FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND June 2001 Fort George G. Meade, Maryland Directorate of Public Works Environmental Management Office Fort Meade, Maryland 20755 U.S. Army Military District of Washington Fort Lesley J. McNair Washington, D.C. 20319 .... FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAcrSTATMENT···- LEAD AGENCY: Department of the Army, Military District of Washington. TITLE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: Future Development and Operations Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. AFFECTED JURISDICTION: State of Maryland, Anne Arundel and Howard Counties. PROPONENT REVIEWED BY: Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Management Office, Fort Meade, Maryland 20755. REVIEWED BY: U.S. Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 20319. END OF WAITING PERIOD AFTER FILING: 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. ABSTRACT: An environmental assessment (EA) prepared in April 1999 determined that potentially significant adverse impacts to traffic and air quality could result from the proposed future development and operations at Fort Meade. Pursuant to NEPA, this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was undertaken to evaluate, in detail, the environmental and socioeconomic effects of future development and operations at the installation, specifically planned new construction and associated demolition activities. The Proposed Action includes development and operations expected to occur on the installation between 2001 and 2005. To provide the specificity needed for reasonable predictions of environmental consequences, 11 projects were identified by the Fort Meade Master Planner for consideration within the Proposed Action as being representative of the expected build out. Alternative A consists of constructing 9 of the 11 projects, excluding the two projects least likely to occur; their elimination reduces the number of additional personnel by 272, or 30 percent of the 912 additional personnel included in the Proposed Action. This EIS has identified significant impacts to air quality and traffic from the Proposed Action and Alternative A. In both instances, the contributions of Fort Meade are small relative to the regional air quality and traffic problems; it is reasonable to proceed with the action while implementing mitigation measures at Fort Meade and continuing to work in partnership with other contributing parties. No other significant impacts were identified. Comments from the public focused on additional factors related to traffic impacts. The response to public and agency comments received during the Draft EIS review period that follow this page document the Government's consideration of these factors. The conclusions of the Draft EIS stand and are thus incorporated into this Final EIS. Fort Meade's preferred alternative is the Proposed Action. ~ This report has been printed on recycled paper. ERRATA TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act in 40 CFR Section 1503.4 subsection (c); and Army Regulation 200-2, Environmental Effects of Army Actions, in Section 6.5 subsection (g), these errata sheets have been prepared to incorporate clarifications and minor factual corrections into a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Future Development and Operations, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. The following factual corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIS (DEIS, dated February 2001), are hereby incorporated into the PELS. These errata respond to comments raised by, and discussions with, the public and other agencies during the 45-day public comment period for the DEIS. The Government considers the errata noted to be minor, and because the additional analyses conducted to address the issues raised do not change the conclusions of the DEIS, the full DEIS text is, therefore, incorporated into this PELS, as noted by the following: 1. Period Considered for Future Development and Operations. To reflect current master planning timelines, the DEIS is hereby changed throughout to read activities from "2001 to 2005." Table 2-2 on page 2-4 and Figure 2-1 on page 2-6 are specifically revised as attached to these errata sheets to reflect the current condition. 2. Effect of Transient Individuals Visiting Planned Projects on Traffic. Members of the public and EPA Region III asked whether any of the projects envisioned under the Proposed Action would entail an influx of transient individuals that would further affect traffic. The EIS team determined that the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) was the only project that would involve more than a few transient individuals. Because MEPS visitation would primarily be expected to occur during non-peak traffic hours and would involve high occupancy vehicles (primarily buses), it was determined that any additional traffic impacts would be minimal. The following clarification (underlined) to the DEIS is added to the last sentence beginning on page ES-l1 and the second sentence beginning on page 5-3: • "Given the land use within and surrounding the study area, traffic conditions at times other than the morning and evening peak hour conditions will be less congested. The potential increase in visitor or transient traffic occurring during non-peak hour traffic conditions resulting from the proposed action is expected to be minimal." In addition, the following statement is added at the end of Section 4.12.3 on page 4-41: • "The potential increase in visitor or transient traffic occurring during non-peak hour traffic conditions resulting from the proposed action is expected to be minimal. Potential traffic from visitors can be addressed by breaking the Proposed Action into three different types of activities as follows: (1) the Military Entrance Processing 1 Station (MEPS) that routinely buses inprocessing soldiers to this facility at varying times, but typically not during peak traffic times: (2) upgrades to (and associated demolition of existing) support facilities (barracks, dining facility, company headquarters, and battalion operations), where anticipated visitor traffic from these upgrades will be approximately the same as current visitation: and (3) federal administrative facilities (the Bold Ventures and lRBDE) that would be expected to increase the amount of employee commuter traffic (but not visitor traffic to any significant degree), as was addressed in the detailed traffic studies conducted for the EIS. Based on these conditions, only insignificant impacts to traffic from visitors are expected. " 3. Effect of Additional Growth in the Area on Traffic. Members of the public asked that the effects of additional growth and activity in the area surrounding Fort George G. Meade on traffic be considered. After considering additional growth in the area, the EIS team concluded that no additional significant traffic impacts would be expected to occur. The following DEIS sentences at the beginning of the last paragraphs on both pages ES- 12 and 5-3 are revised to read as follows: • "While the population in the area immediately surrounding Fort Meade is expected to continue its historical growth rate, this rate is minimal compared to the growth in populations and activity in the Region of Influence (Anne Arundel and Howard Counties), which is expected to exceed the average annual rate in Maryland of 0.6 percent. Based on these considerations, we expect that the existing traffic impacts at Fort Meade will increase as a result of local and regional cumulative effects." In addition, the following related revision to the DEIS text is incorporated into pages ES-12 (last paragraph), 4-17 (paragraph 4.2.4), 4-57 (paragraph 4.12.4), and 5-2 (second full paragraph) to replace the sentence beginning "Nonetheless:" • "However, detailed studies concluded that the contribution of Fort Meade is small relative to the regional problem. The Government further concluded that it is reasonable to proceed with the Proposed Action given Fort Meade's commitment to intensify efforts to work in partnership with the State and others to address the larger traffic issues in the region." 4. Subsequent to the analysis conducted for the DEIS, information on the Residential Communities Initiative (RCI - privatization of Army family housing) at Fort Meade became available. Based on the characteristics of this project (and evaluated in its own National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis made available for public review on May 25, 2001), the EIS team concluded that no additional significant effects on traffic or air quality are expected. Consideration of the RCI in the FEIS is accomplished by the following changes to the DEIS text on the pages as noted below. The following bullet is inserted just before the US ARC bullet on page 2-23: • "Residential Communities Initiative - the conveyance of 2,862 existing dwelling units in 5 housing parcels, including the 112 individual dwelling units in the designated Historic District, and its housing maintenance responsibilities from Fort Meade to a 2 private developer, and the provision for the developer of a 50-year land lease of approximately 1,000 acres of Fort Meade property. The developer is expected to increase the on-post housing inventory by approximately 308 units by the end of the expected, initial 10-year buildout period. Construction is expected to be able to begin by Spring