading to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or to issue a mitigated FNSI, in which mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels would be included as part of the action. The EA, the FNSI (if applicable), and all other appropriate planning documents will be provided to the appropriate decision-maker for review and consideration. The signature page for the EA and FNSI package will be signed by the decision-maker to indicate his or her review or approval. 1.4 Scope of Analysis

This EA will analyze the environmental and socioeconomic effects of three alternatives: the Proposed Action to construct a two-story lifestyle center that supports housing and/or office space above retail; an alternative to construct a one-story lifestyle center with only retail uses; and a no action alternative. This document analyzes direct effects (those caused by the action and occurring at the same time and place) and indirect effects (those caused by the action and occurring later in time or farther removed in distance, but that are still reasonably foreseeable). The potential for cumulative effects (effects resulting from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions) is also addressed, and mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for impacts are identified, where appropriate. Internal scoping was conducted by the Army and AAFES in June 2008 to determine the issues of particular concern that should be addressed in the EA. Resource areas that will be considered in this document include: land use; soils and geology; visual resources; cultural resources; water resources; air quality; noise; infrastructure (roads, utilities, wastewater treatment system); solid, hazardous, and toxic materials and waste; biological resources (vegetation, fish, and wildlife); economic factors; and social factors (including environmental justice and protection of children).

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

1-2

September 16, 2008 09004-300-0300

Gravelly Lake

Puget Sound

American Lake

! Tillicum Spanaway Lake

Sequalitchew Lake

§ ¦ ¨ 5

DuPont !

!

Seattle

Olympia

!

Figure 1-1. Project Location ! City

Road

Highway

Project Site

Cantonment Area

Fort Lewis

McChord AFB

0

5,000

0

1

1-3

10,000 2

20,000 Feet

Miles 4

¯

PURPOSE AND NEED Additionally, two issues of particular concern were identified during the scoping process. These issues and their indicators for measuring environmental consequences are listed below. 1. Cultural Resources. Demolition and construction in the cantonment area has the potential to affect buildings that are, or could potentially be, eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Indicator: presence of historic structures in or adjacent to the development site, and compatibility of the proposed project with their historic qualities. 2. Traffic and Parking. Additional development could worsen traffic congestion and parking deficits in the cantonment area. Indicator: Level of Service at project area intersections and along project area corridors; number of parking space per square foot of retail. Resource areas that are not applicable, or that were analyzed during scoping and determined to be outside the likely realm of effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives, include location, geomorphic/physiographic features, climate, locatable and leasable minerals, wilderness resources, wild and scenic rivers, fire, and recreation. These resource areas will not be analyzed in this EA. 1.5 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, and Policies

The intent of this EA is to comply with NEPA by assessing the potential impacts of constructing and operating the proposed lifestyle center on the resources identified in Section 1.4. Additional guidance for NEPA compliance and for assessing impacts is provided in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and in Army Regulation 200-1 (Environmental Protection and Enhancement). Decisions that affect environmental resources and conditions also occur within the framework of numerous laws, regulations, and Executive Orders (EOs). Some of these authorities prescribe standards for compliance; others require specified planning and management actions, the use of which is designed to protect environmental values potentially affected by the proposed project. Laws and related regulations bearing on the proposed Army actions include, but are not limited to, the Clean Air Act; Clean Water Act; Pollution Prevention Act; National Historic Preservation Act; Endangered Species Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; and Toxic Substances Control Act. Executive Orders bearing on proposed Army actions include EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), EO 12088 (Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards); EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), EO 13007 (Sacred Indian Sites), and EO 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks).

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

1-4

September 16, 2008 09004-300-0300

PURPOSE AND NEED Army actions are also governed by Department of Defense, Army, and Fort Lewis regulations, including the following: • • • • •

Army Regulation 200-1, Chapter 4-3 (Land Resources) Army Regulation 200-1, Chapter 6 (Cultural Resources) Army Regulation 210-20 (Master Planning for Army Installations) Fort Lewis Regulation 200-1 (Environmental Quality – Environmental Protection and Enhancement) Fort Lewis Regulation 420-5 (Procedures for the Protection of State and Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Candidate Species, Species of Concern, and Designated Critical Habitat)

Implementation of the Proposed Action would require the Army to obtain various environmental permits. A list of these permits, as well as a discussion of the permitting process (including the time and cost involved), is provided in Chapter 5 of this EA. The Army will cooperate with other federal, state, and local agencies, Native American tribes, and the public during development of this EA. Fort Lewis will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) by submitting a letter that evaluates likely impacts to buildings, structures, and objects that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Fort Lewis will also consult with the Nisqually, Puyallup, and Squaxin Island tribes. Agencies that will receive the Final EA for review are listed in Chapter 8. 1.6 Public Involvement

The premise for NEPA is the assumption that providing information to the decision-maker and the public will improve the quality of final decisions concerning the environmental effects of federal actions. All persons who have a potential interest in the proposed project, including minority, low-income, and Native American groups, are urged to participate in the Army’s environmental impact analysis process conducted under NEPA. If the EA results in a FNSI, the FNSI will be made available to the public prior to initiation of the proposed action, in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.6. The distribution of the FNSI will occur at least 30 days prior to initiation of the proposed project, with copies sent to any agencies, organizations, and individuals who have expressed interest in the project. 1.7 Introduction to the Organization of the Document

This EA is divided into ten chapters. Chapter 2 describes the alternatives, including the Proposed Action, and compares the alternatives on the basis of their environmental and socioeconomic impacts and whether they meet the stated purpose and need. Chapter 3 describes the existing environmental and socioeconomic setting of the project area. Chapter 4 describes the potential effects of implementing the Proposed Action and alternatives. Chapter 5 describes each environmental permit required to complete the project, the permitting agency, the permitting process, and the estimated time and cost required for obtaining each permit. Chapter 6 identifies persons who prepared or contributed to the document. Chapter 7 provides a list of persons and contacted/consulted during preparation of the EA. Chapter 8 lists agencies, organizations, and individuals to whom copies of the document will be sent. Chapter 9 provides bibliographical information for cited sources.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

1-5

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

PURPOSE AND NEED Chapter 10 is a fold-out list of acronyms used in the EA. Appendix A provides the results of the air quality model runs, as well as a spreadsheet showing emissions calculations for each alternative.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

1-6

September 16, 2008 09004-300-0300

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives have been identified for further analysis in this document: the Proposed Action to construct a two-story, mixed-use lifestyle center at Fort Lewis; an alternative to construct a one-story retail-only lifestyle center at Fort Lewis; and a No Action alternative. Additionally, alternatives that were considered but eliminated from further analysis are briefly described. This chapter describes the alternatives in detail and compares them in terms of their environmental impacts and their ability to meet the objectives identified in Section 1.2. 2.1 Site-Selection Criteria

AAFES and Fort Lewis staff have identified the Project Area Limits, generally speaking, as the area with the following borders: the PX to the North, the roller rink to the South, 12th Street and the Commissary parking lot to the West, and 41st Division Drive to the East (Figure 2-1). This site has been idenitifed as the only feasible location for the proposed project, and was selected based on the following criteria: • • • • • • • • •

The site should include the PX and Commissary as major anchor magnets. The site should be convenient to existing and new customers. The site should provide high visibility to potential retailers and customers. The site should support easy vehicular and pedestrian access. The site should allow integration with existing retail and entertainment facilities. There should be low impact on traffic flow in the area. The lifestyle center should be compatible with proposed land-use designations on and adjacent to the site and the surrounding visual character. The site should provide adequate space to accommodate the intended uses. The lifestyle center should not conflict with current and future planned projects on or near the site.

2.2 Alternative A – No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, a lifestyle center would not be built on Fort Lewis, and no changes to the existing retail facilities at the project site would take place. The existing PX, Commissary, mini-mall, and other facilities on the site would continue to operate as at present, and serve customers who work and shop on the installation. Future changes to the site (such as expansion of the PX) are probable, but because they are currently unknown will not be considered as part of the baseline for comparative purposes in this EA. 2.3 Alternative B – Construct a Mixed-Use Lifestyle Center on Fort Lewis (Proposed Action)

Under the Proposed Action, AAFES would construct a lifestyle center on Fort Lewis, in order to expand the goods and services available to installation personnel while supporting services and shopping already located on-post. 2.3.1

Project Location

The proposed location of the lifestyle center is south of the Liberty Gate, within the Project Area Limits discussed in Section 2-1 above. It is generally bounded by Nevada Avenue, North 12th Street, Liggett Avenue, Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

2-1

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES and 41st Division Drive. The entire site covers approximately 78 acres and is currently occupied by the PX, Commissary, credit union, mini mall, car wash/vacuum station, car care center, roller rink, and two fast-food restaurants (Popeye’s and Burger King; see Figure 2-1). This area is referred to as both the project site and project area in this EA. 2.3.2

Description of Lifestyle Center

Under the Proposed Action, the PX and Commissary would serve as major anchors to the lifestyle center. The existing PX, Commissary, roller rink, and credit union buildings would be retained, and the PX and Commissary would be expanded. The existing mini-mall, car care center, car wash/vacuum station, Popeye’s, and Burger King buildings would be razed to make room for the proposed project. Some of the existing operations in the buildings planned for removal would be relocated within the lifestyle center and others would be moved to other locations in the cantonment area. Under this alternative, a second floor would be built above some of the new buildings in order to support mixed uses at the project site. Residences and/or office space would be built above retail. Figure 2-2 shows a possible layout of the proposed lifestyle center. The bowling alley, although outside the project site boundary, would be considered as an element in the final lifestyle center design. Planned offerings within the lifestyle center include a multiplex movie theater, clothing stores, specialty stores, various personal services offerings, fast food operations, casual and family dining restaurants, a bookstore, a sporting goods store, a furniture store, and a fitness center. Additionally, a “town center” would be developed in the heart of the lifestyle center to provide an outdoor gathering area for community events, recreation, and entertainment. Patrons would be primarily active-duty and retired military personnel and their family members, and certain reserve military personnel. The lifestyle center would consist of approximately 348,000 square feet (8 acres) of new retail space, and would utilize approximately 340,000 square feet (7.8 acres) of existing retail space. The extent of office and residential space has not been decided, so for the sake of analysis it is assumed that the maximum amount of 32,000 square feet of office space and 80,000 square feet of residential space (up to 40 family housing units) would be built under this alternative. Parking areas and associated drive lanes and access roads would cover approximately 1,462,500 square feet (33.6 acres), and approximately 3,250 parking spaces would be provided. Approximately 10 acres of the lifestyle center would consist of sidewalks, courtyards, walking zones, and other paved areas. Approximately 784,000 square feet (18 acres) would consist of landscaping, green space, and other open areas. Some changes to roadways would occur in concert with construction of the lifestyle center. North of the Commissary, Nevada Avenue would be realigned, requiring demolition of less than 1,000 feet of existing roadway, and new street construction of a similar length. The curve in the street would be reduced, and it would be realigned to continue on as Nevada Avenue, rather than connecting to Utah Avenue, as it currently does. Additionally, Pendleton Avenue, which would run through the center of the proposed lifestyle center, would be upgraded to include two through lanes in each direction, a middle left turn lane, and one outside lane in each direction for access to street parking. Finally, North 14th Street would be modified and extended to become Main Street for the lifestyle center. Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

2-2

September 16, 2008 09004-300-0300

a N ev

ve da A

1

2 Pe ndleton Ave

4 3 3

8

8

N 14th St

N 12th St

5 6

7

9

10

41 st

Di

vis io

nD r

Liggett Ave

1- Post Exchange 2 - Commissary 3 - Credit Union 4 - Mini-mall 5 - Firestone 6 - Popeye's 7 - Burger King 8 - Car Wash 9 - Bowling Alley 10 - Roller Rink

Figure 2-1. Lifestyle Center Project Site Project Site Boundary

0

250

0

0.05

2-3

500 0.1

1,000 Feet Miles 0.2

¯

4

ED LIGN RE-A A D A NEV

1

3 6

6

ON

7 10

20

6

11

41 S T

9

ISI

18

DR .

8

DIV

19

2

5

PENDETON BLVD. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9 12 21 22 8 7 13 6

16

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

14 19 23

17

20 21 15

22 23

EXISTING PX EXPANDED PX FOOD COURT TIRE STORE TOWN SQUARE DINING IN-LINE RETAIL RAIN GARDEN MIXED-USE (RES. OVER RET.) MCSS WATER FEATURE CLASS SIX HEALTH CENTER TOWN GREEN CINEMA PAD SITE EXISTING ROLLER RINK EXISTING COMMISSARY EXPANDED COMMISSARY NEW BANK EXISTING CREDIT UNION FURNITURE / ODL EXISTING BOWLING ALLEY

Source: Torti Gallas and Partners, Inc. (2008)

Figure 2-2 Possible Layout of Lifestyle Center

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

2-4

September 16, 2008 09004-300-0300

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 2.3.3

Development and Design

The proposed lifestyle center would be developed under a public-private venture (PPV) scenario, in which AAFES would obtain a 40- to 50-year land lease for the project site, select a private developer to construct the lifestyle center, and enter into leases with desirable tenants to provide many of the retail offerings at the site. Office space would be occupied by the Army, but residential space would be operated and managed by a private entity. AAFES intends to select a developer for the project by August 2008. Although the project would include all of the elements described in the preceding paragraphs, the final design of the lifestyle center is not yet known, and would not be determined until after a developer is selected by AAFES. The final design would be selected by AAFES, who would consider input from the developer, the Army, and other interested parties in making their selection. Continued communication with Fort Lewis planners would ensure that the final design would be incorporated into the Fort Lewis Master Plan. Design and development of the lifestyle center would follow the Installation Design Guide, as well as any additional requirements and restrictions written into the land lease for the site. Construction and Operation Construction of the lifestyle center would last approximately 15 months, and is expected to begin in early 2010. Construction activities would include demolition of existing facilities (as described above), removal and storage of existing topsoil, removal of existing vegetation, site grading, and horizontal/vertical construction of infrastructure (roadways and utilities), buildings, parking areas, drainage systems, irrigation systems, and new landscaping. The proposed facilities would be designed and constructed in accordance with the appropriate AAFES standards, Department of Defense (DOD) and Military Regulations (see Section 1.5), the Installation Design Guide, applicable building codes, and other pertinent regulations. All new construction would meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standards. The proposed grand opening of the lifestyle center is winter of 2011. 2.4 Alternative C – Construct a Retail-Only Lifestyle Center on Fort Lewis

This alternative is very similar to Alternative B, except that none of the new buildings would be built to two stories to support mixed uses. A lifestyle center would be constructed at the identified project site, with the PX and Commissary as major retail anchors. The PX and Commissary would be expanded, several bulidings would be razed, and extensive new construction would occur, as discussed under the Proposed Action in Section 2.3. All of the planned retail offerings, changes to roadways, and square footages of retail space, parking, open space, and sidewalks would be the same as described above for the Proposed Action. The total project footprint would be the same as under the Proposed Action; however, less construction would be required because second floor usable space would not be built. The 32,000 square feet of office space and 80,000 square feet of residential space would not be constructed under this alterantive. Additionally, this alternative would not require designated residential off-street parking,

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

2-5

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 2.5 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated From Detailed Analysis 2.5.1

Replace Commissary and Car Care Center and Construct New Retail/Housing Area

Under this alternative, the Commissary and car care center would be razed and replaced with new facilities. A new retail area with housing above would be constructed northeast of Pendleton Boulevard and North 12th Street. Parking would be expanded on all sides of the buildings, and the car care center would be relocated to the northeast corner of Liggett Avenue and North 12th Street. Additionally, new barracks would be constructed above the Commissary building. Although this alternative would increase dividends to the MWR fund, it would not take full advantage of the opportunity to provide on-post retail, restaurant, and entertainment amenities and capture the interest of military families. Additionally, the available parking would not be increased enough to accommodate the additional housing and barracks. 2.5.2

Replace Commissary and Construct New Retail/Housing Area

Under this alternative, the Commissary would be razed and replaced with a new facility. A new retail area with housing above would be constructed northeast of Pendleton Boulevard and North 12th Street. New barracks would be constructed above the Commissary building. Although this alternative would increase the present dividends to the MWR fund, it would not take full advantage of the opportunity to provide a wide variety of on-post retail, restaurant, and entertainment amenities to military families. Additionally, the available parking would not be increased enough to accommodate the additional housing and barracks. 2.5.3

Expand PX

Under this alternative, the PX would be expanded. The expansion effort would include 25,000 square feet of additional in-store space, 19,500 square feet in in-line retail shops, 25,000 square feet of new food court, and 10,000 square feet of indoor seating, with additional outdoor seating. Although this alternative would increase the present dividends to the MWR fund, it would not take full advantage of the opportunity to provide a wide variety on-post retail, restaurant, and entertainment amenities to military families. 2.6 Mitigation

Mitigation strategies generally include the following practices, which are presented in the preferred order for implementation, and were established in accordance with Section 1508.20 of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. • • • • •

Avoid the impact altogether by stopping or modifying the proposed action. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its implementation. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time through the use of preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. Compensate for the impact by replacing resources or providing substitute resources.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

2-6

September 16, 2008 09004-300-0300

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The project developer would be required to follow the requirements and guidelines in the Fort Lewis Installation Design Guide, applicable Army standards, and any pertinent environmental regulations, and would meet LEED Silver criteria. Following these guidelines, which would include use of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), would provide mitigation for most potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project. Therefore, additional mitigation has not been recommended in this EA. 2.7 Comparison of Alternatives 2.7.1

Achievement of Project Objectives

The project objectives are to meet the retail needs of the growing population at Fort Lewis, to increase the dividends to the MWR fund to provide more on-post services and programs, and to help alleviate the strain on housing and administrative space on Fort Lewis. The no action alternative does not meet these objectives because on-post retail options would not be expanded or diversified to meet the needs of the population. Based on market research of the area by AAFES, this alternative would likely result in a long-term decrease in sales, as customers would increasingly spend their dollars at off-post facilities. As a result, dividends to the MWR fund would eventually be reduced. Additionally, the site would not be modified to support mixed uses, and therefore would not meet the objective of helping to alleviate strain on housing and administrative space. The Army’s Proposed Action meets the project objectives by increasing and expanding on-post retail offerings. This alternative would take full advantage of the opportunity to provide shopping, entertainment, dining, and recreational venues to the Fort Lewis community while capturing additional disposable income on-post. Dividend payments to the MWR fund would be boosted, resulting in more on-post services and programs. Examples of benefits provided by MWR dollars include weekly storytimes at the library, arts and crafts center activities, and outdoor activities (the full community calendar can be found at http://www.lewis.army.mil/DPCA/). Additionally, the second level of offices and/or residential space that would be built under this alternative would further benefit Fort Lewis by meeting the objective of reducing some of the strain on housing and administrative space associated with population increases. Providing offices and/or housing on the second level would be a more efficient use of space than a single-level retailonly lifestyle center, since there is limited space to expand these land uses in the cantonment area. Like the Proposed Action, Alternative C would meet the objectives of increasing and expanding on-post retail offerings and capturing additional disposable income on-post. However, since this alternative does not include a second level and mixed uses, it would not meet the objective of helping to alleviate the strain on housing and administrative space. Use of space would not be as efficient as under the Proposed Action, since the project would not take advantage of the potential to incorporate other uses into the lifestyle center. 2.7.2

Comparison of Issues by Alternative

A summary of the impacts expected under both alternatives can be found in Table 2-1.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

2-7

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

TABLE 2-1 Summary of Issues by Alternative Issue or Concern

No Action Alternative (Alt. A)

Effects on installation land use.

No impacts.

Effects on soils.

No impacts.

Effects on earthquake and landslide risks.

No impacts

Effects on visual characteristics of the project site.

No impacts.

Effects on visually sensitive resources.

No impacts.

Effects on archaeological resources.

No impacts.

Effects on historic resources.

No impacts.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

Proposed Action (Alt. B)

LAND USE Insignificant; temporary change in land use associated with construction and long-term benefits associated with more efficient use of space and improved community service function. SOILS AND GEOLOGY Insignificant; some risk of erosion and soil contamination associated with construction. No or negligible impacts. VISUAL RESOURCES Insignificant. Short-term adverse effects during construction, but a long-term positive effect by improving the visual character of the site. Insignificant; indirect effects to nearby historic buildings through visual disturbances or alteration should be minimal, provided the requirements in the Installation Design Guide are followed. CULTURAL RESOURCES No impacts likely, since the site has been repeatedly disturbed, and archaeological resources are not thought to be present. Insignificant; indirect effects to the nearby Carey Theater through visual disturbances or alteration should be minimal, provided the requirements in the Installation Design Guide are followed.

2-8

Alternative C Insignificant; impacts similar to those under Alternative B, but less benefit to land use because the site would not support mixed uses.

Impacts similar to those under Alternative B. No or negligible impacts.

Impacts similar to those under Alternative B.

Impacts similar to those under Alternative B.

Impacts similar to those under Alternative B.

Impacts similar to those under Alternative B.

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

TABLE 2-1 (Cont.) Issue or Concern Effects on surface water. Effects on groundwater.

Effects on wetlands. Effects on air quality emissions.

Effects to off-site communities. Effects on on-post noise levels.

Effects on traffic.

Effects on parking.

Effects on utilities.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

No Action Alternative (Alt. A)

Proposed Action (Alt. B)

WATER RESOURCES No impacts. No impacts. No impacts. Insiginificant; risks associated with contaminants during construction and operation should be minimized by BMPs and Pollution Prevention Plan requirements. Slight increase in groundwater usage. No impacts. No impacts. AIR QUALITY No additional impacts. Insignificant; some generation of criteria pollutants, but general conformity thresholds would not be exceeded. NOISE No impacts. No impacts. No impacts. Insignificant; short-term construction noise. INFRASTRUCTURE No impacts. However, projected Insignificant; although the lifestyle population increases would likely center could result in increased use of result in increasingly poor traffic the project site, traffic conditions conditions in the project area. primarily would b dependent on the military population. No impacts. Insignificant; parking space-to-retail space ratio would be reduced, but sufficient parking should be available. No impacts.

Insignificant; increased demand for all utilities, but more efficient utility usage because new construction would meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standards.

2-9

Alternative C No impacts. Impacts similar to those under Alternative B.

No impacts. Insignificant; amount of air emissions slightly lower than under the Proposed Action.

No impacts. Impacts similar to those under Alternative B. Impacts similar to those under Alternative B.

Insignificant; impacts similar to those under Alternative B, but slightly more parking available under this alternative. Insignificant; impacts similar to those under Alternative B, but with slightly less utility usage.

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

TABLE 2-1 (Cont.) Issue or Concern Effects on solid waste generation and disposal.

No Action Alternative (Alt. A)

Effects on hazardous waste generation and dispoal.

No impacts.

Effects on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Effects on plant communities.

No impacts.

Effects on fish populations and habitat. Effects on wildlife populations and habitat.

No impacts.

Effects on regional employment or income.

No impacts.

Effects on local businesses.

No impacts.

Effects on MWR fund.

No impacts.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

Proposed Action (Alt. B)

SOLID, HAZARDOUS, AND TOXIC MATERIALS AND WASTE No impacts. Insignificant; increase in soild waste generated during both construction and operation of lifestyle center.

No impacts.

No impacts.

Insignificant; some risks of exposure to hazardous materials during construction and operation, but minimized by following appropriate storage, handling, and disposal procedures. Overall reduction in hazardous building materials and other substances on the site. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No impacts. Insignificant; net loss of about 12 acres of vegetation at project site. No impacts. Insignificant; minor short-term noise disturbance to urban wildlife and net loss of about 12 acres of wildlife habitat. ECONOMIC FACTORS Insignificant; increase in temporary jobs associated with construction and long-term positions associated with operation. Insignificant; minor increase in earnings by on-post businesses and minor decrease in earnings by offpost businesses. Insignificant; minor increase in MWR fund expected from increased spending at AAFES-run facilities on post.

2-10

Alternative C Insignificant; impacts similar to those under Alternative B, but with slightly less solid waste generated and disposed of/recycled. Insignificant; impacts similar to those under Alternative B, but with slightly less handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials.

No impacts. Impacts similar to those under Alternative B. No impacts. Impacts similar to those under alternative B.

Insignificant; impacts similar to those under Alternative B.

Insignificant; impacts similar to those under Alternative B.

Impacts similar to those under Alternative B, but with slightly less revenue generated for MWR fund.

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

TABLE 2-1 (Cont.) Issue or Concern

No Action Alternative (Alt. A)

Effects on shops and services.

No impacts.

Disproportionate adverse effects on minority or low-income populations.

No impacts.

Disproportionate adverse effects on children.

No impacts.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

Proposed Action (Alt. B)

SOCIAL FACTORS Insignificant; short-term loss of some shops and services in the project area, but long-term benefit provided by a larger variety of retail offerings. Insignificant; some exposure of minority populations to constructionrelated activities, but minimal associated risks. Improvement in quality of life for minority populations on Fort Lewis, with the improved variety of offerings at the lifestyle center, and reduced potential exposure to environmental toxins in buildings. Insignificant; children at nearby facilities/housing would be near construction sites, but should not be exposed to environmental hazards. Potential improvement in quality of life for children with improved offerings, and reduced potential exposure to environmental toxins in buildings.

2-11

Alternative C Impacts similar to those under Alternative B.

Impacts similar to those under Alternative B, but with no new housing available in the project area.

Impacts similar to those under Alternative B, but with no new housing available in the project area.

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This chapter describes the existing environmental and socioeconomic conditions that could be affected by the Proposed Action. For most environmental resources, the affected environment primarily includes the project area and its immediate vicinity, although in some cases (such as socioeconomics), potential effects to resources could extend out to include a larger area of influence. 3.1 Land Use 3.1.1

Regional Setting

Fort Lewis is located in western Washington, in Pierce and Thurston counties, approximately 35 miles south of Seattle and 7 miles northeast of Olympia (Figure 1-1). The installation is bordered on the north by McChord Air Force Base (AFB) and suburban and commercial development; on the east and south by rural areas, forested land, and several small communities; on the northwest by Puget Sound; and on the west by the Nisqually Indian Reservation, and the rural areas that surround Olympia. The main transportation corridor in the Puget Sound region, Interstate 5 (I-5), crosses the northern portion of Fort Lewis. 3.1.2

Installation Land Use

Fort Lewis encompasses approximately 86,200 acres, and is a major facility for weapons qualification and field training. Additionally, Fort Lewis accommodates a variety of nonmilitary activities, such as recreation (e.g., hunting, fishing, horseback riding, and other outdoor activities), commercial timber harvest, and Native American traditional ways of life. The two major land use designations within the Fort Lewis boundary are the cantonment area (approximately 9,200 acres) and training lands (approximately 76,000 acres). The project area is located within the cantonment area, which serves as the center for most activities on Fort Lewis apart from field training. It supports residential, administrative, commercial, and industrial activities, as well as Gray Army Airfield (GAAF). The project site for the proposed lifestyle center is located in the main cantonment area of Fort Lewis, in Pierce County. Land use designations in the vicinity of the project site are shown in Figure 3-1. The project site is zoned for community services, and is located within an area known as the Community Center. This area contains the Post Exchange (PX), Commissary, services, a mini-mall, fast food restaurants, the welcome center, the library, and other MWR-run activities. By providing a concentration of destination facilities, the Community Center is intended to allow patrons to minimize their movements on the installation when conducting personal business. Adjacent land uses to the lifestyle center parcel include family housing to the northwest, open space to the north, aviation (GAAF) and open space (with airfield restrictions per UFC 3261-01) to the east, and community services to the south and southwest.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-1

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

Figure 3-1. Land Use Designations Project Site Boundary Aviation

Community Services

Family Housing Open Space

3-2

0

250

0

0.05

500

0.1

¯

1,000 Feet Miles 0.2

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.2 Soils and Geology 3.2.1

Topographic and Geologic Conditions

Topography. The topography of Fort Lewis is typically flat to gently rolling, with localized areas of moderately sloping land. Within the project site, the topography is flat, with an elevation of approximately 300 feet above sea level. Geology. Continental glacial deposits, originating during the Vashon stade of the Fraser Glaciation approximately 13,500 years ago, dominate the geology of Fort Lewis. Overall, the geologic material is comprised mainly of outwash gravels and till. The majority of the installation north of the Nisqually River, which is where the project site is located, is comprised of a series of glacial outwash terraces, channels, and glacial ponds. Seismicity. Fort Lewis is located within an area that has a high potential for damage, should an earthquake occur. Damaging earthquakes are well-known in the Pacific Northwest region, and have included several larger than magnitude 7 on the Richter Scale. The project area is not located along a major fault zone; however there are major fault zones in the region located north of Tacoma and east of Olympia (U.S. Geological Survey 1985). Additionally, the Cascadia Subduction Zone, a potential source of huge earthquakes and tsunamis, parallels the coastline of Washington and Oregon (Pacific Northwest Seismic Network, no date). 3.2.2

Soils

Soils in the project area are mapped almost entirely as Spanaway gravelly sandy loams, with a small piece of Fitch gravelly sandy loam north of the existing PX (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] Soil Conservation Service 1955). Both soil types are prairie soils that formed on glacial outwash. It should be noted that the area has not been mapped since the late 1930s, and that Fitch gravelly sandy loam is not described in later soil surveys for Pierce County. Spanaway gravelly sandy loams soils are somewhat excessively drained, have low surface runoff, and present little erosion hazard. This soil type has no limitation for urban development, although its moderate permeability can present a groundwater contamination risk. 3.2.3

Prime Farmland

Prime farmland soils have not been mapped within the project area (Washington State Department of Ecology 2008a). Therefore, no soil protection issues under the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 are applicable to the proposed project.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-3

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.3 Visual Resources 3.3.1

Visual Setting

The visual setting of the project site primarily consists of urbanized development. The northern portion of the site, where the PX and Commissary are located, is dominated visually by the two large structures and an expansive parking area. However, a 1.5-acre wooded area in the northwest corner of the project site is a prominent natural visual feature. Between the paved areas and adjacent roads are grassy lawns with scattered trees, including a mix of planted street trees and larger Douglas-fir trees. The southern portion of the site consists of several smaller buildings, and a mix of paved parking lot in the western portion and tree-dotted lawn in the eastern portion. The primary viewer group with views of the project site predominantly consists of motorists traveling on the adjacent streets. Fort Lewis has been divided into visual zones, based on visual characteristics of given areas. Visual characteristics are defined as the “look and feel” of an area, together with the dominant features that help define its image (Department of the Army 2007). The project site is located within Visual Zone 14 (Community Service Area). This area is characterized by a series of stand-alone buildings with an ample supply of parking. In the western part of this zone, older brick buildings have an appealing character. From the project site, views to the west and southwest are of additional urbanized development in the cantonment area. Views to the north and northwest are of a wooded area buffering the site from the Davis Hill family housing area, and views in the remaining directions (northeast to south) are open vistas dominated by mown but ungroomed grassland associated with the Gray Army Airfield. 3.3.2

Visually Sensitive Resources

The project site is located less than 700 feet east of the Fort Lewis Garrison Historic District, which is a visual resource of special note (see Section 3.4.3 for additional discussion about the Historic District). The appearance of the buildings and landscape in this area contributes to the area’s historic character. Given its location in close proximity to the project site, the Historic District could potentially be affected by visual alterations associated with the proposed project. Additionally, one historic building that is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is located just over 200 feet southwest of the project site. These visually sensitive resources are discussed in more detail in Section 3.4.3. 3.4 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources generally consist of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites; historical buildings and structures, objects, and landscapes; Native American sacred sites; and traditional cultural properties. Traditional cultural properties may or may not have archaeological artifacts or human alterations, but are of importance in maintaining the cultural traditions of Native American communities and other groups.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-4

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.4.1

Prehistoric and Historic Background

The area where the modern-day Fort Lewis cantonment area is located was traditionally occupied by the Nisqually, who utilized the Nisqually River drainage from Mount Rainier to its mouth, just west of Fort Lewis. At the confluence of streams, the Nisqually built permanent villages, and during the summer they moved between different environmental zones to obtain various food resources (Kreutzer et al. 1994). Fort Lewis was also used by the Puyallup and Steilacoom people, who fished in Chambers, Steilacoom, and Sequalitchew creeks and used open priairies for gathering plants (Dugas and Larson 1998). The Squaxin Island people utilized marine resources of south Puget Sound and the watersheds west of Fort Lewis. In 1832, the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC), an English fur-trading enterprise, established Fort Nisqually west of current-day Fort Lewis. As fur trading became less lucrative, the HBC established farming stations where many retired fur trappers settled. By the late 1840s, what is now western Washington supported numerous English, Canadian, and Anglo-Indian farming operations (Kreutzer et al. 1994). In 1917, Camp Lewis was established as one of 16 temporary cantonments built during World War I around the country (Department of the Army 1997). More than two-thirds of the Nisqually Indian Reservation was condemned and included in the land donation to the War Department. In 1927, the post was renamed Fort Lewis, and in the 1940s it increased in size. 3.4.2

Cultural Resource Investigations

In the mid-1970s, Fort Lewis began to conduct cultural resource surveys to inventory archaeological sites, historic structures, and traditional cultural properties on the installation. The proposed project site has not been surveyed for cultural resources; therefore an “Assessment of Project Effects” is required for these parcels. 3.4.3

Historic Buildings, Structures, Objects, and Landscapes

Fort Lewis has conducted surveys to identify buildings and sites eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, in consultation with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer. Fort Lewis contains three National Register Historic Districts, one individually listed National Register Property, two individual National Register eligible structures, and one individual commemorative property listed on the Washington Heritage Register. The eastern edge of the Fort Lewis Garrison Historic District is located less than 700 feet west of the lifestyle center parcel (Figure 3-2). In July 2008, the Fort Lewis Cultural Resources Program surveyed the project area, evaluating 29 buildings. The majority of the buildings in the project area and the vicinity were constructed in the 1970s or later. Seven buildings were constructed at least fifty years ago. These buildings are listed in Table 3-1, and shown in Figure 3-2. Only one of these buildings, the Carey Theater, has been recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP. This building with Art Deco features, constructed in 1949 and 1950, is located just over 200 feet southwest of the project site.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-5

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

McVeigh Physical Fitness Center

McVeigh Gym and Kimbro Pool

Travel Center, Bus Station, Espresso

Cowan Stadium

Memorial Stadium

Figure 3-2. Historic Resources Historic District

Project Site Boundary

Jewish Chapel

Carey Theatre

0

250

0

0.05

3-6

500 0.1

1,000 0.2

1,500 Feet Miles 0.3

¯

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 3-1 Historic Buildings in the Vicinity of the Project Site Building Name (Building Number) McVeigh Physical Fitness Center (2160) McVeigh Gym and Kimbro Pool (2161)

Year Constructed 1946

Carey Theater (2163)

1949-1950

Cowan Memorial Stadium (2170)

1949

Memorial Stadium (2171)

1949

Travel Center, Bus Station, Espresso (2166)

1941

Jewish Chapel (2270)

1941

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

1946

Description Early postwar permanent building, originally the Main Post Bowling Alley Constructed as part of a sports and recreation complex, and has served as a gym and indoor swimming pool since its construction. Built as a grand theater with impressive architectural features, and was the first and largest constructed of this design. Retains much of its original character. One of two stadiums constructed as part of a memorial stadium complex to honor soldiers who lost their lives in World War II. Functioned as a football field, and continues to be used for sports and recreation, but has undergone numerous modifications. One of two stadiums constructed as part of a memorial stadium complex to honor soldiers who lost their lives in World War II. Functioned as a baseball field. Currently vacant with signs of deterioration. Originally served as the Post Transportation Office, and has since functioned in several different roles. It has been altered. Originally a World War II mobilization type chapel that served soldiers living in temporary barracks. The building has been altered and converted into a Jewish chapel.

3-7

NRHP-Eligibility Recommendation Not eligible Not eligible

Eligible

Not eligible

Not eligible

Not eligible

Not eligible

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.4.4

Traditional Cultural Properties and Uses

There are no traditional cultural properties or lands used for traditional cultural uses in or adjacent to the project site. 3.5 Water Resources 3.5.1

Surface Water

The project site is located in the Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed, which encompasses 144 square miles of land roughly bounded by Point Defiance to the north, Puget Sound the the west, the city of DuPont to the south, and the community of Graham to the east. The watershed includes approximately 2,020 acres of lakes, numerous streams, and extensive wetland acreage. The majority of the watershed is developed and supports residential, urban, and light industrial land uses. The project site lies within the American Lake Subbasin, the least urbanized portion of the Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed. No streams, lakes, or other surface water bodies are located in or adjacent to the project site. The nearest surface water bodies are: American Lake, located approximately 1 mile north of the project site and across I-5; Wright Lake, located approximately 1 mile south-southwest of the project site; and Murray Creek, located approximately 2 miles northeast of the project site. 3.5.2

Groundwater

Groundwater is the primary source of water supply in the watershed, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has designated the Clover/Chambers Creek Basin as a Sole Source Aquifer. There are no drinking water wells within the project site, but several wells are located nearby. These wells have associated Wellhead Protection Zones (WHPZs), in which sources of groundwater contamination are prohibited. None of the existing WHPZs extend into the project site. The nearest well to the project site is approximately 0.6 miles to the east and its WHPZ extends within 0.5 miles of the site. Groundwater in the Fort Lewis Cantonment Area generally flows to the west or northwest at an average rate of 4.4 feet per day. Much of the groundwater from the project site collects in American Lake and Sequalitchew Lake before exiting to the north or west toward the Puget Sound. The depth to the water table in the project site is typically between 10 and 30 feet (Herrera Environmental Consultants 2007). 3.5.3

Wetlands

No wetlands are located within the project site. The closest wetland is a small wetland located over 4,000 feet northeast of the project site in an area of open space called Miller Hill. Additionally, a large wetland complex, including McKay, Hamer, and Edmond marshes, lies approximately 1.1 miles northwest of the project site. 3.5.4

Floodplains

The project site is not located within a floodplain. There are no floodplains within the Fort Lewis cantonment area, although Murray Creek sometimes floods during the winter months. Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-8

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.6 Air Quality 3.6.1

Air Quality Standards

The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, requires the USEPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, and secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare (including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings). The NAAQS have been set for six principal pollutants, known as criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns or 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone, and sulfur dioxides (SO2). They are based on concentrations averaged over various time periods. Standards for pollutants with acute health effects are based on relatively short-term periods (1-hour, 3-hour, 8-hour, or 24-hour), while additional standards are based on relatively long time periods (annual and quarterly) to gauge chronic effects. Individual states are responsible for regulating pollution sources. States are required to have State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to maintain federal air quality standards. Army installations must review these plans and identify any federally enforceable standards. Fort Lewis is under the jurisdiction of USEPA Region 10, and air quality on the installation is under the authority of the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). In Pierce County, air quality regulation is carried out by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). The USEPA has divided the country into geographical regions known as Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) to evaluate compliance with NAAQS. The project area is located in the Puget Sound Intrastate AQCR. The USEPA designates AQCRs as either attainment or nonattainment areas for each of the individual criteria pollutants. Attainment areas have concentrations of criteria pollutants below NAAQS, and nonattainment areas have concentrations above NAAQS. Maintenance areas are attainment areas that had a history of non-attainment but are now consistently meeting the NAAQS. Under the General Conformity Rule of the Clean Air Act, Section 176(c), USEPA established certain statuary requirements for federal agencies with proposed federal activities to demonstrate conformity of the proposed activities with the SIP for attainment of the NAAQS. Certain actions are exempted from conformity determinations, while others are presumed to conform if the total project emissions are below de minimis levels and less than 10 percent of the regional emissions inventory. 3.6.2

Air Quality in the Project Area

Air quality in the Fort Lewis area is good. The major sources of air pollution in the Puget Sound region and on Fort Lewis are particulate matter and vehicular emissions, which contribute to the formation of ozone. All of Washington is in attainment with the NAAQS for ozone. In addition, the entire western Washington region is either in attainment for CO or is designated as unclassified/attainment. Areas with the unclassified/attainment designation, including Fort Lewis, cannot be completely classified because of a lack of information. These areas are treated as attainment areas by Ecology. Fort Lewis is located in an unclassifiable area for PM, and in a maintenance area for ozone and CO. Maintenance areas are required to

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-9

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT meet air quality standards and have a 10-year plan for continuing to meet and maintain air quality standards. The nearest PM nonattainment areas to Fort Lewis are the Lacey-Olympia-Tumwater region in Thurston County, which is impacted by wood stove emissions, and the Tacoma metropolitan area in Pierce County. Neither of these areas is significantly affected by emissions from Fort Lewis. The most recent available emission inventory for the Puget Sound region indicates that in 2004, total emissions were: 29 thousand tons of PM2.5, 165 thousand tons of NOx, 12 thousand tons of SOx, 1.3 million tons of CO, and 255 tons of VOC (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 2007). 3.7 Noise

Principal sources of loud noises on Fort Lewis include aircraft (from the runway at GAAF and adjacent McChord AFB), vehicular traffic, weapons firing, and munitions demolition. The project site is located less than half a mile from runways at GAAF, and just over a mile from the Central Impact Area, so both aircraft and weapons noise can be heard from this location. Additionally, the project site includes or is located adjacent to several main roadways; therefore, traffic noise is common in this area as well. The typical noise level of busy traffic in residential and commercial areas is 70 A-weighted decibels (dBA; Beranek 1988). It is expected that during times of the day when traffic is heaviest, background traffic noise levels on streets adjacent to the project site could reach 70 dBA, although within the project site noise levels are reduced away from roadways. Occasionally noise levels may reach or exceed 90 dBA when a heavy truck or motorcycle passes by. The nearest highway to the project area is I-5. Based on past modeling, 65-dBA noise contours from I-5 extend approximately 1,000 feet from I-5 (Shapiro and Associates 1996). Since the project site is more than 1,400 feet from I-5, highway traffic noise within the project site should be less than 65 dBA. Based on a noise study done in 2005 for proposed aviation activities at GAAF (U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine 2005), noise levels from aircraft at GAAF would exceed 65 dBA DNL in a portion of the eastern project area. According to weapons noise contours for the installation, weapons noise would be well below 62 C-weighted decibels (dBC) DNL. Traffic noise Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement, discusses environmental noise and its compatibility with noise-sensitive land uses, in terms of four noise zones: • • • •

Land Use Planning Zone (LUPZ): noise-sensitive land uses acceptable; noise limit is 60 to 65 Aweighted decibels (dBA) day-night average sound level (DNL). Zone I: noise-sensitive land uses compatible; noise limit is less than 65 dBA DNL. Zone II: noise-sensitive land uses normally not recommended; noise limit is 65 to 75 dBA DNL. Zone III: noise-sensitive land uses not recommended; noise limit is greater than 75 dBA DNL.

According to an Installation Compatible Use Zone Study prepared for Fort Lewis (Shapiro and Associates 1996), land zoned for public services, residential, and cultural, recreational, and entertainment is acceptable in Zone I, generally unacceptable in Zone II (if allowed, sound attenuation techniques should be required), and unacceptable in Zone III. Therefore, the upper limit of compatibility for most land uses in and adjacent to the project area is normally 65 dBA DNL. Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-10

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Washington State Department of Ecology is the regulatory authority for environmental noise in Washington State. Maximum permissible sound levels, which are outlined in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 173-60, are presented in Table 3-2. Under the WAC guidelines, maximum permissible noise levels are reduced by 10 dBA for residential receiving properties between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. The maximum noise limits may only be exceeded for the following durations: by 5 dBA for no more than 15 minutes in any hour; by 10 dBA for no more than 5 minutes of any hour; or by 15 dBA for no more than 1.5 minutes of any hour. Noise generating activities at Fort Lewis that are exempt from the WAC rules include the following (between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. only): discharge of firearms on authorized shooting ranges, blasting actions, construction at temporary construction sites, and aircraft in flight. TABLE 3-2 Washington State Department of Ecology Maximum Permissible Sound Levels (dBA) Receiving Property Noise Source Residential Commercial Industrial

Residential Day

Night

55 57 60

45 47 50

Commercial

Industrial

57 60 65

60 65 70

Source: WAC 173-60.

3.8 Infrastructure 3.8.1

Roadways, Traffic, and Parking

Roadways that run through or adjacent to the project site include 41st Division Drive, Pendleton Avenue, Nevada Drive, Liggett Avenue, North 12th Street, and North 14th Street (Figure 2-1). 41st Division Drive, which serves as the main throroughfare from the Liberty Gate to areas on the main post, borders the site to the east. In the vicinity of the project site, 41st Division Drive generally has five lanes, with four through lanes and dedicated right turn lanes onto Nevada and Pendleton, and into the PX parking lot. The greatest percentage of inbound traffic on Fort Lewis enters through the Liberty Gate (nearly 14,000 vehicles on an average weekday in 2008; The Transpo Group 2008) on 41st Division Drive. Pendleton Avenue is the primary arterial running east-west through the community center portion of the cantonment area, and through the project site. Nevada Drive runs generally east-west to the north of the project site, and Ligget Avenue runs east-west and borders the site to the south. North 12th Street runs northsouth and borders the site to the west, and North 14th Street runs north-south through the portion of the project site between Liggett and Pendleton. All of these streets have two through lanes, with additional lanes for turns onto intersecting streets and into parking lots.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-11

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A traffic study done in 2008 assessed traffic conditions at various intersections on Fort Lewis, including five in the project area (The Transpo Group, Inc. 2008). This study evaluated level of service (LOS), a value measured in terms of average delay per vehicle, which quantifies several intangible factors, such as driver discomfort, frustration, and lost travel time. LOS ranges from A to F, with LOS A and B being high (best conditions), C and D being moderate, and E and F being low (worst conditions). Generally, LOS A through LOS D are acceptable, LOS E indicates poor operating conditions, and LOS F indicates intersection failure. Table 3-3 summarizes existing LOS during peak hours at intersections within the project area that were analyzed in the traffic study. According to this study, traffic conditions at all analyzed project intersections are acceptable, with the exception of Pendleton Avenue and 41st Division Drive during the mid-day peak (LOS E). TABLE 3-3 Existing Peak Hour LOS at Intersections in the Project Area Intersection

AM Peak LOS

Mid-Day Peak LOS

PM Peak LOS

st

B D B A A

C E C B C

C D B B B

Nevada Ave/41 Division Dr Pendleton Ave/41st Division Dr Liggett Ave/41st Division Dr Pendleton Ave/N 12th St Pendleton Ave/N 14th St Source: The Transpo Group, Inc. 2008

Corridor LOS for Pendleton and 41st Division Drive was acceptable, ranging from LOS B to LOS D. Accident data for the intersections listed in Table 3-3 indicate that there were 16 collisions at the Pendleton Avenue/41st Division Drive intersection between January 2005 and February 2008, making it the intersection with the second highest number of collisions on Fort Lewis. Additionally, there were 14 collisions at the Nevada Avenue/41st Division Drive intersection during the same time period. At the other intersections, there were four or fewer collisions during this time period. Existing parking at the lifestyle center site consists entirely of off-street parking. The amount of parking currently available at lots in the project site is approximately 2,600 spaces (based on known numbers for some facilities, and estimates from aerial photos and square footage of parking lots for others). The existing parking space to retail ratio is estimated at between 5 and 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail. An inventory of parking lot utilization conducted in January 2008 determined that parking lots for the PX, Commissary, Popeye’s, bowling alley, and roller rink are typically 0 to 50 percent utilized (The Transpo Group 2008). Additionally, most of the parking areas south of the mini-mall, credit union, and car care center are typically 0 to 50 percent utilized. The Burger King parking lot is typically 50 to 75 percent full, as are small parking areas immediately north and south of the credit union, and adjacent to the car care center. Small parking areas between the credit union and the mini-mall and just east of the mini-mall are typically 75 to 100 percent utilized.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-12

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.8.2

Utilities 3.8.2.1

Water Supply

Groundwater for consumption and non-potable uses at Fort Lewis is drawn from one covered spring (Sequalitchew Springs) and nine active wells, all of which are located within the cantonment area. Water drawn from these sources is combined into a single system that supplies facilities in the project site with water. Sequalitchew Springs is the primary water source in the system, drawing up to 10,800 gallons of water per minute through each of four pumps. The system contains one elevated storage tank and eleven ground storage reservoirs that hold a combined 6.9 million gallons per day of water to support the distribution system. Additionally, the Fort Lewis water distribution system has an emergency tie-in with the city of DuPont to allow either party to provide water to the other during critical periods. In the past, the Army has expressed a desire to privatize the potable water supply system at Fort Lewis, transferring all ownership, maintenance, repair, and replacement responsibilities to a private contractor (Larsen 2003). However, there has been no recent progress towards privatization and it appears unlikely to occur in the near future (Chavez 2008). 3.8.2.2

Wastewater Treatment System

Industrial and domestic wastewater from the project site is collected in a series of underground lines and mains and transported via a gravity system to a wastewater treatment plant near Solo Point, located approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the project site (Chavez 2008). The plant provides primary and secondary treatment before discharging to the Puget Sound through a deepwater outfall located approximately 650 feet offshore. All wastewater collection lines in the project site and throughout the installation are separate from the stormwater runoff and drainage system. 3.8.2.3

Stormwater Drainage System

The majority of stormwater runoff generated in the project site is collected in a network of subsurface storm sewer pipes running beneath streets and connecting to roof drains of buildings. Stormwater collected within the project site flows approximately 0.9 miles northwest through the storm sewer system and is discharged to the surface at Outfall 3, a stilling basin located just north of Interstate 5. Outfall 3 is fitted with an oil/water separator to remove contaminants from stormwater before the stormwater flows from the stilling basin to Hamer Marsh and eventually the Puget Sound via Solo Point (Chavez 2008). There are also a limited number of underground injection control (UIC) wells in the project site that manage stormwater. UIC wells are man-made or improved holes in the ground that discharge water directly to the subsurface, such as dry wells, drainfields, and infiltration trenches. Compared to the storm sewer system, UIC wells are used to manage only a small amount of total runoff in the project site. 3.8.2.4

Electricity and Heating

Fort Lewis purchases electrical power from Tacoma Power at three delivery points within the cantonment area of the installation. These substations are supplied by Tacoma City Utility’s 100-kilivolt (kV) Boise Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-13

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Cascade-Fort Lewis Loop transmission system. The distribution system on Fort Lewis consists of a 13.8-kV, three-wire delta system. In the past, the Army has expressed a desire to privatize the electric utility system at Fort Lewis, transferring all ownership, maintenance, repair, and replacement responsibilities to a private contractor. However, privatization has not yet happened and does not appear imminent (Waehling 2008). Fort Lewis uses natural gas as its primary heat source. Natural gas is provided by Puget Sound Energy, which owns the gas distribution system up to the meter. Fuel oil is used as a backup when gas supplies are turned off, and is purchased by contract. 3.9 Solid, Hazardous, and Toxic Materials and Waste 3.9.1

Solid Waste

Approximately 12,864 tons of solid waste were generated at Fort Lewis in 2007, over a third of which (4,511 tons) was recycled. Waste generated on the project site is collected and removed by Lemay, Inc., a private contract provider, and disposed of at the 304th Landfill in Graham, Washington (Norton 2008). Fort Lewis’ solid waste management program includes separate operations for collection and disposal of municipal solid waste, construction and demolition waste, and regulated medical waste. Non-hazardous solid waste is either recycled or landfilled on- or off-post. 3.9.2

Hazardous Material and Hazardous Waste Management

Fort Lewis developed a Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP) in 1993 with the objectives of minimizing environmental impacts associated with facility operation, protecting human health from exposure to harmful hazardous substances, and reducing hazardous substance use and hazardous waste generation. The PPP addresses hazardous substances listed in the Superfund Amendments, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Solid Waste Amendments, and Ecology’s Dangerous Waste regulations. The plan is updated annually to address changes in use of hazardous materials on the installation and to comply with the staterequired PPP process. The Fort Lewis Installation Spill Contingency Plan establishes procedures, responsibilities, and resources for the emergency response to accidental spills or releases of hazardous substances. Facility Response Plans are prepared for sites that have the potential to substantially harm the environment from release of significant quantities of petroleum, oils, or lubricants to surface waters supporting fish and wildlife, groundwater providing drinking water, and navigable waters of the United States. These plans are incorporated into a single document identified as the Integrated Contingency Plan at Fort Lewis. 3.9.3

Site Contamination and Cleanup

In 1996, Fort Lewis conducted a RCRA Facility Assessment that identified 81 sites representing potential environmental hazards, most of which were located in the cantonment area. One of these hazardous sites, a former Nevada Avenue waste pit, is located within the project site to the northeast of the PX. This site was used in the 1960s to dispose of an unspecified amount of material containing petroleum hydrocarbons and metals, and consequently has contaminated soils. A second potentially hazardous site, a former silver Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-14

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT recovery unit, is located just outside the project site boundary to the northwest of the Commissary. Various other potentially hazardous sites exist with a half mile of the project site, including former refueling areas, weapons and tank ranges, pesticide rinse areas, and transformer storage areas. Fort Lewis has determined that no further actions or restrictions are required for any of the potential contaminated sites on or near the project site (Bussey 2008). There is one site on Fort Lewis, the Logistics Center, that has been designated a National Priorities List site based on soil and groundwater contamination. However, this site lies more than 2.5 miles north of the project site. Asbestos, a substance known to cause lung disease, is present in at least one building in the project site and presumed to present in many others. Prior to the 1980s, asbestos was commonly used in construction materials, and buildings constructed before 1985 are assumed by Fort Lewis Public Works to contain significant amounts of asbestos (Roberts 2008). On the project site, these include the credit union, mini-mall, Popeye’s, and roller rink. Even in the late 1980s and 1990s, after asbestos was banned in most building materials, small amounts of asbestos were still used in adhesives, glues, and roofing materials. Consequently, asbestos is potentially present in many buildings on the project site. Asbestos regulations stipulate that buildings are assumed to contain asbestos until proven otherwise, and relatively few of the buildings on the installation have been tested. Asbestos testing at the bowling alley adjacent to the project site revealed that the substance is present in the building, and a partial demolition and renovation has been scheduled to address the issue (Roberts 2008). Lead, a heavy metal that is harmful to human health, may also be present in paints used in some buildings in the project site. Prior to 1978, lead-based paints containing concentrations of lead now known to be hazardous to humans were used extensively in homes and other structures, including those on Fort Lewis. Buildings constructed before 1978 should be assumed to contain lead-based paints unless lead testing has proven otherwise. The credit union and mini-mall were constructed prior to 1978 and may contain lead-based paints. 3.10 Biological Resources 3.10.1

Vegetation

Approximately 30 acres of the project site support vegetation. Plant life on the project site consists of maintained lawn, landscaping, planted trees, and, scattered mature Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees in certain areas, and a 1.5-acre wooded area north of the Commissary. This wooded area, together with the current PX site, was once the location of a 10-acre motor pool. When the motor pool facilities were removed from the site in the 1970s, the site was planted with conifers. Much of the forested area was then removed to make room for the PX. The 1.5-acre wooded area is what is left of the 10-acre conifer plantation. The largest vegetated areas in the project site, which can be seen on aerial photos of the site (Figure 2-1), are the wooded parcel and grassy areas located to the south of the PX parking lot, to the east of the roller rink, and in the parcel where Burger King and Popeye’s are located.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-15

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Although special status plant species are known to occur in Pierce County, and do occur elsewhere on the installation, there are no documented occurrences in or near the project site (Washington Natural Heritage Program 2008). Given the developed nature of the project area, it is not expected to provide suitable habitat for undocumented occurrences of special status plant species. 3.10.2

Fish

At least 20 fish species, including resident, anadromous, and warm-water species, live in aquatic habitats on Fort Lewis. The nearest fish-bearing waters to the project site are American Lake, Wright Lake, and Murray Creek. Species found in American Lake include rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka), cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), and black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus). Wright Lake contains largemouth bass, pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus), and brown bullhead. Murray Creek contains cutthroat trout. 3.10.3

Wildlife

Fort Lewis has a mosaic of wildlife habitats that are utilized by approximately 20 species of reptiles and amphibians, 200 species of birds, 50 species of butterfly, and 50 species of mammal. Throughout the installation, there are large expanses of undeveloped, low-elevation wetland and upland habitats. The project site, however, is primarily developed land surrounded by major roadways, and does not provide suitable habitat for many species. The most likely wildlife species to occur near the project site are species adapted to urban environments, including birds such as crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and robins (Turdus migratorius), and mammals such as squirrels and chipmunks (Sciuridae). The best patch of wildlife habitat within the site is the forested area located north of the Commissary. This forested patch is adjacent to a 350foot wide patch of mixed decidous/coniferous forested area to the north of the site, on the opposite side of Nevada Avenue. These forested areas likely contain a variety of forest-dwelling birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Wildlife is unlikely to cross Nevada Avenue into the main portion of the project site, however, because the road acts as a barrier to dispersal and the site is generally poor habitat. More than 30 wildlife species with a special status at the federal and/or state level may occur on or near Fort Lewis, or occurred there historically. There have not been any documented occurrences of these species within the project site, and the area generally does not provide suitable habitat for them. However, a peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) was documented using a similar urban habitat on the installation at Madigan Army Medical Center (Department of the Army 2004). Peregrine falcons typically nest on the side of prominent cliffs, but are known to occasionally nest in tall buildings. Because the project site does not contain any tall buildings, it is unlikely that peregrine falcons use the area as habitat. A second special status species, the streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), has been observed near the project site in the grassy fields of Gray Army Airfield, southeast of the lifestyle center site (Department of the Army 2004). Streaked horned larks prefer open prairies with low vegetation, and although they may continue to be found near the site at the airfield, they are unlikely to use the project site now or in the future due to a lack of suitable habitat. Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-16

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.11 Economic Factors

A retail market study of Fort Lewis and adjacent McChord Air Force Base was completed in late 2007 in support of the proposed project (Value Tech Realty Services, Inc. 2007). Much of the economic information provided in this section has been taken from this study. The regions of interest are the Puget Sound Region, and more specifically Pierce and Thurston counties. 3.11.1

Regional Economic Activity

The economy of the Puget Sound Region is diversified, with core economic growth made up of five major industries: aerospace, information technology, life sciences, logistics and international trade, and environment and alternative energy. The top five employers in the region are the Boeing Company, Port of Seattle, Alaska Air Group, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, and University of Washington. In 2006, the population in the region was more than 3,500,000. The average regional median household income in 2004 was $52,045. The regional unemployment rate in 2005 was 5.4%. It is predicted to decrease to 4.9% by 2010. The region is currently economically viable, with continued population growth and stability in the region’s major companies. The market study indicated that the diversified economy of the region may cushion it from some of the economic impact related to the real estate industry. 3.11.2

Pierce and Thurston County

Tables 3-4 and 3-5 summarize employment information for Pierce and Thurston counties. Employment in these counties is dominated by the services industry, with the government and retail trade also important industries providing employment to the region. Fort Lewis, McChord AFB, and Madigan Hospital (located on Fort Lewis) are three of the top ten major employers in Pierce County. Fort Lewis is the single largest employer, with 38,143 employees in 2007 (27,373 military and 10,770 civilian). The 2006 median household income for Pierce County was $55,361 (projected at $56,789 for 2007) and $57,431 for Thurston County (projected at $60,209 for 2007). These household income levels are in line with the median income for Washington State, and somewhat greater than the median income for the United States as a whole Unemployment in the region has been steadily decreasing from high levels in early part of the decade, to 4.7 percent and 4.4 percent for Pierce and Thurston counties, respectively, in 2007 (Table 3-6). The average annual unemployment rates for these counties in 2007 was similar to that of Washington State and the United States. In Pierce County, the rate was slightly higher then that of the state and the country, and in Thurston County it was slightly lower. 3.11.3

Other Shopping Centers, Malls, and Lifestyle Centers in the Region

The retail market study for the proposed lifestyle center project provides information on major malls and other large retail centers in the Fort Lewis region where military households off of the installation are likely to spend some of their income. There are 20 major retail supply centers within 35 miles of Fort Lewis, 13 of which are less than 20 miles from the project site. The closest major retail supply centers to Fort Lewis are Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-17

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Lakewood Towne Center and Wal-Mart in Lakewood, Hawks Prairie Square in Lacey, and Wal-Mart in Olympia. TABLE 3-4 2006 Employment by Industry, Pierce and Thurston County Industry Services Government (non-military) Retail Trade Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Construction Military Manufacturing Transportation/Utilities Wholesale Trade Agriculture/Mining Information TOTAL

Pierce 138,172 55,133

Thurston 46,469 36,440

Combined 184,641 91,573

42,218 30,126

14,719 8,763

56,937 38,889

30,709 29,549 20,328 13,760 12,169 3,516 4,392 380,072

7,992 777 3,291 2,767 3,286 3,142 1,598 129,244

38,701 30,326 23,619 16,527 15,455 6,658 5,990 509,316

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2006.

TABLE 3-5 Median Household Income Jurisdiction/Indicator Pierce County Thurston County Washington United States

2006 $55,361 $57,431 $56,079 $48,201

2007 (Projected) $56,789 $60,209 $58,462 unavailable

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2006; Washington State Office of Financial Management 2007.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-18

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT TABLE 3-6 Unemployment Rate Trends Jurisdiction/Indicator Pierce County Thurston County Washington United States

2002 8.0 6.5 7.3 5.8

2003 8.2 6.5 7.4 6.0

2004 7.0 5.7 6.3 5.5

2005 5.9 5.1 5.5 5.1

2006 5.1 4.6 4.9 4.6

2007 4.7 4.4 4.5 4.6

Sources: U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008a, b.

3.12 Social Factors

Social factors that are pertinent to the proposed project include quality of life, environmental justice, and protection of children. 3.12.1

Quality of Life

As stated in Section 3.1.2, the project site is located in the community center of the cantonment area. The area currently supports numerous facilities that provide shops and services to active-duty and retired military personnel and their families. Additionally, food establishments are available to military and civilian customers. The primary retail services currently provided on the project site include the PX, Commissary, and mini-mall. The PX, or main store, offers a wide variety of retail offerings, as well as a food court, barber/beauty shops, and Starcade Amusement Center. The mini-mall provides further retail shopping options (such as furniture, clothing, books, and framing/posters), as well as a pharmacy, optometrist, and coin-operated laundry. The Commissary provides groceries, an ATM, and bakery and deli items. Within the project site, two fast-food restaurants (Popeye’s and Burger King) provide drive-through and sitdown eating options. Other services on the project site include a car care center, car wash and vacuum station, and credit union. Recreation offered on the project site includes roller skating at the roller rink, and bowling is offered at the bowling alley just beyond the project boundary. Other recreational offerings are located to the south of the project site. The project site is centrally located, and easily accessible from the Liberty Gate. It is also near several family housing areas on the main post, located to the north and southwest. The project site’s location in the community center places it close to other community services offered to military personnel and their families, many of which are located in Waller Hall, located a block west of the project site. Other nearby community services include a library, school, and youth center.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-19

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.12.2

Environmental Justice

Under the provisions of EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, federal agencies must identify and address any adverse environmental effects of their actions that are disproportionately high in their impacts to minority populations or low-income populations. Demographic data relevant to environmental justice are presented in Table 3-7. Compared to Washington State and Pierce and Thurston counties, Fort Lewis contains a substantially larger percentage of people identifying themselves as black, native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and Hispanic/Latino. The percentage of people below the poverty level is slightly lower for Fort Lewis than for Washington state and Pierce and Thurston counties. Table 3-7 Race and Poverty in the Fort Lewis Region During 2000 (in percent)

White

Black

American Indian or Alaska Native

60.4

20.3

1.4

3.4

1.8

6.2

6.4

13.1

8.2

78.4

7.0

1.4

5.1

0.8

2.2

5.1

5.5

10.5

85.7

2.4

1.5

4.4

0.5

1.7

3.9

4.5

8.8

81.8

3.2

1.6

5.5

0.4

3.9

3.6

7.5

10.6

Fort Lewis Pierce County Thurston County Washington

Asian

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

Other1

Two or More Races

Hispanic/ Latino Origin2

Below Poverty Level

1 – “Other” is used for persons that do not identify with any of the five races listed in this table. 2 – The terms Hispanic and Latino refer to the origin rather than the race of a person. Therefore, persons of Hispanic/Latino origin may fall into any of the racial categories presented in this table. Persons of Hispanic/Latino origin are considered minorities for the purposes of this EA. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2000) and Washington State Office of Financial Management (2004a).

3.12.3

Protection of Children

Children may suffer disproportionately from environmental health and safety risks. Under the provisions of EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, federal agencies must identify and assess the health and safety risks of their actions to ensure that any disproportionate risks to children that may result from these actions are addressed. Places where children tend to gather include schools, day care centers, parks, and other types of recreational facilities that cater to people 18 or younger. There are several youth recreational facilities in or near the project site. The Summit Arena, an all-ages roller skating arena, is located in the southeast corner of the project site. The Child and Youth Services Sports and Fitness Program, which offers youth sports programs and summer sports camps, is conducted in a building just outside the southwest project site boundary. The Teen Zone, which conducts social recreation programs and field trips, is located 600 feet south of the project site. Three baseball fields lie between the Teen Zone

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-20

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and the project site. The Clarkmoor Child Development Center, which offers pre-school programs for young children, is located 0.2 miles southwest of the project site. Family housing areas and schools are also centers of high child density. There are no family housing units or schools located within the project site, but several of each are found in the vicinity. Family housing areas near the project site include the Davis Hill Housing Area, 0.1 miles northwest of the project site, the Parkway Housing Area, 0.4 miles north of the project site, the Greenwood Housing Area, 0.6 miles west of the project site, and the Clarkdale Housing Area, 0.4 miles southwest of the project site. Nearby schools include the Greenwood School and the Clarkmoor School, located 0.3 miles north and 0.4 miles southwest of the project site, respectively.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

3-21

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter discusses the anticipated probable environmental and socioeconomic consequences of the alternatives, presented by resource area. For each resource, significance criteria are provided to clarify the effects analysis presented in the sections that follow. For the sake of this analysis, impacts that do not exceed significance thresholds, as established in these criteria, are not considered significant. 4.1 Land Use

Impacts to land use would be considered significant if the proposed project 1) conflicted with applicable conservation plans or land use plans, policies, or regulations; 2) created a nuisance for adjacent properties; or 3) was incompatible with surrounding land uses. 4.1.1

Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

Under this alternative, a lifestyle center would not be built on the project site, and the associated demolition and construction activities would not occur. The existing structures would remain in place, and would continue to provide the services they currently offer. Land uses at the site would be unchanged, and would remain compatible with surrounding land uses. Therefore, no effects to land use would occur. 4.1.2

Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Construction During the 15-month construction phase of the project, there would be a temporary change in land uses on the project site, as many of the retail offerings would be unavailable, and construction activities would be occurring. However, the PX, Commissary, credit union, and roller rink would still be open and accessible. The presence of construction crews could create a temporary nuisance for persons trying to access these stores/services, but would not prohibit these activities from occurring. Construction activities would be in compliance with all land use, plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, effects to land use would be minimal Operation Upon opening, the lifestyle center would offer the same types of stores and services that are currently offered, but selection would be improved. Additionally, design efforts to increase pedestrian access, create outdoor gathering areas, and combine uses, would improve the community aspects of the project site, improving its functioning as a site zoned for community services. It is likely that the lifestyle center would benefit land use by more efficiently using space and by offering a wider variety of shops, restaurants, and other establishments to better meet patrons’ needs. Adding residences and/or office space above retail would also allow land to be used more efficiently by supporting multiple uses at a single location. This aspect of the proposed project would follow the design principles in the Installation Design Guide, which call for multi-story, mixed-use buildings to increase density and community, increase economic and environmental sustainability, and use land more efficiently. These principles support design goals to provide sustainable communities, identifiable town centers, and walkable neighborhoods (Department of the Army 2007). Additionally, although open space on the site would be lost, the open space that would be preserved or created and incorporated into the

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-1

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES lifestyle center would be more likely to function as usable open space because the site would be more pedestrian-friendly than at present. Overall, the lifestyle center would benefit land use. 4.1.3

Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option)

Under the retail-only alternative, impacts to land use would be similar to those under the Proposed Action. Minor short-term impacts to land use during construction would be similar to those caused by the Proposed Action, but would potentially last a slightly shorter amount of time, since second-level construction would not occur. Benefits to land use during operation of the lifestyle center would also be similar to those under the Proposed Action, with improved use of land at the project site, an increase in community aspects, an expanded variety of services, and better use of open space. This alternative would benefit land use, although the benefits would be less than under the Proposed Action because the site would not support mixed uses (offices and residences over retail). Single story buildings have been identified as negative design attributes because they often have a large footprint and are a primary contributor to sprawl. 4.2 Soils and Geology

Impacts to soil would be considered significant if the proposed project 1) resulted in soil compaction or erosion that precluded regeneration of vegetation on open space; 2) resulted in increased risk of seismic or landslide hazards; or 3) was located on unstable ground, or ground that could become unstable as a result of the project. 4.2.1

Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

Under this alternative, demolition and construction of new structures at the project site would not occur. Soils on the project site would not be disturbed or removed. Therefore, there would be no impacts to soils and no increased risks of landslide or earthquake hazard. 4.2.2

Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C (Retail-Only Option)

Construction During demolition and construction, there would be minor adverse effects to soils in the project area, as exposed soils in portions of the project site would have an increased susceptibility to wind and water erosion. These risks would be minimized by the level topography at the site and by the use of BMPs to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Recommended BMPs include soil covers, silt fences, straw bale dikes, diversion ditches, rip-rap channels, water bars, and water spreaders. Given the topography of the site, risk of landslide would be minimal. Demolition/remodeling of old structures could potentially result in soil contamination by lead-based paints and other hazardous materials. The use of proper demolition and waste removal procedures would minimize this risk. Pollution prevention requirements would be incorporated into demolition/remodeling contracts, and all building waste from demolition, construction, and renovation of facilities would be removed from the Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-2

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES project site and disposed of at approved facilties. All demolition and renovation activities would follow safety guidelines provided in Fort Lewis Design Standards. Operation During operation, soils in the entire project site would be covered with buildings or other impervious materials or landscaped vegetation. Therefore, there would be little to no risk of erosion. Additionally, there could be long-term benefits to soil on the project site, since hazardous materials such as lead-based paint would be removed from the site, thereby minimizing the risk of future soil contamination by these materials. New structures on the site and extensions of existing buildings would be designed to provide the level of seismic protection required by the International Building Code. 4.3 Visual Resources

Impacts to visual resources would be considered significant if the proposed project 1) degraded the visual unity of the area; 2) degraded views from roadways and adjacent areas; or 3) introduced architectural styles or features that conflict with the character of the surrounding development. 4.3.1

Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

Under this alternative there would be no effects to visual resources, since no changes would be made to the structures on the project site, or to other features on the site. The visual environment would remain as at present, and views of the site from roadways and other nearby areas would not be altered. 4.3.2

Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Construction Under the Proposed Action, there would be short-term adverse effects to visual resources during demolition and construction. The construction sites would be aesthetically very unappealing and a prominent visual disruption in the landscape. The sites would be visible to a large number of motorists and other viewers in the cantonment area, particularly because of their central, prominent locations. The construction site would alter the visual character of the Community Service Area visual zone by removing structures, landscaping, and other site vegetation, breaking the cohesion and circulation of the visual zone, and introducing undesireable visual elements into the landscape. The short-term nature of these effects would make them less than significant. Operation The finished lifestyle center should have a long-term positive effect on visual resources, provided design and construction of the project adhered to standards and requirements found in the Installation Design Guide. AAFES would be required to meet these standards and requirements as part of their lease agreement. The lifestyle center would be designed as a single cohesive entity, to unite structures visually. It is anticipated that landscaped and paved areas would tie buildings together better than at present. Additionally, the creation of a town center and a “main street,” and other landscape features to make the site more pedestrian-friendly and

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-3

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES improve its community feel would provide aesthetically appealing elements that are not currently found on the site. The potential visual effects to historic resources are discussed in Section 4.4.2 4.3.3

Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option)

Effects to visual resources under Alternative C would be similar to those under the Proposed Action. There would be short-term adverse effects to visual resources associated with construction sites, but long-term benefits associated with creating a more cohesive town center. A minor difference under Alternative C is that there would be slightly less construction because a second story would not be built, potentially reducing the visual impact of the lifestyle center during construction. 4.4 Cultural Resources

Effects to cultural resources would be considered significant if the proposed project 1) damaged or destroyed cultural resources eligible for listing in the NRHP; or 2) isolated an eligible property or altered its environment such that its setting, feeling, and/or association with its historic context was diminished. 4.4.1

Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

Under this alternative, a lifestyle center would not be constructed at the project site. Existing facilities would continue to provide retail services to military families, and no demolition, construction or site modification would occur. Therefore, there would be no impacts to cultural resources in the project area. 4.4.2

Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C (Retail-Only Option)

Since no historic properties are located within the project site, direct effects to historic resources should not occur under either action alternative. However, as discussed in Section 3.4.3, there are several buildings that are at least 50 years old in the vicinity of the project site that could potentially be indirectly affected by changes to the visual environment at the project site. Construction activities would be expected to create a temporary visual disturbance in the landscape that could potentially alter the visual setting of historic buildings. However, these effects would be short-term in duration and would not be expected to have lasting effects on the visual character or setting of the area. Additionally, only the Carey Theater is NRHP-eligible, and visual alterations to the other properties would not constitute a significant adverse effect. Although the Carey Theater is not within or directly adjacent to the project site, it is located just over 200 feet southwest of the project site, and is in the same Visual Zone. Activities at construction sites would create a temporary visual disturbance that could cause a minor short-term effect on the visual setting of the Carey Theater. The completed lifestyle center would follow guidelines in the Fort Lewis Installation Design Guide to ensure that buildings and landscape design associated with the lifestyle center are compatible with the visual character of the Community Service area. Adherence to these guidelines should also minimize the risk of adverse indirect effects to the Carey Theater, by maintaining or improving the setting and feeling of the

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-4

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES project site. Therefore, significant adverse effects to historic resources would not be anticipated under either action alternative. Because the project site and surrounding areas are developed areas that have been subjected to grading, leveling, construction, and demolition, any archaeological components in the area have effectively been removed or destroyed. According to the Assessment of Project Effects (Sadler 2008), two archaeological sites have been found within ½ mile of the project site. One of these sites, a small, multi-component prehistoric and historic site was located within the project site, and the other was found off-site to the southwest. Both sites were highly disturbed and not eligible for listing in the NRHP. At present, there are no archaeological sites or isolate finds recorded in the vicinity of the project site, although two highly disturbed sites have been found in the past, and it is not likely that significant cultural material would be discovered during construction, given the amount of past site disturbance and previous construction in the area. However, in the event that human remains, artifacts, or features of archaeological interest were discovered, work in the vicinity would immediately cease, the site would be stabilized and protected, and the Installation Cultural Resource Manager would be contacted within 24 hours of the discovery. Work would not proceed until authorization to proceed was given by the Installation Cultural Resource Manager. Therefore, adverse effects to archaeological resources are not expected under either alternative. 4.5 Water Resources

Impacts to water resources would be considered significant if the proposed project 1) resulted in stormwateer runoff into adjacent surface waters; 2) degraded or depleted groundwater resources; 3) resulted in a violation of water quality standards; or 4) adversely affected wetlands. 4.5.1

Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

Under Alternative A, the lifestyle center would not be constructed and there would be no impacts to water resources. The existing stormwater system would continue to manage runoff from the project site, with some infiltration to groundwater occurring in the vegetated portions of the project area. 4.5.2

Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Construction Surface waters would not be impacted by the construction phase of the proposed project. Although construction creates the potential for sediment and contaminants from construction sites to travel away from the site in surface runoff, the nearest surface waters are too far from the project site (more than 1.5 miles away) to be impacted by construction activities. Groundwater would be protected from degradation by construction-related contaminants by using appropriate BMPs and following the protection measures required in construction permits and Fort Lewis’ Pollution Prevention Plan. Examples of BMPs include: 1) collecting and storing all waste materials in a securely-lidded metal dumpter; 2) minimizing use of fertilizers; 3) monitoring and performing preventative maintenance on vehicles to reduce leaks; 4) installing temporary

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-5

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES perimeter controls such as silt fences before clearing and grading begin; and 5) keeping materials and equipment necessary for spill cleanup on site. The level of groundwater use for construction activities is not expected to be great enough to deplete groundwater to any measurable degree. Wetlands would not be impacted by construction because they are located a mile or more away from the project site. Operation Upon completion of the lifestyle center, there would be a net increase in impervious surface at the project site of approximately 12 acres. This increase in impervious surface would reduce the amount of infiltration into soil on the site, and result in an increase in the amount of surface runoff. Stormwater runoff has the potential to carry contaminants such as heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons from the site; however, the nearest surface waters are sufficiently far away from the project site that they would not be affected by the increased runoff. Groundwater would be protected from degradation during the operational phase by following the Pollution Prevention Plan and recommended regulations for underground injection control (UIC) wells that convey stormwater directly to the subsurface. Use of groundwater in the project site would increase during the operation phase because of the greater number of buildings and people on the site, but should not be enough to deplete groundwater resources. Wetlands would not be impacted by operation of the lifestyle center because they are located a mile or more away from the project site. Buildings on the project site would be constructed to LEED Silver Standards, which would help to minimize impacts to water resources during the operation phase. Water-efficient landscaping, innovative wastewater technologies, and/or water use reduction measures could be instituted on the project site to protect water resources. 4.5.3

Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option)

Impacts under Alternative C would be similar to those under Alternative B, with surface water and groundwater protected from degradation by contaminants originating at construction sites by BMPs and other requirements in the PPP. The increase in impervious surface would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Groundwater usage would be slightly less than under Proposed Action, since offices and/or residences would not be constructed under this alternative, and potable water needs would therefore be somewhat lower. 4.6 Air Quality

Impacts to air quality would be considered significant if the proposed project were to: 1) increase ambient air pollution concentrations above any NAAQS; 2) contribute to any existing violation of any NAAQS; 3) interfere with or delay timely attainment of NAAQS; or 4) result in uncontrolled fugitive dust emissions. 4.6.1

Conformity Rule

The CFR requires a determination of whether a federal action will cause an increase in total direct and indirect emissions above specific thresholds, thereby requiring a conformity analysis (40 CFR Part 51 Subpart W and Part 93 Subpart B). A conformity analysis must demonstrate that the project would not:

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-6

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

• • • •

Cause or contribute to a new violation of any standard; Interfere with provisions in the applicable SIP for maintenance of any standard; Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard; or Delay timely attainment of any standard.

Additional thresholds are pollutant-specific for non-attainment and maintenance areas. The project area is within an ozone (a product of VOCs and NOx, reacting in the atmosphere) and CO maintenance area. Actions at Fort Lewis resulting in an increase of 100 tons per year (or greater) of ozone or CO would trigger a conformity analysis 4.6.2

Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

Under this alternative, sources of air pollution in the project area would be much the same as at present, since the existing facilities would remain in place. Future changes in pollutants based on increases or decreases in traffic and facility construction and operation are likely, and would largely be dependent on changes in military strength at Fort Lewis. 4.6.3

Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Construction Under the Proposed Action, the construction phase of the proposed project would generate emissions of air pollutants, primarily associated with operation of various diesel vehicles for demolition and construction activities (such as graders, excavators, backhoes, pavers, and dump trucks). Additionally, worker commute trips could contribute to increased emissions of criteria pollutants associated with the project. Other activities would be associated with lesser amounts of air emissions, such as off-gassing from paving, architectural coatings, and dust from site grading. Various demolition and construction activities would have the potential to generate fugitive dust, which can impact air quality and contribute to opacity. Regulations pertaining to fugitive dust emissions state that it is “unlawful to cause or allow visible emissions of fugitive dust unless reasonable precautions are employed to minimize the emissions” (PSCAA Regulation 1, Section 9.15). Dust-related emissions would be managed/minimized with appropriate BMPs, such as watering of work sites and truck loads to reduce dust during demolition and construction. Operation Once the lifestyle center is open, air emissions would primarily be associated with vehicles traveling to and from the lifestyle center. Additional, smaller producers of air emissions would include such sources as natural gas heaters and lawn mowers and other equipment used for landscaping. Total Project Emissions To calculate total project emissions for construction and operation of the lifestyle center, details about the proposed project were used as inputs into the URBEMIS model (URBEMIS 2007, version 9.2.4; Rimpo and Associates 2007). This model calculates construction, area source, and operational emissions for urban land Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-7

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES use projects. In order to calculate the emissions summarized in Table 4-1, demolition, construction, and operations emissions for the lifestyle center project were obtained using the URBEMIS model. Additionally, current operations emissions associated with the facilities to be demolished (fast-food restaurants, mini-mall, car care center, Burger King, and Popeye’s) were obtained. These current emissions were subtracted from the operational emissions for the completed project to obtain total net emissions during operation of the lifestyle center. Table 4-1 Net Annual Emissions Associated with Construction and Operation of Lifestyle Center Under the Proposed Action (In Tons Per Year) Emission Period 2010 (demolition and construction) 2011 (construction and operation) 2012 (operation)

VOC

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

5.64

12.83

11.62

0.00

46.46

10.31

-0.65

-0.33

-27.43

0.00

9.95

2.21

1.58

1.29

3.96

0.02

3.54

0.68

Note: annual future operations emissions would be the same as 2012 emissions. Data and calculations used to generate this table are provided in Appendix A; values presented represent predicted project emissions, with current site emissions substracted.

With the exception of 2011, there would be a net annual increase in criteria pollutants associated with the lifestyle center project. The greatest emissions would be associated with demolition and construction. In 2011, there would be a net decrease in annual emissions of CO, NOx, and VOC in the project area, primarily because operations would not occur during the full calendar year. During 2012 and subsequent years of operation, projected net emissions from the project site would be slightly higher than at present. The projected increased in criteria pollutants would not exceed the conformity thresholds of 100 tons per year for NOx, VOC, and CO. These emissions are also substantially less than 10 percent of the total annual emissions for the Puget Sound region, and do not represent a regionally significant generation of emissions. Therefore, a general conformity determination is not required. Fort Lewis would prepare a Record of NonAppplicability to the General Conformity Rule. 4.6.4

Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option)

Under this alternative, air emissions would be similar to those under the Proposed Action, but slightly less since second floor offices/residences would not be built under this alternative. Table 4-2 summarizes predicted annual emissions under Alternative C, as calculated by the URBEMIS model. Under this alternative, net emissions of all criteria pollutants in all years would be slightly less than under the Proposed Action. The net emissions of VOC, NOx, and CO in 2011 would represent a reduction of current levels. Additionally, the model predicted that net emissions of CO would be slightly less in 2012 and all subsequent years than at present.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-8

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Table 4-2 Net Annual Emissions Associated with Construction and Operation of Lifestyle Center Under Alternative C (In Tons Per Year) Emission Period 2010 (demolition and construction) 2011 (construction and operation) 2012 (operation)

VOC

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

4.7

10.62

9.58

0.00

38.26

8.48

-1.65

-1.47

-32.85

0.00

7.23

1.62

0.53

0.43

-2.62

0.02

2.6

0.49

Note: annual future operations emissions would be the same as 2012 emissions. Data and calculations used to generate this table are provided in Appendix A; values presented represent predicted project emissions, with current site emissions substracted.

These emissions would not constitute a significant impact to air quality, and a general conformity determination would not be required under this alternative. Fort Lewis would prepare a Record of NonAppplicability to the General Conformity Rule. 4.7 Noise

Impacts would be considered significant if noise from the proposed project 1) caused harm or injury to on- or off-site communities; or 2) exceeded applicable environmental noise limit guidelines. 4.7.1

Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

Under this alternative, noise levels at the project site would remain much as at present. Most noise experienced by receptors at the project site would be from traffic on roadways, and from audible training activities such as aviation and weapons firing. 4.7.2

Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Construction Demolition and construction activities would cause temporary increases in loud noises at the project site during daylight hours. Although relatively high noise levels are associated with some types of construction equipment, this noise tends to be intermittent and drop off at distances greater than 50 feet. Table 4-3 lists typical noise levels associated with construction equipment. Although all the construction equipment listed operates at a decibel level at greater then 65 dBA, noise at this level would not cause harm or injury to persons outside the construction site. Workers on site would wear appropriate hearing protection when operating equipment. Most people exposed to the noise would be driving through the area or only present for a short amount of time. The greatest potential impacts would be during construction in the southern portion of the site, which is adjacent to outdoor ball fields. However, given the intermittent nature of the noise and the drop-off in sound levels beyond 50 feet, these impacts would be minor. Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-9

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Table 4-3 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Construction Equipment Compactors (Rollers) Earthmoving Front Loaders Backhoes Tractors Scrapers, Graders Pavers Trucks Concrete Mixers Materials Handling Concrete Pumps Cranes (Moveable) Cranes (Derrick) Pumps Stationary Generators Compressors Pneumatic Wrenches Impact Equipment Jackhammers and Rock Drills Pile Drivers (Peaks) Vibrators

Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet 72-74 71-85 71-94 75-96 80-93 86-88 82-95 74-88 81-84 75-87 85-89 68-72 71-83 74-87 82-89 81-98 94-106 68-81

Source: USEPA (1971).

Construction noise would exceed the maximum permissible sound levels presented in WAC 173-60. However, because construction noise at temporary construction sites is exempt from these rules, the proposed construction would not violate any environmental regulations. Operation Once the lifestyle center was open and operational, ambient noise at the project site would be much the same as at present. Users of the site would engage in the same sorts of activities as they currently do (e.g., shopping, eating), and traffic noise would continue to be the major source of noise originating at the site. It is possible that the lifestyle center could draw additional traffic to the area, potentially increasing traffic noise; however, the maximum noise level associated with traffic would not increase, and effects would be minor. Because 65-dBA noise contours from aviation activities at GAAF extend onto the project site, planning for proposed residential development on the project area would consider aircraft noise to ensure that residences are located in areas where they are compatible with environmental noise. Should residences be built within the lifestyle center, they would be located in the western or central portion of the project site, outside of the area where noise from activities at GAAF would be likely to reach 65 dBA. The other main sources of noise in the project site, including traffic noise and noise associated with commercial activities, should be compatible with proposed residential land uses. Although traffic noise during times of peak roadway use Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-10

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES could reach or exceed 65 dBA, background noise levels over most of the project site would be lower, and traffic noise during nighttime hours would be minimal. 4.7.3

Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option)

Under this alternative, noise effects would be similar to those under Alternative B, and would be predominantly short-term impacts associated with construction equipment. The duration of construction noise could be slightly lower under this alternative, since residential and/or office space would not be built on a second level, and less construction would be required. During operation of the lifestyle center, noise levels would be similar to those under the Proposed Action. Since residences would not be constructed under this alternative, there would be no compatibility issues with aircraft noise and residential land uses. 4.8 Infrastructure

Impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project 1) caused an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system; 2) substantially increased driving hazards due to a design feature; 3) resulted in inadequate parking capacity; 4) increased levels of demand on utilities that exceeded the current or planned capacity of existing systems; 5) required major improvements in any of the installation’s utility systems; or 6) reduced the capability of nonmilitary utility systems. 4.8.1

Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

Under this alternative, the retail offerings in the project area would remain the same, and traffic associated with people driving to the project area would remain heavy, as at present, with ongoing congestion in and around the Pendleton Avenue/41st Division drive intersection. Future increases (or decreases) in traffic would be primarily dependent on the number of people stationed, living, and working at Fort Lewis. Future planning efforts by Fort Lewis would likely result in traffic improvements at key intersections. Use of utilities on the project site would remain at current levels under the No Action Alternative, with changes in usage dependent primarily on the number of people living and working at Fort Lewis. Privatization of utilities could occur in the future, but would have no major impacts on the use or availability of the utilities. 4.8.2

Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action) 4.8.2.1

Roadways, Traffic and Parking

Construction During the demolition and construction phase of the proposed project, short-term adverse effects to traffic and parking in the project area are likely. Activities at the construction site are likely to distract motorists, leading to traffic slowdowns, and potentially increasing the risk of collisions. Additionally, portions of roadways would be closed temporarily during the project, requiring traffic to be re-routed and potentially decreasing the LOS in the vicinity of the project site, as nearby roads take on additional cars. These effects could be minimized by appropriate planning efforts to reroute traffic effectively and reduce the amount of time streets are closed. Parking at the lifestyle center site would also be reduced temporarily; however, since many of the Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-11

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES businesses would be closed during construction, parking needs would also be reduced, and effects should be minor. Operation Following the grand opening of the lifestyle center, use of roadways by motorists accessing its shops, restaurants, and other offerings would contribute to traffic congestion in the project area. Given the proposed increased in the number and variety of retail offerings and the new offices and/or residences in the lifestyle center, it is expected that use of the project area could increase over current levels. However, the project site would continue to be utilized by the same population as at present, which primarily consists of people who currently have reason to be in the town center area on a regular, often daily basis. Although the lifestyle center would likely generate increased interest in the project site by people who already meet many of their retail needs there, and is intended to eventually support the retail needs of a larger customer base, it would not generate an increased customer base on its own. The number of people utilizing the site, and therefore contributing to traffic, at any given time would be determined primarily by the population and military strength at Fort Lewis, as well as the number of soldiers currently deployed. The increase in desirable amenities on post would likely allow military families to fulfill more retail and entertainment needs during each trip to the town center area, thereby reducing the total number of vehicle trips and in some cases eliminating the need to drive off the installation for these services, potentially resulting in a minor decrease in traffic on a regional scale. Additionally, the park-once, pedestrian friendly aspect of the lifestyle center could help to offset some of the traffic congestion associated with use of the project site, since people would be less likely to drive to multiple destinations within the shopping center. Furthermore, the modification and extension of North 14th Street would provide an additional north-south through street connecting Pendleton Avenue to Nevada Avenue, which would be expected to help alleviate some of the traffic associated with the project site. Overall, traffic in the project area would continue to be congested under this alternative, as the project is located in a high-use area that already suffers from congestion during peak driving times. However, given the high traffic the area already experiences and the existing uses of the project site and adjacent areas, the lifestyle center project, on its own, is not expected to cause a substantial increase in the traffic load and capacity of the street system. It is estimated that approximately 3,250 parking spaces would be provided at the lifestyle center. This number represents an increase from the number of parking spaces currently estimated to occur on the site (2,600), but a decrease in the parking space to retail ratio from 5-to-6 spaces per 1,000 spare feet of retail to less than 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail. This ratio would be reduced further by the parking needs associated with the proposed office space on the second level of the lifestyle center, which would require sufficient dedicated parking spaces for office employees and visitors. Second floor residences, if constructed, would include garages for residents; therefore, the only additional burden to on-site parking associated with residential development would be use by residential guests. Since parking is currently plentiful and underutilized in some portions of the project site (e.g., in lots for the PX and Commissary) but nearly 100 percent utilized in other areas, it is likely that the overall reduction in the parking to retail ratio would not significantly affect the parking supply. The parking supply at the project site should be adequate, although it is likely that during high usage times parking could be difficult to find, particularly in certain parking areas.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-12

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES However, the lifestyle center would be designed as a park-once destination with features to improve walkability. These design aspects would help to minimize disparities in parking lot utilization in different portions of the site. 4.8.2.2

Utilities

Construction The construction phase under Alternative B would have only minimal impacts on utilties in the project site. The amount of stormwater runoff from the site would be unlikely to change significantly during the construction phase. Runoff would have the potential to carry much more sediment from construction sites with bare soil surfaces, but following BMPs for stormwater management would prevent impacts to other resources. There could be a slight increase in the number of people on the project site during construction, which could result in slightly larger volume of sewage wastewater. Construction activities could also generate small amounts of industrial wastewater. The total increase in wastewater during the construction phase would likely not be significant, however. The construction phase could also require a slight increase in the electricity usage on the project site in order to power construction and demolition equipment. However, construction activities would be spread out over the course of 15 months, so electricity demand would only show a modest increase during the construction phase. In addition, power usage from some currently operating buildings would cease, as they would be demolished prior to construction of the lifestyle center. Use of natural gas or fuel oil would probably remain unchanged during construction, as newly constructed structures would not be heated until the lifestyle center was operational. Operation Demand for potable and non-potable water on the project site would increase once the lifestyle center was operational, because of the increase in residences and/or offices, and retail facilities on the site. Current plans call for up to 40 new residences in the project area, which would represent a small increase in water usage on the installation. Based on recent per capita water usage on Fort Lewis, it is estimated that new residences would require less than 20,000 gallons per day of water in the summer and less than 15,000 gallons per day in the winter. New retail and office developments would account for more water usage than residences, but would still only be a minor increase relative to total water use on the installation. It is expected that the current water supply for Fort Lewis is sufficient to support the increase in water usage resulting from the proposed project (Chavez 2008). One safety concern related to the water supply is the maintenance of sufficient water pressure to support fire suppression efforts in the project site. Currently, the water pressure generated by the distribution system can support fire suppression efforts for buildings up to three stories tall (Chavez 2008). Because buildings constructed as part of the lifestyle center would be a maximum of two stories tall, the proposed project would not require additional water pressure for fire fighting.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-13

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Wastewater generation on the project site would also increase because more people would use the project site than at present. However, the wastewater treatment system has adequate capacity to accommodate the increase in wastewater in the project area (Chavez 2008). Stormwater runoff from the project site would increase slightly because of a 12-acre increase in impervious surface on the site, which would prevent stormwater from infiltrating the soil and promote surface runoff. However, the stormwater drainage system in the project area would be expanded during the construction phase to allow for proper stormwater management and to meet the requirements of the Fort Lewis Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Use of electricity, natural gas, and fuel oil for power and heating would increase within the project site, as a greater number of buildings would need electricity and heat. Given the relatively small increase in energy use, it is expected that Tacoma Power and Puget Sound Energy would be able to supply the additional electricity, oil, and natural gas required by the lifestyle center. Construction of new buildings to LEED Silver Standards would help to minimize impacts to utilities during the operation phase. Increased controllability of lighting and heating systems, refrigerant management, and renewable energy technologies could reduce electricity and natural gas needs on the site. LEED stormwater design quality control standards could improve stormwater management on the site. 4.8.3

Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option)

Under this alternative, impacts on traffic and parking associated with the lifestyle center would be similar to those under Alternative B, although potentially slightly less because offices and/or residences would not be constructed. There would be short-term adverse effects to traffic and parking in the project area associated with construction, and particularly closures of roadways. Once the lifestyle center was open, the amount of parking on the project site would be reduced from current levels, but should still be sufficient to meet the needs of motorists. It is expected that there would be slightly more parking available under this alternative than under the Proposed Action because offices and residences would not be constructed so fewer people would require parking on the site. Impacts to traffic would be much the same as under the Proposed Action; motorists accessing the lifestyle would contribute to traffic congestion in the area, but the military population at any given time would be the primary factor influencing the number of vehicles driving to and from the project area. The project design would help improve the traffic flow over current site conditions, and minor decreases in regional traffic are expected with a likely reduction in the number of off-post trips. Impacts on utilities under Alternative C would be similar to those described for Alternative B, with minor increases in utility usage. However, because second-story residences and/or offices would not be constructed, the increase in demand for water, power, and heating sources would be less than under Alternative B, as would the generation of wastewater in the project site. Stormwater runoff from the site would be the same as that under Alternative B, since the amount of impervious surface would be the same.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-14

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.9 Solid, Hazardous, and Toxic Materials and Waste

Impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project 1) resulted in a hazard to the public or the environment through the transport, use, or disposal of materials waste, or 2) resulted in violations of federal or state rules, regulations, or permits held by Fort Lewis. 4.9.1

Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

Under this alternative, no demolition or construction would occur at the project site, so hazardous materials and wastes associated with these activities would not be present on the site. Small amounts of hazardous wastes would continue to be present in retail and other facilities that are currently present at the project site. The most common hazardous substances would include motor oil, cleaning solvents, and paint. The Firestone car care center would remain the largest source of hazardous waste in the project site, generating wastes such as solvents, scrap metals, batteries and other auto parts, motor oil, automotive fluids, fuels, acids, and alkalis. The car wash facility could also contribute low-level hazardous waste in the form of cleaning fluids and other substances used in the car wash. Solid waste generation on the project site would remain much the same as at present, and would primarily consist of waste generated by business in the project site and the patrons of those businesses. It is expected that the amount of waste generated could fluctuate in response to use of the site, with more business patrons correlated with more solid waste generated. Fort Lewis would continue to recycle a portion of this waste, as at present. 4.9.2

Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Construction Hazardous waste generated during the construction phase could present a risk of exposure to humans in the project site, as well as a risk of contamination of soil, water, and biological resources. Risks could occur through use, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances, but would be minimized by following BMPs and other established safety procedures. The most common hazardous substances used in construction would likely be petroleum products, paints, and asphalt. All building waste from demolition, construction, and renovation of facilities would be removed from the project site and disposed of at facilities approved by the Department of Ecology. Pollution prevention requirements would be incorporated into demolition, renovation, and construction contracts. Two of the buildings that would be demolished or renovated as part of the construction phase were built prior to 1985 and are known or assumed to contain significant amounts of asbestos. These buildings include the mini-mall and Popeye’s. To prevent harmful exposure to asbestos, all demolitions on the project site would adhere to asbestos regulations in the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications, a joint effort of the Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration for use in specifying construction for the military services.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-15

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Lead would also present a hazardous waste issue during the construction phase because the mini mall was constructed prior to 1978 and probably contains lead-based paints. Demolition would create a risk of human exposure to lead because these activities release lead dust or debris into the air. To prevent human health risks, all demolition and renovation activities would follow the safety guidelines established in Section 02095-1 of the Fort Lewis Design Standards, entitled “Lead Based Paint Abatement and Disposal.” Solid waste generation on the project site would temporarily increase during the construction phase of the project as building material waste was generated from construction and demolition activities. However, this increase in solid waste would be short-term and a portion of construction waste would be recycled. Adhering to LEED Silver Standards during construction would minimize impacts from solid waste and hazardous waste. Specific actions could include using low-emitting materials (adhesives, sealants, paints, coatings, carpets, composite wood), storage and collection of recyclable materials, and/or using postconsumer building materials. Operation Hazardous wastes are not expected to be generated in significant amounts once the lifestyle center is operational. Small amounts of hazardous materials could be kept on hand in retail stores, housing units, and/or offices, including substances such as motor oil, cleaning solvents, and paint. These substances would typically exist in very small quantities, and are safe enough that they would not pose a substantial health or environmental risk. Because of the addition of housing, retail stores, and offices to the project site, there would likely be a small increase in the amount of hazardous materials on the site compared to the amount at present. However, the amount of hazardous building materials such as lead and asbestos, which are present in older buildings but would not be present in newly-constructed buildings on the project site, would decrease from present levels. Once the lifestyle center was operational, solid waste generation on the project site would be greater than at present, because a greater number of people would use the site, including people living in residences and/or working in offices. The amount of waste recycled would presumably increase proportionally, as well. 4.9.3

Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option)

Impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative B, except that slightly less hazardous waste and solid waste would be generated during construction. There would also be slightly less use and storage of hazardous waste during the operation phase because residences and/or offices, which normally contribute small amounts of hazardous waste, would not be constructed. Similarly, solid waste generation would be slightly less during the operation of the lifestyle center due to the absence of residences and offices. 4.10 Biological Resources

Impacts to biological resources would be considered significant if the proposed project resulted in 1) a substantial, long-term reduction in the quantity or quality of habitat critical to the survival of local populations of common fish or wildlife species; 2) injury or mortality to common fish or wildlife species such that species Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-16

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES populations would not recover; 3) a reduction in the population, habitat, or viability of a federal or state species of concern or sensitive species that would result in a trend toward endangerment or the need for federal listing; 4) any loss of critical habitat, or nesting habitat critical to birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, on the installation; 5) mortality to a listed species that could result in a “take” under the Endangered Species Act; 6) long-term loss or degradation of unique or high-quality plant communities; or 7) a measurable reduction in diversity within high quality plant communities. 4.10.1

Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

Under Alternative A, the lifestyle center would not be constructed and there would be no impacts to biological resources beyond those that currently exist. Vegetation would continue to experience very minimal impacts from human activity in the project site, such as physical damage from people walking on vegetation. Fish would remain unaffected by activities on the project site because the nearest fish-bearing waters are located over 1.5 miles from the site. Wildlife would experience slight disturbances on the project site associated with the presence of humans, vehicle traffic, and anthropogenic noise, but impacts would remain minimal because wildlife species on the site are adapted to the urban environment. 4.10.2

Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action) 4.10.2.1

Vegetation

Construction Nearly all of the 30 acres of existing vegetated area within the project site would be lost during demolition and construction. These losses would constitute minor effects, however, given the small amount of vegetation lost and the types of plant communities affected. The vegetation on the site consists of either planted vegetation incorporated into landscaping, or common native plants that are found throughout the installation and the region. The developer would make efforts to preserve large trees currently on the site where feasible. There would be no loss of rare or sensitive species. Following construction, approximately 18 acres of the site would be revegetated through landscaping efforts using native and ornamental plants, and the net loss of vegetation from the project would be approximately 12 acres. Operation Impacts to vegetation during the operating stage of the lifestyle center would be similar to current impacts in the project site. Minor physical damage to vegetation from humans stepping on plants would likely occur, and to a slightly greater extent than presently because of the increased number of people expected to utilize the site. However, overall impacts to vegetation would not be significant. 4.10.2.2

Fish

Construction Fish would not be significantly impacted by demolition and construction activities on the project site under the Proposed Action. Although sediments and other contaminants generated by these activities could be transported towards surface waters in stormwater runoff, the nearest fish-bearing surface waters are more than 1.5 miles from the site, sufficiently far away to avoid impacts to fish in these water bodies. In addition, Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-17

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES contamination of runoff due to construction activities on the project site would be minimized by following BMPs listed in the Fort Lewis Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Examples of BMPs include: 1) collecting and storing all waste materials in a securely-lidded metal dumpster; 2) minimizing use of fertilizers; 3) monitoring and performing preventative maintenance on vehicles to reduce leaks; 4) installing temporary perimeter controls such as silt fences before clearing and grading; and 5) keeping materials and equipment necessary for spill cleanup on site. Operation Once the lifestyle center was operational, activities on the project site would not have a significant impact on fish. Although small amounts of contaminants from the project site could contaminate runoff, these contaminants should not reach fish-bearing waters, which are located a mile or more from the project site. 4.10.2.3

Wildlife

Construction The loss of vegetation during demolition and construction would have minor adverse effects on wildlife by reducing the amount of habitat in the project site. Most of the wildlife likely to use the site are urban-adapted species that could persist in areas adjacent to the project site during construction. The most significant loss of habitat would be the 1.5-acre patch of conifer forest in the northwest corner of the site, which could potentially support various birds and mammals. Wildlife in and around the project site could be disturbed by noise associated with construction equipment and would probably avoid the area during the construction phase. These adverse effects would be minor and short term. When construction was completed, urban-adapted wildlife would likely once again utilize the project site. However, the site would likely provide less suitable habitat since the overall acreage of vegetation would be just over half of the original amount, and would consist of fewer tall trees. Wooded habitat would not be replaced on the site. These impacts would be minor, given that wildlife using the site consists of common species with secure populations. Operation Once the lifestyle center was operational, impacts to wildlife on the project site would be minimal, and similar in nature to present impacts. In general, the same types of activities that occur presently on the site would continue to occur, and wildlife could be minimally disturbed by human presence, vehicle traffic, and anthropogenic noise. The level of disturbance to wildlife caused by these factors would be expected to increase slightly because the lifestyle center would include more facilities and would presumably attract more people and vehicles than at present. However, because most wildlife on the site is adapted to urban environments, impacts would not be significant. 4.10.3

Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option)

Impacts would be very similar to those under Alternative B. There would be slightly less disturbance to wildlife because residences and/or offices would not be built under this alternative. Slightly less construction would be required and fewer people would frequent the project site. Fish would not be impacted by the Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-18

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES project, as they are not present in the vicinity of the project site. Vegetation would be slightly less disturbed than under Alternative B because presumably fewer people would use the site since second-story housing and/or offices would not be located on the site. 4.11 Economic Factors

Impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project 1) resulted in a measurable long-term change in employment or income in the region; or 2) resulted in a measurable long-term loss of revenue for local businesses. 4.11.1

Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

Under this alternative, revenues generated by retail facilities in the project area would be much the same as at present, with future changes determined largely by changes in military strength and the population at Fort Lewis. AAFES shops would continue to generate revenue for the MWR fund in line with current levels, and military families would continue to spend some of their disposable income at off-post shopping areas. There would be no changes in employment or income under this alternative. 4.11.2

Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C (Retail-Only Option)

Construction During demolition and construction, there would be a small short-term increase in construction jobs, and a small short-term decrease in retail jobs with the closure of shops. Overall, the change in regional employment would be negligible. Razing of buildings in the project area, such as the mini-mall and car care center, would result in a decrease in revenues by affected businesses. In most cases, patrons would meet their needs at other shops and restaurants in the region, resulting in an increase in money spent elsewhere. Although in many instances, military families would patronize other AAFES facilities, it is expected that in some cases, military families would patronize off-post shopping facilities, resulting in a loss of revenues to the MWR fund. These effects would be minor and short-term, lasting only until facilities were replaced, either within the lifestyle center or at other locations on post. If businesses were not replaced, effects would be long term. Operation AAFES estimates that the lifestyle center would result in 850 new jobs associated with retail stores, restaurants, the movie theater, the gym, and the property management company. Some of these jobs would be seasonal (e.g, during the holiday season), but most would be long-term positions. This increase would be offset to some degree by jobs lost with the demolition of existing shops and restaurants on the site; however the net result would likely be a small increase in jobs associated with businesses at the project site. Although the project would result in a long-term benefit to regional employment, this increase would be negligible. It is possible that the improvement of retail offerings on Fort Lewis could cause military families to spend less money at off-post stores, restaurants, and movie theaters, resulting in a minor adverse effect to other shopping

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-19

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES centers in the region. Given the wide variety of retail offerings in the region and the dispersion of off-post residents in many nearby communities, losses to any single business would not be great enough to constitute a significant effect. Increased spending on post at AAFES facilities would benefit the MWR fund. Additionally, non-AAFES businesses leasing space within the lifestyle center would see gains in revenue as a result of the proposed project. These increases would not be large enough to constitute a significant effect. 4.12 Social Factors

Impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project 1) increased demand for shops and services by military families to levels that could not be met by offerings in or near the project area; 2) resulted in disproportionate environmental, economic, social, or health impacts to minority or low-income populations; or 2) resulted in disproportionate environmental health or safety risks to children. 4.12.1

Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

Under this alternative, retail facilities in the project area would be much the same as at present, and no new residences or offices would be constructed. Quality of life would remain near the current level, although if the population of Fort Lewis increased dramatically in the future, quality of life could decline due to a lack of expanded retail, housing, and office facilities to accommodate more people. No disproportionate adverse effects to minority populations or children would be expected under Alternative A. 4.12.2

Impacts of Alternative B (Proposed Action) 4.12.2.1

Quality of Life

Construction The demolition and construction phase of the project would have short-term adverse effects on quality of life by temporaily reducing the number and variety of shops and services available to military families in the main cantonment area. For the duration of construction (approximately 15 months), the car care center, car wash, Popeye’s, Burger King, and shops in the mini-mall would not be available, and military families would be required to find alternatives either on or off post. Since all of the retail offerings and services that would be lost temporarily are available at nearby locations, and many are available on the North Fort, effects would not be significant. Operation Ultimately, the lifestyle center would benefit quality of life by providing a larger variety of shops and services to military families than are currently present in the project area. Besides expanding the PX and Commissary, the lifestyle center would provide more retail offerings than at present, including casual and family dining restaurants and a multiplex movie theater, which are not currently located in the project area. Additionally, a new fitness center would be built, providing another service that is currently not available in the area. The wider variety of offerings would be a benefit because some people may be able to take care of more shopping and other needs in one central location. Many single soldiers who reside on Fort Lewis do not have cars; therefore, the lifestyle center could potentially improve their quality of life by providing them with more shops, restaurants, and entertainment options that are accessible on foot, by bike, or by public transit. Finally, Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-20

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES the design of the lifestyle center to make it pedestrian friendly and increase the community feel would benefit quality of life by improving shopping, dining, and entertainment experiences in the project area. Additional benefits to quality of life would be associated with increased revenues to the MWR fund, which would help improve MWR programs for military families. Locating offices or residences within the lifestyle center under this alternative would likely improve the quality of life for those who live in the new family housing units or work in the new office space. These people would be able to walk to shops and services that they likely would have had to drive to previously. These benfits would be minor, affecting a relatively small number of people. 4.12.2.2

Environmental Justice

The minority population on Fort Lewis is larger than the minority population of Washington State, Pierce County, or Thurston County. Therefore, the potential for disproportionate adverse effects to minority populations exists for all activities occurring on Fort Lewis. Construction There would be minor health risks associated with construction, primarily related to noise, dust, and generation and disposal of hazardous waste. Noise and dust effects would be temporary, and predominantly limited to the construction site, where workers would wear proper protective equipment. Noise and dust levels in areas outside of the construction site would not be great enough to cause a health impact to minority populations on Fort Lewis. Additionally, since workers at the site would be required to follow proper hazardous material storage and disposal procedures to protect public health, risks of exposure to these materials would be very low and should not represent a health concern. Therefore, disproportional adverse effects to minority populations should not occur. Operation The new facilities of the lifestyle center would benefit to minority populations on Fort Lewis by providing a greater variety of retail, restaurant, and entertainment offerings a short distance from family housing. Families on post would likely be able to drive shorter distances for certain services, which would reduce fuel costs and risks associated with driving. Additionally, new construction would be built to higher environmental standards than the buildings being demolished, thereby reducing the potential exposure of military families to hazardous materials such as lead-based paint and asbestos. As a result, long-term benefits to minority populations on the installation are likely as a result of the proposed project. 4.12.2.3

Protection of Children

Construction Several facilities that serve large numbers of children are found in or near the project site, including schools, youth centers, and recreation facilities. Construction noise on and around the project site could potentially disrupt children in these facilities. Noise during school hours could be a minor distraction at Greenwood and Clarkmoor schools, which are located less than a half mile from the project site. Additionally, children accessing the bowling alley, roller rink, and nearby ball fields could temporarily be exposed to construction Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-21

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES noise, dust, and construction materials and waste. Noise and dust levels would not be great enough to constitute a health risk to children. Additionally, since workers at the site would be required to follow proper hazardous material storage and disposal procedures to protect public health, risks of exposure to these materials would be very low and should not represent a health concern. Therefore, disproportional adverse effects to children should not occur. Operation The new facilities of the lifestyle center would benefit children by providing more retail, entertainment, and restaurant options, including family-friendly establishments. The roller rink and bowling alley would be incorporated into the lifestyle center and continue to be available to children in military families. Additionally, new buildings in the project site would be built to higher environmental standards than the buildings being demolished, thereby reducing the risks of exposure to hazardous building materials. Overall, there should be a long-term benefit to children on the installation. 4.12.3

Impacts of Alternative C (Retail-Only Option) 4.12.3.1

Quality of Life

Under this alternative, short-term adverse effects associated with temporary loss of shops and services would be similar to those discussed for the Proposed Action. Additionally, the long-term benefits associated with a wider variety of amenities once the lifestyle center opens would be much the same under both alternatives as well. The same retail, food, and entertainment options would be provided under both alternatives. One small difference is that office space and/or residential space would not be included in the design under this option, so the increased accessibility benefits to people working or living in the lifestyle center would not occur under this alternative. 4.12.3.2

Environmental Justice

Impacts to minorities from Alternative C would be less than under Alternative B because construction of second-story offices and housing would not take place. Consequently, noise disturbances and other inconveniences related to construction would be much shorter in duration and have less potential to disproportionately impact minorities. The benefits of the lifestyle center would be similar to those under Alternative B, although there would be less opportunity for minorities to work or live in the project area because housing and office buildings would not be constructed. 4.12.3.3

Protection of Children

Impacts from Alternative C would be similar in nature to those described for Alternative B, but would last for a shorter period of time because second-story residences and offices would not be built under this alternative. There would be less opportunity for children and their parents to live and work in the project area under this alternative.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-22

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.13 Cumulative Effects

A cumulative effect is the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the Proposed Action, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of who undertakes those other actions (CEQ Regulation 1508.7). Cumulative effects can result from actions occurring over a period of time that are insignificant when each is considered on its own, but that are significant when viewed collectively. This cumulative effects analysis assumes that past and present events are generally those associated with development and specific land uses in the cantonment area, particularly in and near the project site. It is expected that development of the cantonment area will continue, as the military population at Fort Lewis continues to grow. However, given the limited space available, many of the future actions in the area will likely be associated with changes in land use to more efficiently use space, as well as other actions to alleviate space constraints. Some of the reasonably foreseeable future actions that could occur on Fort Lewis, including in the vicinity of the project site, and that are considered in this effects analysis include: •

•

• • • •

Proposed housing buildout of vacant parcels for approximately 720 within Residential Communities Initiative leased land, including new units adjacent to the project site and in the Clarkdale housing area southwest of the project site. New housing developments in these areas are expected to be completed within the next 10 years. Proposed development on the North Fort, to include expansion of current uses, realignment of the street grid system, new operational facilities, and development of a town center. These actions are expected to take place in fiscal years (FY) 2007 through 2013 Proposed construction of new barracks in the East Division area, proposed to occur in FY 2008-2010. Continued build-out of health care facilities within the Madigan Hospital area, such as the Warriors in Transition facility and the Physical Evaluation Board Facility. Proposed improvements to roadways, pedestrian facilities, and bike routes throughout the cantonment area. Continued development of the Rainier Park area and redevelopment of the Logistics Center.

4.13.1

Land Use

Proposed development of a lifestyle center would be additive to other past, present, and future development within the Fort Lewis cantonment area, with a relatively small land area being required to support multiple land uses by an ever increasing population. Existing land use designations on the installation will continue to guide this development and ensure that new development is compatible with existing uses, although some minor changes to land use designations could be required to meet all the Army’s needs. Additionally, cumulative effects would be minimized through the master planning process, in which proposed developments are worked into an installation-wide master plan, which considers existing and other proposed future uses of land in the cantonment area, and works to efficiently utilize the available space. Master planning also takes into account likely future increases in the military strength at Fort Lewis, and in the onpost population.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-23

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.13.2

Soils and Geology

Risks of erosion and contamination of soil at the project site would be additive to similar risks from other nearby construction sites. However, BMPs to reduce erosion and sedimentation, as well as required procedures for handling and removal of hazardous wastes, would be followed during all construction projects to minimize soil loss and prevent soil contamination. Therefore cumulative effects would be minor. Since all new structures on Fort Lewis and extensions of existing buildings would be designed to meet International Building Code requirements for seismic protection, there would likely be a cumulative benefit as older structures in the project site and elsewhere in the cantonment area are better able to withstand potential future earthquakes in the region. 4.13.3

Visual Resources

All current and future activities in the vicinity of the project site would have the potential to affect the visual character of the area, which woud have the potential to lead to additive effects to visual resources. However, since all of these activities would be required to follow the very specific design principles and other requirements in the Installation Design Guide, including requirements to protect the visual integrity of historic buildings and districts, cumulative adverse effects should not occur. Furthermore, visual improvements provided by the lifestyle center would be additive to any other developments in the area that improve the visual character of the cantonment area, and overall cumulative effects would likely be beneficial. 4.13.4

Cultural Resources

Impacts to cultural resources associated with the proposed project would be additive to all other past activities that have altered cultural resources in and near the project site. However, since no archaeological resources are believed to be present on the site, and none are expected given past construction on the site, there would be no new impacts to these resources associated with the action. Visual changes in the project site would constitute indirect cumulative effects, when added to all other past, ongoing, and future modifications in the cantonment area, many of which have resulted in a loss of characteristics of historic properties that would have made them NRHP-eligible. Actions by the Fort Lewis Cultural Resources Program to identify and preserve historic properties have helped prevent effects to resources that are still NRHP-eligible. Guidance in the Installation Design Guide serves to provide standards for current and future development to help prevent future effects to these resources by new construction on the installation. 4.13.5

Water Resources

Any sedimentation or contamination of water resources from the project site would be cumulative to water quality impacts from past, present, and future activities in the area. However, given that a Pollution Prevention Plan would be followed, appropriate BMPs would be implemented, and the project site is more than a mile away from the nearest surface water body or wetland, the potential for sedimentation and contamination of water resources is low. The increase in impervious surface associated with the proposed project would be cumulative to all other existing and new impervious surface in the area, which would reduce infiltration to groundwater and increase Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-24

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES stormwater runoff. Since most of the main cantonment area is developed already, most new actions are unlikely to result in a substantial increase in new impervious surface. Additionally, stormwater management systems in the cantonment area are adequate to for directing stormwater to a detention pond where it is allowed to reinfiltrate into the groundwater. 4.13.6

Air Quality

Air quality emissions associated with the proposed project would be cumulative to other construction projects in the region, as well as air emissions from traffic and other sources. These cumulative effects should not be significant since the construction is limited to 15 months in duration, and annual emissions from operation of the lifestyle center would be similar to those currently generated at the project site. Actions by Fort Lewis to meet the sustainability goal of reducing traffic and stationary source air emissions by 85 percent would help offset some of the new emissions generated by Fort Lewis and other regional sources. 4.13.7

Noise

Noise associated with construction and operation of the lifestyle center would be additive to other noise originating in the cantonment area, and potentially other nearby areas on the installation. Since construction noise would be temporary, any cumulative effects would be short term. Since the project site and adjacent areas are developed, and the area already supports heavy traffic, future developments are unlikely to add much additional noise to existing background levels, although minor cumulative effects are likely. 4.13.8

Infrastructure

Given that traffic congestion and parking shortage are currently issues in the Fort Lewis cantonment area, all activities that contribute to traffic or reduce parking availability would have an additive adverse effect on traffic and parking. Predicted increases in population over the next few years, in particular, are expected to worsen traffic and parking in and around the project site. The recent installation traffic study (The Transpo Group 2008) considered the potential impacts of projected population increases, a mixed-use lifestyle center, and other planned developments and modifications in the town center area of Fort Lewis. The study predicted that in 2015, the 41st Division Drive/Pendleton Avenue intersection would operate at LOS F during mid-day and P.M. peak hours, and LOS E during A.M. peak hours, and would therefore be a failing intersection because of high volumes on the northbound, eastbound, and westbound approaches. Additionally, the northbound segment of 41st Division Drive south of I-5 would operate at LOS E during mid-day peak hour conditions, as a result of congestion at the intersection of 41st Division Drive and Pendleton Avenue. The projected increase in population would be the primary cause of these failing conditions. As part of their master planning efforts, Fort Lewis intends to offset potentially significant cumulative impacts in the project area by improving existing roadway and parking deficiencies and taking other steps to accommodate the projected population increases. Planned improvements include widening Pendleton Avenue into a five-lane boulevard and interconnecting the traffic signals along Pendleton, which were measures identified by the traffic study to improve future conditions on roadways and at intersections in the project area. Other improvements would include improved pedestrian facilities and bike routes, and ongoing sustainability efforts to reduce traffic congestion on the installation by 85 percent. Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-25

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Increased use of utilities on the project site associated with the proposed project would be additive to increases associated with projected population increases on Fort Lewis, as well as other future developments. However, the improved energy efficiency of new buildings would offset some of the increased demand. Additionally, sustainability goals of using renewable energy sources and generating electricity on-post would reduce overall utility usage on Fort Lewis. 4.13.9

Solid, Hazardous, and Toxic Materials and Waste

Materials and wastes handled, generated, and disposed of during construction and operation of the lifestyle center would be additive to those handled, generated, and disposed of currently and in association with future construction projects and other activities on Fort Lewis. Cumulative adverse effects would be minimized by following approporiate BMPs, pollution prevention requirements, and other pertinent regulations and guidelines to minimize risks of exposure to these materials. Demolition of older buildings would have a cumulative benefit, as many of these buildings contain asbestos and lead-based paint, and would be replaced with buildings that meet LEED Silver standards and contain less toxic building materials. Additionally, cumulative increases in the amount of solid waste generated on-post would be offset in part by recycling efforts as part of the sustainability goal of eventually achieving zero net waste. 4.13.10 Biological Resources

Effects to biological resources from the lifestyle center project would be minimal, but would be additive to other actions, particularly in the cantonment area, that have reduced plant, fish, and wildlife populations on Fort Lewis. As most of the cantonment area is developed, most native plants and wildlife have been replaced with non-native urban vegetation and wildlife species that adapt to urban settings. Since the proposed project occurs in an area that is already developed, only very minor cumulative effects are expected. These effects would consist of impacts to species with secure populations. Efforts by the Army to preserve habitat for native species elsewhere on the installation, and to recover listed and candidate species will continue to offset some of the past cumulative effects to these species from development on Fort Lewis and elsewhere in the south Puget Sound region. 4.13.11 Economic Factors

Economic effects associated with commercial development in the project area would potentially be additive to other economic effects associated with commercial activity on Fort Lewis and the region. Jobs created by the lifestyle center project would represent a small net increase in regional employment. Other commercial developments would be expected to result in additional, cumulative increases, which would be additive to or offset by employment increases or decreases in other industries. Future changes in regional employment would continue to be controlled primarily by larger scale economic factors. Predicted future increases in military strength at Fort Lewis would likely lead to increased revenues to lifestyle center businesses, as well as increased revenues for the MWR fund. Additionally, new family housing on Fort Lewis would also likely lead to increased spending at the lifestyle center.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-26

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.13.12 Social Factors

The improved retail, restaurant, and entertainment offerings at the proposed lifestyle center would provide quality of life benefits that are cumulative to benefits associated with expansion of other services in the cantonment area, as well as efforts to improve walkability and create a town center to improve the sense of community. Certain improvements in services off-post could provide cumulative benefits as well, particularly for military families who reside off-post. Quality of life benefits would extend to children and minority populations residing on Fort Lewis. Risks for disproportionate adverse effects to minorities, low income populations, and children from construction activities would be cumulative to those associated with other sources of noise or environmental toxins at Fort Lewis, particularly other construction activities and on-post traffic. Risks of exposures would be expected to increase with future population increases. However, risks would be minimized by fencing off construction sites, and following all pertinent regulations to protect human health. Additionally, risks of future exposures would be minimized by such actions as removal of asbestos and lead-based paint from older buildings, adhering to LEED Silver or better standards in new construction, and installation-wide efforts to substantially reduce air emissions.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

4-27

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

REQUIRED PERMITS

5.0 REQUIRED PERMITS Construction and operation of the lifestyle center would require various permits and approvals from state and federal agencies. Given that the lifestyle center is still in the planning stages, it is not possible to determine all permits and approvals that could be necessary; however, Table 5-1 and the following sections summarize the permits and approvals that are normally required for projects of this nature and magnitude in Washington State. 5.1

Water Permits

Because the construction site would be larger than 1 acre, stormwater management during the construction phase would be regulated under an existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit and Coverage issued by Ecology to Fort Lewis. Under the terms of this permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan would need to be completed for the project before starting construction. Any new UIC wells constructed for stormwater management in the project site would need to be registered with Ecology’s UIC Program. However, Fort Lewis Public Works personnel want to avoid using UIC wells to manage stormwater in the project site, and would prefer to use a storm sewer system (Chavez 2008). A NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit is currently being prepared by the EPA for the Fort Lewis cantonment area. Stormwater management practices in the lifestyle center will need to abide by the regulations set forth in this MS4 permit when it is completed. The estimated date of completion of this permit by USEPA is currently unknown (Chavez 2008). 5.2

Air Permits

An Air Quality Notice of Construction Permit issued by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) would be required because the lifestyle center would be a modified source of air contaminants. The application must include a detailed description of the project, and include process equipment information, the type and amount of air contaminants that would be emitted, air pollution control practices, and air pollution control equipment. An Asbestos Demolition/Renovation Notification Form would need to be submitted to Ecology for each facility on the site demolished or renovated (e.g. car care center, car wash, mini-mall, PX, commissary). Before beginning work on the facility, the form must be filled out, signed by the owner/operator, and mailed to the appropriate Ecology office. Removal of all-types of asbestos-cointaining material, including non-friable materials, must be permitted. 5.3

Hazardous Waste Permits

Since AAFES plans to relocate the car care center within the new lifestyle center, a Waste Tire Storage Site Owner License and/or Waste Tire Carrier License would be required by Ecology. The facility would need to possess a valid solid waste handling permit before applying for this license. Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

5-1

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

REQUIRED PERMITS Table 5-1 Permits and Approvals for the Lifestyle Center

Permit/Approval

Description

Issuing Agency

Required for applicants proposing to install a new source, or modify an existing source, of air contaminants.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

Asbestos Demolition / Renovation Notification Form

Must be submitted any time a facility is demolished or renovated.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

Waste Tire Storage Site Owner License and/or Waste Tire Carrier License

Site owner license required for facilities that store waste tires; carrier license required in most circumstances when hauling 5 or more waste tires to recycler or storage site. One or both of these licenses may be required if the Firestone car care center is reconstructed on the lifestyle center.

NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit and Coverage

Required for all construction activities on sites one acre or larger and when there is a discharge of stormwater to a surface water.

Air Quality Notice of Construction Permit

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

5-2

Cost $200 to $18,000 based on project complexity and emissions. $30 for asbestos removal, plus an additional $70 for demolition.

Timing 60 to 90 days to process application. Notification form must be postmarked or received 10 days prior to demolition.

Dept. of Ecology

$15 application fee, $200 carrier license, $250 site owner license, $10,000 performance bond required before licenses are issued.

Unknown.

Dept. of Ecology

$350 to $925 depending on acreage of site, must be renewed every 5 years.

45 days to review; permit cannot be issued sooner than 31 days after 2nd public notice.

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

REQUIRED PERMITS Table 5-1 (Cont.) Permits and Approvals for the Lifestyle Center

Permit/Approval

Description

Issuing Agency

Required for all new UIC wells (man-made holes used to discharge stormwater directly to the subsurface). Required for public entities (such as ports, prison complexes, parks and recreation NPDES Municipal Separate districts, universities, or diking and drainage Storm Sewer Systems districts) that own or operate a stormwater Permit (MS4) sewer system located in a Phase I or Phase II city or county. Source: Washington State Department of Ecology (2008b). Underground Injection Control Registration

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

5-3

Cost

Timing

Dept. of Ecology

None.

Should receive confirmation within 60 days of submittal.

USEPA

None; cost would not be paid by lifestyle center project because MS4 permit is for entire Fort Lewis cantonment area.

Unknown.

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS This Environmental Assessment has been prepared for AAFES with contractual assistance from ENSR, Redmond, Washington. The following personnel contributed to the preparation of this document: • • • • • • • •

Anderson, Kim (ENSR) Creech, Tyler (ENSR) Denfield, Duane (Fort Lewis) Kaplan, Mary (ENSR) Paulus, Stuart (ENSR) Raich, Sean (AAFES) Ruby, Bret (Fort Lewis) Sadler, Dale (Fort Lewis)

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

6-1

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED

7.0 INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED 7.1 Fort Lewis Public Works

Bussey, Troy Chavez, Joyce Norton, Ron Roberts, Michael Rosacrans, Kelly Tolman, Thomas Waehling, Eric

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

Restoration Program, Senior Engineer Water Program Manager Solid Waste / Recycling Program Asbestos Trainer Air Quality Program Planning Air / Energy Compliance

7-1

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

DISTRIBUTION LIST

8.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST ATTN: Sandy Moody, Environmental Review Coordinator P.O. Box 47014 Olympia, Washington 98504-7014

Tribal Governments The Honorable Cynthia Iyall Chair, Nisqually Indian Tribe 4820 She-Nah-Num Drive SE Olympia, Washington 98513

Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation ATTN: Dr. Allyson Brooks State Historic Preservation Officer P.O. Box 48343 Olympia, Washington 98504-8343

The Honorable Joan K. Ortez Chair, Steilacoom Indian Tribe P.O. Box 88419 Steilacoom, Washington 98388 The Honorable Herman Dillon, Sr. Chair, Puyallup Tribal Council 3009 East Portland Avenue Tacoma, Washington 98404

Counties Pierce County Planning and Land Services 2401 S. 35th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409

The Honorable James Peters Chair, Squaxin Island Tribe SE 10 Squaxin Lane Shelton, Washington 98584

Thurston County Development Services Thurston County Courthouse 2000 Lakeridge Drive SW Olympia, Washington 98502

State Agencies Cities and Towns Washington Department of Ecology SEPA / Environmental Review Unit P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, Washington 98504-7600

City of DuPont 1536 Richmond Avenue DuPont, Washington 98327

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ATTN: Michelle Culver, Regional Director 48 Devonshire Road Montesano, Washington 98563

City of Lacey Community Development Department P.O. Box 3400 Lacey, Washington 98509-3400

Washington State Department of Transportation P.O. Box 47300 Olympia Washington 98504-7300

Town of Rainier 102 Rochester Street P.O. Box 258 Rainier, Washington 98576

Washington Natural Heritage Program Department of Natural Resources Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

8-1

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

DISTRIBUTION LIST City of Roy P.O. Box 700 Roy, Washington 98580 Town of Steilacoom 1030 Roe Street Steilacoom, Washington 98388 City of Yelm P.O. Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 Regional Air Quality Control Authorities Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 105 Seattle, Washington 98101 Libraries Pierce County Library System Processing and Administrative Center 3005 112th Street East Tacoma, Washington 98446-2215 (For Steilacoom and Lakewood librairies) Timberland Regional Library System Lacey Branch 500 College Street SE Lacey, Washington 98503 Timberland Regional Library System Olympia Branch 313 8th Avenue SE Olympia, Washington 98501

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

8-2

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

REFERENCES

9.0 REFERENCES AAFES. 2008. Fact Sheet. Available on-line at http://www.aafes.com/pa/factsheet14.pdf. Beranek, L. (Editor). 1988. Noise and Vibration Control. Institute of Noise Control Engineering. Indianapolis, Indiana. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2006. Total Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by NCAIS Industry (CA25N). Regional Economic Accounts. Available on-line at http://www.bea.gov/regional/. Site accessed on June 13, 2008. Bussey, T. 2008. Senior Engineer, Restoration Program, Fort Lewis. June 17, 2008. Telephone Communication with Tyler Creech, ENSR. Redmond, Washington. Chavez, J. 2008. Water Program Manager, Public Works Division, Fort Lewis. June 17, 2008. Telephone Communication with Tyler Creech, ENSR. Redmond, Washington. Department of the Army. 1997. Fort Lewis Real Property Master Plan: Volume 1. Fort Lewis, Washington. Department of the Army. 2004. Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Army Transformation and Resource Sustainability at Fort Lewis and Yakima Training Center, Washington. Fort Lewis, Washington. Department of the Army. 2007. Fort Lewis Installation Design Guide. Fort Lewis, Washington. Dugas, A., and L.L. Larson. 1998. Letter Reporting Fort Lewis Housing Development. Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited. Seattle, Washington. Kreutzer, L., L. Mighetto, and J. Woodman. 1994. Cultural Resources Inventory of the Fiscal Year 1992 and 1993 Timber Sale Project Areas, Fort Lewis, Washington. Historical Research Associates, Inc. Seattle Washington. Larsen, J. 2003. Public Works Division, Fort Lewis. December 9, 2003. Telephone Communication with Cameron Fisher, ENSR International. Redmond, Washington. Norton, R. 2008. Public Works Division, Fort Lewis. June 19, 2008. Telephone Communication with Tyler Creech, ENSR. Redmond, Washington. Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. No Date. Earthquake Hazards in Washington and Oregon: Three Source Zones. Available at http://www.pnsn.org/CascadiaEQs.pdf. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. 2007. 2006 Air Quality Data Summary. Seattle, Washington. Rimpo and Associates. 2007. URBEMIS2007 for Windows Version 9.2.4. Emissions Estimation for Land Use Development Projects. Sacramento, California. Roberts, M. 2008. Asbestos Trainer, Public Works Division, Fort Lewis. June 24, 2008. Telephone Communication with Tyler Creech, ENSR. Redmond, Washington.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

9-1

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

REFERENCES Sadler, D. 2008. Lifestyle Center Archaeological Assessment of Project Effects. Fort Lewis Cultural Resources Program. Fort Lewis, Washington. Shapiro and Associates. 1996. Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) Study, Fort Lewis Military Reservation, Washington. Prepared for Fort Lewis Environmental and Natural Resources Division. Seattle, WA. Technical Center of Expertise for Historic Structures and Buildings. 1994. Landscape Development Plan, Fort Lewis, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Seattle, Washington. The Transpo Group, Inc. 2008. Fort Lewis Comprehensive Traffic/Transportation Installation Study. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and AHBL, Inc. Kirkland, Washington. Transportation Planning and Engineering, Inc. 2005. Fort Lewis Fiscal Year 2005 Stationing Actions Traffic Study. Bellevue, Washington. U.S. Army Center for Health and Promotion and Preventive Medicine. 2005. Noise Contours for Proposed Aviation Activities at Fort Lewis and Yakima Training Center. Army Operational Noise Program, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf. Site accessed on June 19, 2008 USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1955. Soil Survey Pierce County, Washington. In Cooperation with the Washington Agriculturl Experiment Station and the Washington State Planning Council. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008a. Labor Force Statistics. Available at http://www.bls.gov/cps/. Site accessed on June 13, 2008. U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008b. Local Area Unemployment. Available at http://www.bls.gov/LAU/. Site accessed on June 17, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. NTID 300.1 Washington, D.C. U.S. Geological Survey. 1985. Seismotectonic Map of the Puget Sound Region, Washington. USGS Map I613. Denver, Colorado. Value Tech Realty Services, Inc. 2007. Retail Market Study of Fort Lewis, Washington State, and McChord Air Force Base, Washington State. Prepared for Army and Air Force Exchange Service. Lutz, Florida. Waehling, E. Public Works Division, Fort Lewis. June 24, 2008. Telephone Communication with Tyler Creech, ENSR. Redmond, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2008a. Pierce County - Farm Soils. Map Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/county/soils/soils27.pdf.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

9-2

September 16, 2008 09004-003-030

REFERENCES Washington State Department of Ecology. 2008b. Permit Handbook: Commonly Required Environmental Permits, Licenses, and Approvals for Washington State. Publication No. 90-29. Olympia, Washington. Washington Natural Heritage Program. 2008. GIS Data from the Natural Heritage Information System. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Office of Financial Management. 2007. Median Household Income Estimates by County: 1989 to 2006 and Projection for 2007. http://www.ofm.wa.gov/economy/hhinc/default.asp. Site accessed on June 19, 2008.

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

9-3

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

10.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AAFES AQCR AFB BRAC CEQ CFR CO dBA DNL DOD EA EO FNSI FY GAAF kV I-5 LEED LOS LUPZ MWR NAAQS NEPA NO2 NPDES PM PPP PSCAA PX RCRA SIP SO2 UIC USDA USEPA WAC WHPZ

Army and Air Force Exchange Service Air Quality Control Region Air Force Base Base Realignment and Closure Council on Environmental Quality Code of Federal Regulations Carbon Monoxide A-weighted Decibels Day-night Average Sound Level Department of Defense Environmental Assessment Executive Order Finding of No Significant Impact Fiscal Year Gray Army Airfield Kilivolt Interstate 5 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Level of Service Land Use Planning Zone Morale, Welfare, and Recreation National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Environmental Policy Act Nitrogen Dioxide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Particulate Matter Pollution Prevention Plan Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Post Exchange Resource Conservation and Recovery Act State Implementation Plan Sulfur Dioxide Underground Injection Control U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington Administrative Code Wellhead Protection Zone

Lifestyle Center EA 491500000012

10-1

September 16, 2008 09004-003-0300

Appendix A Air Quality Modeling Output and Calculations

Summary of Emissions Under the Proposed Action

Phase Current (2009) 2009

Source Type Area Vehicles Total

VOC 0.12 12.48 12.6

NOx 0.15 15.87 16.02

CO 0.37 131.52 131.89

SO2 0.00 0.08 0.08

PM10 0.00 15.12 15.12

PM2.5 0.00 2.97 2.97

Demolition (Jan-Mar 2010) Construction (2010) 2010

Demolition Construction Total

0.13 5.51 5.64

1.05 11.78 12.83

0.62 11.00 11.62

0.00 0.00 0.00

1.29 45.17 46.46

0.32 9.99 10.31

Construction (Jan-Mar 2011) Future (Mar-Dec 2011)

Construction Operations Area Total

1.32 9.96 0.68 11.96

2.71 12.45 0.53 15.69

2.57 101.20 0.69 104.46

0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08

11.07 14.00 0.00 25.07

2.44 2.74 0.00 5.18

Operations Area Total

13.28 0.90 14.18

16.60 0.71 17.31

134.93 0.92 135.85

0.10 0.00 0.10

18.66 0.00 18.66

3.65 0.00 3.65

VOC 5.64 -0.65 1.58

NOx 12.83 -0.33 1.29

CO 11.62 -27.43 3.96

SO2 0.00 0.00 0.02

PM10 46.46 9.95 3.54

PM2.5 10.31 2.21 0.68

2011 Future (2012+) 2012

Emissions Due to Project 2010 (Construction) 2011 (Future-Current) 2012 (Future-Current)

Summary of Emissions Under Alternative C

Phase Current (2009) 2009

Source Type Area Vehicles Total

VOC 0.12 12.48 12.6

NOx 0.15 15.87 16.02

CO 0.37 131.52 131.89

SO2 0.00 0.08 0.08

PM10 0.00 15.12 15.12

PM2.5 0.00 2.97 2.97

Demolition (Jan-Mar 2010) Construction (2010) 2010

Demolition Construction Total

0.13 4.57 4.7

1.05 9.57 10.62

0.62 8.96 9.58

0.00 0.00 0.00

1.29 36.97 38.26

0.32 8.16 8.48

Construction (Jan-Mar 2011) Future (Mar-Dec 2011)

Construction Operations Area Total

1.10 9.53 0.32 10.95

2.21 11.88 0.46 14.55

2.09 96.47 0.48 99.04

0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08

9.06 13.29 0.00 22.35

1.99 2.60 0.00 4.59

Operations Area Total

12.71 0.42 13.13

15.84 0.61 16.45

128.63 0.64 129.27

0.10 0.00 0.10

17.72 0.00 17.72

3.46 0.00 3.46

VOC 4.7 -1.65 0.53

NOx 10.62 -1.47 0.43

CO 9.58 -32.85 -2.62

SO2 0.00 0.00 0.02

PM10 38.26 7.23 2.6

PM2.5 8.48 1.62 0.49

2011 Future (2012+) 2012

Emissions Due to Project 2010 (Construction) 2011 (Future-Current) 2012 (Future-Current)

Estimated Current Emissions Associated with Operations at Buildings to be Demolished Under the Proposed Action Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4

Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\mmkaplan\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Fort Lewis Current.urb924 Project Name: Fort Lewis Current Project Location: California State-wide On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

0.12

0.15

0.37

0.00

0.00

0.00

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

12.48

15.87

131.52

0.08

15.12

2.97

TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated)

12.48

15.87

131.52

0.08

15.12

2.97

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

12.60

16.02

131.89

0.08

15.12

2.97

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES

Percent Reduction

SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

Both Area and Operational Mitigation must be turned on to get a combined mitigated total.

Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

0.01

0.15

0.13

0.00

0.00

0.00

Landscape

0.02

0.00

0.24

0.00

0.00

0.00

Consumer Products

0.00

Architectural Coatings

0.09

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

0.12

0.15

0.37

0.00

0.00

0.00

Natural Gas Hearth

Area Source Changes to Defaults Length of summer period for landscape equipment changed from 180 days to 150 days

Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated ROG

NOX

CO

SO2

PM10

PM25

Fast food rest. w/ drive thru

8.76

11.35

93.95

0.06

10.86

2.13

Strip mall

3.72

4.52

37.57

0.02

4.26

0.84

12.48

15.87

131.52

0.08

15.12

2.97

Source

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) Operational Mitigated Detail Report:

OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated Source Fast food rest. w/ drive thru

ROG

NOX

CO

SO2

PM10

PM25

8.76

11.35

93.95

0.06

10.86

2.13

Strip mall TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated)

3.72

4.52

37.57

0.02

4.26

0.84

12.48

15.87

131.52

0.08

15.12

2.97

Operational Settings: Includes correction for passby trips Includes the following double counting adjustment for internal trips: Residential Trip % Reduction: 0.00 Nonresidential Trip % Reduction: 0.00 Analysis Year: 2009 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type

Acreage

Trip Rate

Unit Type

No. Units

Total Trips

Total VMT

716.00

1000 sq ft

10.70

7,661.20

34,337.17

42.94

1000 sq ft

77.04

3,308.10

13,487.91

10,969.30

47,825.08

Fast food rest. w/ drive thru Strip mall

Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type

Percent Type

Non-Catalyst

Catalyst

Diesel

Light Auto

49.0

1.6

98.0

0.4

Light Truck < 3750 lbs

10.9

3.7

90.8

5.5

Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs

21.7

0.9

98.6

0.5

Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs

9.5

1.1

98.9

0.0

Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs

1.6

0.0

75.0

25.0

Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs

0.6

0.0

50.0

50.0

Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs

1.0

0.0

20.0

80.0

Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs

0.9

0.0

0.0

100.0

Other Bus

0.1

0.0

0.0

100.0

Urban Bus

0.1

0.0

0.0

100.0

Motorcycle

3.5

71.4

28.6

0.0

School Bus

0.1

0.0

0.0

100.0

Motor Home

1.0

10.0

80.0

10.0

Travel Conditions Residential

Commercial

Home-Work

Home-Shop

Home-Other

Commute

Non-Work

Customer

Urban Trip Length (miles)

10.8

7.3

7.5

9.5

7.4

7.4

Rural Trip Length (miles)

16.8

7.1

7.9

14.7

6.6

6.6

Trip speeds (mph)

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

% of Trips - Residential

32.9

18.0

49.1

Fast food rest. w/ drive thru

5.0

2.5

92.5

Strip mall

2.0

1.0

97.0

% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)

Predicted Emissions from the Demolition of Buildings for the Lifestyle Center Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4

Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\mmkaplan\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Fort Lewis Demolition.urb924 Project Name: Fort Lewis Demolition Project Location: California State-wide On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

2010 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

0.13

1.05

0.62

0.00

PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust 1.29

0.06

PM10 1.35

PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust 0.27

0.05

PM2.5

CO2

0.32

100.86

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10 Dust

PM10 Exhaust

PM10

PM2.5 Dust

PM2.5 Exhaust

PM2.5

CO2

0.13

1.05

0.62

0.00

1.29

0.06

1.35

0.27

0.05

0.32

100.86

0.04

0.25

0.19

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.02

0.02

25.68

Fugitive Dust

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Demo Off Road Diesel

0.04

0.25

0.15

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.02

0.02

22.41

Demo On Road Diesel

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Demo Worker Trips

0.00

0.00

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.27

Mass Grading 01/01/201003/31/2010 Mass Grading Dust

0.10

0.80

0.43

0.00

1.29

0.04

1.33

0.27

0.04

0.31

75.18

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.29

0.00

1.29

0.27

0.00

0.27

0.00

0.10

0.80

0.40

0.00

0.00

0.04

0.04

0.00

0.04

0.04

71.91

2010 Demolition 01/01/2010-03/31/2010

Mass Grading Off Road Diesel

Mass Grading On Road Diesel

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Mass Grading Worker Trips

0.00

0.00

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.27

Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 1/1/2010 - 3/31/2010 - Demolition of 1-story buildings Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 0 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 0 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Mass Grading 1/1/2010 - 3/31/2010 - Mass Site Grading Total Acres Disturbed: 8.06 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 2.02 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Predicted Emissions from the Lifestyle Center During Construction and Operation Under the Proposed Action Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4

Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\mmkaplan\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Fort Lewis Construction.urb924 Project Name: Fort Lewis Construction Project Location: California State-wide On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10 Dust

PM10 Exhaust

PM10

2010 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)

5.51

11.78

11.00

0.00

44.39

0.78

45.17

9.27

0.71

9.99

2011 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)

1.32

2.71

2.57

0.00

10.89

0.18

11.07

2.27

0.17

2.44

AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

0.90

0.71

0.92

0.00

0.00

0.00

TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated)

0.90

0.71

0.92

0.00

0.00

0.00

Percent Reduction

0.00

0.00

0.00 ####### ############ ############

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

14.40

18.06

146.67

0.11

20.27

3.97

TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated)

13.28

16.60

134.93

0.10

18.66

3.65

OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES

PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust

PM2.5

Percent Reduction

7.78

8.08

8.00

9.09

7.94

8.06

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

15.30

18.77

147.59

0.11

20.27

3.97

TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated)

14.18

17.31

135.85

0.10

18.66

3.65

7.32

7.78

7.95

9.09

7.94

8.06

SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES

Percent Reduction Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

2010 Asphalt 01/01/2010-03/31/2011

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10 Dust

PM10 Exhaust

PM10

PM2.5 Dust

PM2.5 Exhaust

PM2.5

5.51

11.78

11.00

0.00

44.39

0.78

45.17

9.27

0.71

9.99

0.40

2.30

1.42

0.00

0.00

0.20

0.20

0.00

0.18

0.18

Paving Off-Gas

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel

0.37

2.24

1.22

0.00

0.00

0.20

0.20

0.00

0.18

0.18

Paving On Road Diesel

0.00

0.06

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Paving Worker Trips

0.01

0.01

0.18

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Building 01/01/2010-03/31/2011

0.70

3.77

6.20

0.00

0.02

0.25

0.27

0.01

0.23

0.23

Building Off Road Diesel

0.53

3.04

1.87

0.00

0.00

0.22

0.22

0.00

0.20

0.20

Building Vendor Trips

0.04

0.52

0.43

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.02

0.02

Building Worker Trips

0.13

0.21

3.90

0.00

0.02

0.01

0.03

0.01

0.01

0.01

3.67

0.00

0.05

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Architectural Coating

3.67

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Coating Worker Trips

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Coating 01/01/2010-03/31/2011

0.74

5.70

3.33

0.00

44.37

0.33

44.70

9.27

0.30

9.57

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

44.37

0.00

44.37

9.27

0.00

9.27

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel

0.73

5.69

3.08

0.00

0.00

0.33

0.33

0.00

0.30

0.30

Fine Grading On Road Diesel

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Fine Grading Worker Trips

0.01

0.01

0.25

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.32

2.71

2.57

0.00

10.89

0.18

11.07

2.27

0.17

2.44

Fine Grading 01/01/201003/31/2011 Fine Grading Dust

2011

Asphalt 01/01/2010-03/31/2011

0.09

0.54

0.34

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.05

0.00

0.04

0.04

Paving Off-Gas

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel

0.09

0.52

0.30

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.05

0.00

0.04

0.04

Paving On Road Diesel

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Paving Worker Trips

0.00

0.00

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Building 01/01/2010-03/31/2011

0.16

0.86

1.43

0.00

0.01

0.06

0.06

0.00

0.05

0.05

Building Off Road Diesel

0.12

0.70

0.45

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.05

0.00

0.05

0.05

Building Vendor Trips

0.01

0.11

0.10

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

Building Worker Trips

0.03

0.05

0.89

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.90

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Architectural Coating

0.90

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Coating Worker Trips

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.17

1.31

0.79

0.00

10.88

0.08

10.96

2.27

0.07

2.34

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

10.88

0.00

10.88

2.27

0.00

2.27

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel

0.17

1.31

0.73

0.00

0.00

0.08

0.08

0.00

0.07

0.07

Fine Grading On Road Diesel

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Fine Grading Worker Trips

0.00

0.00

0.06

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Coating 01/01/2010-03/31/2011

Fine Grading 01/01/201003/31/2011 Fine Grading Dust

Phase Assumptions Phase: Fine Grading 1/1/2010 - 3/31/2011 - Default Fine Site Grading Description Total Acres Disturbed: 68 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 17 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Paving 1/1/2010 - 3/31/2011 - Default Paving Description

Acres to be Paved: 17 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2010 - 3/31/2011 - Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 7 hours per day 3 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 1/1/2010 - 3/31/2011 - Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

Natural Gas

0.05

0.71

0.57

0.00

0.00

0.00

Hearth

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Landscape

0.03

0.00

0.35

0.00

0.00

0.00

Consumer Products

0.36

Architectural Coatings

0.46

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

0.90

0.71

0.92

0.00

0.00

0.00

Source

Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 35% to 0%

Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 55% to 0% Length of summer period for landscape equipment changed from 180 days to 150 days Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source Apartments low rise Strip mall General office building TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

ROG

NOX

CO

SO2

PM10

PM25

0.31

0.41

3.34

0.00

0.49

0.10

13.65

17.05

138.45

0.11

19.07

3.73

0.44

0.60

4.88

0.00

0.71

0.14

14.40

18.06

146.67

0.11

20.27

3.97

Operational Settings: Includes correction for passby trips Includes the following double counting adjustment for internal trips: Residential Trip % Reduction: 41.99 Nonresidential Trip % Reduction: 0.98 Analysis Year: 2011 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type

Acreage

Trip Rate

Unit Type

No. Units

Total Trips

Total VMT

8.70

5.18

dwelling units

40.00

207.20

1,550.95

Strip mall

42.52

1000 sq ft

348.45

14,815.89

60,407.95

General office building

10.90

1000 sq ft

32.00

348.87

2,262.78

15,371.96

64,221.68

Apartments low rise

Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type

Percent Type

Non-Catalyst

Catalyst

Diesel

Light Auto

48.6

1.0

98.8

0.2

Light Truck < 3750 lbs

10.9

1.8

93.6

4.6

Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs

21.8

0.5

99.0

0.5

Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs

9.6

1.0

99.0

0.0

Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs

1.7

0.0

76.5

23.5

Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs

0.7

0.0

42.9

57.1

Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs

1.0

0.0

20.0

80.0

Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs

0.9

0.0

0.0

100.0

Other Bus

0.1

0.0

0.0

100.0

Urban Bus

0.1

0.0

0.0

100.0

Motorcycle

3.5

62.9

37.1

0.0

School Bus

0.1

0.0

0.0

100.0

Motor Home

1.0

0.0

90.0

10.0

Travel Conditions Residential

Commercial

Home-Work

Home-Shop

Home-Other

Commute

Non-Work

Customer

Urban Trip Length (miles)

10.8

7.3

7.5

9.5

7.4

7.4

Rural Trip Length (miles)

16.8

7.1

7.9

14.7

6.6

6.6

Trip speeds (mph)

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

% of Trips - Residential

32.9

18.0

49.1

2.0

1.0

97.0

35.0

17.5

47.5

% of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Strip mall General office building

Predicted Emissions from the Lifestyle Center During Construction and Operation Under Alternative C Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4

Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\mmkaplan\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Fort Lewis Construction2.urb924 Project Name: Fort Lewis Construction Project Location: California State-wide On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10 Dust

PM10 Exhaust

PM10

2010 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)

4.57

9.57

8.96

0.00

36.35

0.62

36.97

7.59

0.57

8.16

2011 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)

1.10

2.21

2.09

0.00

8.91

0.14

9.06

1.86

0.13

1.99

AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

0.42

0.61

0.64

0.00

0.00

0.00

TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated)

0.42

0.61

0.64

0.00

0.00

0.00

Percent Reduction

0.00

0.00

0.00 ######## ############# #############

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

13.78

17.21

139.82

0.11

19.26

3.76

TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated)

12.71

15.84

128.63

0.10

17.72

3.46

7.76

7.96

8.00

9.09

8.00

7.98

OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES

Percent Reduction

PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust

PM2.5

SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

14.20

17.82

140.46

0.11

19.26

3.76

TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated)

13.13

16.45

129.27

0.10

17.72

3.46

7.54

7.69

7.97

9.09

8.00

7.98

Percent Reduction Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

2010 Asphalt 01/01/2010-03/31/2011

ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10 Dust

PM10 Exhaust

PM10

PM2.5 Dust

PM2.5 Exhaust

PM2.5

4.57

9.57

8.96

0.00

36.35

0.62

36.97

7.59

0.57

8.16

0.40

2.29

1.42

0.00

0.00

0.20

0.20

0.00

0.18

0.18

Paving Off-Gas

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel

0.37

2.24

1.22

0.00

0.00

0.20

0.20

0.00

0.18

0.18

Paving On Road Diesel

0.00

0.05

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Paving Worker Trips

0.01

0.01

0.18

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Building 01/01/2010-03/31/2011

0.63

2.87

5.05

0.00

0.02

0.19

0.20

0.01

0.17

0.18

Building Off Road Diesel

0.49

2.32

1.53

0.00

0.00

0.16

0.16

0.00

0.15

0.15

Building Vendor Trips

0.03

0.38

0.32

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.00

0.01

0.01

Building Worker Trips

0.10

0.18

3.20

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

3.00

0.00

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Architectural Coating

3.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Coating Worker Trips

0.00

0.00

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.55

4.40

2.46

0.00

36.33

0.23

36.57

7.59

0.22

7.80

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

36.33

0.00

36.33

7.59

0.00

7.59

Coating 01/01/2010-03/31/2011

Fine Grading 01/01/201003/31/2011 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel

0.54

4.39

2.28

0.00

0.00

0.23

0.23

0.00

0.22

0.22

Fine Grading On Road Diesel

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Fine Grading Worker Trips

0.01

0.01

0.18

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.10

2.21

2.09

0.00

8.91

0.14

9.06

1.86

0.13

1.99

0.09

0.53

0.34

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.05

0.00

0.04

0.04

2011 Asphalt 01/01/2010-03/31/2011 Paving Off-Gas

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel

0.09

0.52

0.30

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.05

0.00

0.04

0.04

Paving On Road Diesel

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Paving Worker Trips

0.00

0.00

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Building 01/01/2010-03/31/2011

0.14

0.66

1.16

0.00

0.00

0.04

0.05

0.00

0.04

0.04

Building Off Road Diesel

0.11

0.54

0.36

0.00

0.00

0.04

0.04

0.00

0.03

0.03

Building Vendor Trips

0.01

0.08

0.07

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Building Worker Trips

0.02

0.04

0.73

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

Coating 01/01/2010-03/31/2011

0.74

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Architectural Coating

0.73

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Coating Worker Trips

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.13

1.01

0.58

0.00

8.91

0.05

8.96

1.86

0.05

1.91

Fine Grading 01/01/201003/31/2011 Fine Grading Dust

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

8.91

0.00

8.91

1.86

0.00

1.86

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel

0.13

1.01

0.54

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.05

0.00

0.05

0.05

Fine Grading On Road Diesel

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Fine Grading Worker Trips

0.00

0.00

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Phase Assumptions Phase: Fine Grading 1/1/2010 - 3/31/2011 - Default Fine Site Grading Description Total Acres Disturbed: 55.66 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 13.92 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Paving 1/1/2010 - 3/31/2011 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 13.92 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2010 - 3/31/2011 - Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Architectural Coating 1/1/2010 - 3/31/2011 - Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated ROG

NOx

CO

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

Natural Gas

0.04

0.61

0.52

0.00

0.00

0.00

Hearth

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Landscape

0.01

0.00

0.12

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.61

0.64

0.00

0.00

0.00

SO2

PM10

PM25

Source

Consumer Products

0.00

Architectural Coatings

0.37

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

0.42

Area Source Changes to Defaults Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 35% to 0% Percentage of residences with wood fireplaces changed from 10% to 0% Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 55% to 0% Length of summer period for landscape equipment changed from 180 days to 150 days Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source

ROG

NOX

CO

Strip mall

13.78

17.21

139.82

0.11

19.26

3.76

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

13.78

17.21

139.82

0.11

19.26

3.76

Operational Settings: Includes correction for passby trips Includes the following double counting adjustment for internal trips: Residential Trip % Reduction: 0.00 Nonresidential Trip % Reduction: 0.00 Analysis Year: 2011 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type

Acreage

Trip Rate

Unit Type

No. Units

Total Trips

Total VMT

42.94

1000 sq ft

348.45

14,962.44

61,005.46

14,962.44

61,005.46

Strip mall

Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type

Percent Type

Non-Catalyst

Catalyst

Diesel

Light Auto

48.6

1.0

98.8

0.2

Light Truck < 3750 lbs

10.9

1.8

93.6

4.6

Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs

21.8

0.5

99.0

0.5

Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs

9.6

1.0

99.0

0.0

Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs

1.7

0.0

76.5

23.5

Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs

0.7

0.0

42.9

57.1

Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs

1.0

0.0

20.0

80.0

Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs

0.9

0.0

0.0

100.0

Other Bus

0.1

0.0

0.0

100.0

Urban Bus

0.1

0.0

0.0

100.0

Motorcycle

3.5

62.9

37.1

0.0

School Bus

0.1

0.0

0.0

100.0

Motor Home

1.0

0.0

90.0

10.0

Travel Conditions Residential

Commercial

Home-Work

Home-Shop

Home-Other

Commute

Non-Work

Customer

Urban Trip Length (miles)

10.8

7.3

7.5

9.5

7.4

7.4

Rural Trip Length (miles)

16.8

7.1

7.9

14.7

6.6

6.6

Trip speeds (mph)

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

% of Trips - Residential

32.9

18.0

49.1

2.0

1.0

97.0

% of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Strip mall