Final Form C - Nasm Dulles Collections Center PDF

This page intentionally left blank.
Effective 11/19/2015 1
INSTRUCTIONS
THIS FORM IS FOR LIMITED USE ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF PROJECTS. AIRPORT

SPONSORS MUST CONTACT YOUR LOCAL AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE (ADO)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SPECIALIST (EPS) BEFORE COMPLETING THIS
FORM.
This form was prepared by FAA Eastern Region Airports Division and can only be used for
proposed projects in this region.
Introduction: This Short Environmental Assessment (EA), is based upon the guidance in Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Orders 1050.1F – Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, and the Environmental Desk Reference for Airport Actions and 5050.4B – NEPA
Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. These orders incorporate the Council on
Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), as well as US Department of Transportation environmental regulations, and other
applicable federal statutes and regulations designed to protect the Nation's natural, historic, cultural,
and archeological resources. The information provided by sponsors, with potential assistance from
consultants, through the use of this form enables the FAA ADO offices to evaluate compliance with
NEPA and the applicable special purpose laws.
Use: For situations in which this form may be considered, refer to the APPLICABILITY Section
below. The local ADO has the final determination in the applicability of this form to a proposed
Federal Action. Proper completion of the Form will allow the FAA to determine whether the
proposed airport development project can be processed with a short EA, or whether a more detailed
EA or EIS must be prepared. If you have any questions on whether use of this form is
appropriate for your project, or what information to provide, we recommend that you contact
the environmental specialist in your local ADO.
This Form is to be used in conjunction with applicable Orders, laws, and guidance documents, and
in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies. Sponsors and their consultants should review
the requirements of special purpose laws (See 5050.4B, Table 1-1 for a summary of applicable
laws). Sufficient documentation is necessary to enable the FAA to assure compliance with all
applicable environmental requirements. Accordingly, any required consultations, findings or
determinations by federal and state agencies, or tribal governments, are to be coordinated, and
completed if necessary, prior to submitting this form to FAA for review. Coordination with Tribal
governments must be conducted through the FAA. We encourage sponsors to begin coordination
with these entities as early as possible to provide for sufficient review time. Complete information
will help FAA expedite its review. This Form meets the intent of a short EA while satisfying the
regulatory requirements of NEPA for an EA. Use of this form acknowledges that all procedural
requirements of NEPA or relevant special purpose laws still apply and that this form does not
provide a means for circumvention of these requirements.
Submittal: When using this form for an airport project requesting discretionary funding, the
documentation must be submitted to the local ADO by April 30th of the fiscal year preceding
the fiscal year in which funding will be requested. When using this form for an airport
project requesting entitlement funding, the documentation must be submitted to the local ADO
by November 30th of the fiscal year in which the funding will be requested.
Availability: An electronic version of this Short Form EA is available on-line at

http://www.faa.gov/airports/eastern/environmental/media/C10.DOC. Other sources of
environmental information including guidance and regulatory documents are available on-line at
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/environmental.
APPLICABILITY
Local ADO EPSs make the final determinations for the applicability of this form. If you have
questions as to whether the use of this form is appropriate for your project, contact your local
EPS BEFORE using this form. Airport sponsors can consider the use of this form if the proposed
project meets either Criteria 1 or Criteria 2, 3, and 4 collectively as follows:
1) It is normally categorically excluded (see paragraphs 5-6.1 through 5-6.6 in FAA Order
1050.1F) but, in this instance, involves at least one, but no more than two, extraordinary
circumstance(s) that may significantly impact the human environment (see paragraph 5-2 in
1050.1F and the applicable resource chapter in the 1050.1F Desk reference).
2) The action is one that is not specifically listed as categorically excluded or normally requires
an EA at a minimum (see paragraph 506 in FAA Order 5050.4B).
3) The proposed project and all connected actions must be comprised of Federal Airports
Program actions, including:
(a) Approval of a project on an Airport Layout Plan (ALP),

(b) Approval of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding for airport
development,
(c) Requests for conveyance of government land,
(d) Approval of release of airport land, or
(e) Approval of the use of Passenger Facility Charges (PFC).
4) The proposed project is not expected to have impacts to more than two of the resource
categories defined in the 1050.1F Desk Reference.
This form cannot be used when any of the following circumstances apply:
1) The proposed action, including all connected actions, requires coordination with or approval
by an FAA Line of Business of Staff Office other than the Airports Division. Examples
include, but are not limited to, changes to runway thresholds, changes to flight procedures,
changes to NAVAIDs, review by Regional Counsel, etc.
2) The proposed action, including all connected actions, requires coordination with another
Federal Agency outside of the FAA.
3) The proposed action will likely result in the need to issue a Record of Decision.
4) The proposed action requires a construction period exceeding 3 years.
5) The proposed action involves substantial public controversy on environmental grounds.
6) The proposed project would have impacts to, or require mitigation to offset the impacts to
more than two resources1 as defined in the 1050.1F Desk Reference.
7) The proposed project would involve any of the following analyses or documentation:
a. The development of a Section 4(f) Report for coordination with the Department of
the Interior,
b. The use of any Native American lands or areas of religious or cultural significance,
c. The project emissions exceed any applicable de minimis thresholds for criteria
pollutants under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or
d. The project would require noise modeling with AEDT 2b (or current version).
If a project is initiated using this form and any of the preceding circumstances are found to apply,
the development of this form must be terminated and a standard Environmental Assessment or
Environmental Impact Statement (if applicable) must be prepared.
**********
1
A resource is any one of the following: Air Quality; Biological Resources (including Threatened and Endangered
Species); Climate; Coastal Resources; Section 4(f); Farmlands; Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution
Prevention; Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources; Land Use; Natural Resources and Energy
Supply; Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use; Socioeconomics; Environmental Justice; Children’s Environmental
Health and Safety Risks; Visual Effects; Wetlands; Floodplains; Surface Waters; Groundwater; Wild and Scenic Rivers;
and Cumulative Impacts.
Complete the following information:
Project Location
Airport Name: Dulles International Airport Identifier: IAD
Airport Address: 14390 Air & Space Museum Parkway
City: Chantilly County: Fairfax State: VA Zip: 20151
Airport Sponsor Information

Point of Contact: Mr. Gregg Wollard, P.E., A.A.E.
Address: 45045 Aviation Drive
City: Dulles State: VA Zip: 20166
Telephone: 703-572-0266 Fax: 703-572-0299
Email: Gregg.wollard@mwaa.com
Evaluation Form Preparer Information

Point of Contact: Joan Glynn, Principal
Company (if not the sponsor): Stantec Consulting Services, LLC
Address: 6110 Frost Place
City: Laurel State: MD Zip: 20707
Telephone: 301-982-2800 Fax: 301-220-2595
Email: joan.glynn@stantec.com
1. Introduction/Background:
The Smithsonian Institution (SI) has prepared a Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan for the
National Air and Space Museum (NASM) that includes an assessment of the long-term use of the
Dulles Collections Center (DCC) at Dulles International Airport. Among the goals of the Master
Plan are the replacement of inadequate storage spaces with new, modern facilities, and the
relocation of collections to proper, long-term storage. The Master Plan calls for planning and
design for new collections storage facilities at DCC, and recommends conducting a feasibility study
to finalize the program and design parameters for two collections storage modules and hangar or
free span module adjacent to the NASM Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center (UHC) at the DCC.
The Smithsonian has also prepared a Collections Space Framework Plan (December 2014) which
provides measures to safeguard its remarkable collections for current and future generations. The
Smithsonian currently houses 138 million objects and specimens, 2 million library volumes, and
more than 153,000 cubic feet of archival material within its 19 museums and galleries, the National
Zoological Park, and nine research facilities. The Collections Space Framework Plan identified
storage needs for large object collections including large objects within the NASM collection (e.g.
airplanes, airplane parts).
The Smithsonian operates the DCC under a long-term lease with the Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority (MWAA). The UHC features high-quality, public open display and storage;
processing; archives; and NASM’s new preservation and restoration facility. Part of the facility is
used to store artifacts recently relocated from the Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration, and
Storage Facility (Garber) in Suitland, Maryland, but a large part of NASM’s collection still remains
in the unsuitable temporary buildings in Suitland. The 1994 Master Plan for the Suitland
Collections Center, currently being updated, calls for demolition of the Garber buildings and
redevelopment of Suitland as a pan-Institutional collections and research center.
Based on the Collections Space Framework Plan and the NASM Comprehensive Facilities Master
Plan, the DCC has been identified as an appropriate location for large object collections storage due
to the availability of existing resources at the UHC and available land at DCC. The location of the
proposed collections facilities was included in the original Environmental Assessment for the UHC,
which was approved via a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on February 24, 1998. A map
of the project location is included as Attachment 1.
In addition, the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum National Mall Building, opened to the
public in 1976, is in need of renovation. The façade is failing, with marble panels in danger of
cracking and falling. Building systems, which are original to the building, have reached the end of
their service life and need replacement. The project is scheduled to be constructed beginning in
early 2018 and take six years. To protect the collection, many objects currently on exhibit will need
to be relocated during construction and the DCC has been proposed to supply the “swing” space
needed for the collection.
2. Project Description (List and clearly describe ALL components of project proposal including all
connected actions). Attach a map or drawing of the area with the location(s) of the proposed
action(s) identified:
The proposed project consists of construction of new collections storage space at the DCC. The
three proposed buildings immediately adjacent to the UHC would provide storage space to relocate
NASM collections from Garber and house them in appropriate storage facilities. New modules of
the large object storage would also accommodate collections growth, objects from other collecting
units, and swing space during renovations and relocations. The current project is part of a NASM
Master Plan and a pan-Smithsonian Collections Space Framework Plan that recommends future
construction of additional collections space. A site plan showing the project area is included as
Attachment 2.
3. Project Purpose and Need:
The purpose of the proposed action is to provide adequate storage space for medium and large
object collections maintained by the Smithsonian Institution’s NASM. NASM maintains the largest
collection of historic air and spacecraft in the world; and is a vital center for research, science, and
technology in aviation and space flight.
NASM collections are currently housed at Garber in prefabricated metal buildings, mostly from the
1950s and 60s, which were intended to be temporary. They are long past their intended lifespan and
are costly to maintain with temporary measures. It is difficult to maintain adequate environmental
controls for the protection of the diverse collection of historically significant air and space artifacts.
Overcrowding limits access and puts the artifacts at risk. Archival collections, restoration and
collections processing functions have been relocated from Garber to the newly completed UHC.
The Smithsonian’s Collection Space Framework Plan identified existing storage spaces that need to
be augmented and/or replaced due to overcrowding and poor conditions. Eighty percent of the
space needing replacement is high-bay collections storage located at Garber where many NASM
objects are stored. NASM will run out of space for medium-sized objects at UHC in 2017. NASM
is also in need of swing space for temporary storage of medium and large objects during the
upcoming renovation of the National Mall Museum. Therefore, the Smithsonian is proposing new
collections storage at the DCC to adequately store medium and large objects in the NASM
collection.
4. Describe the affected environment (existing conditions) and land use in the vicinity of
project:
The proposed project occurs on land adjacent to the existing building footprint of the UHC. The
area of the proposed construction was previously disturbed during the construction of the UHC and
currently consists of maintained grassy lawn. The existing land use in the immediate surrounding
area is classified as developed land ranging from low intensity to high intensity. MWAA’s Airport
Layout Plan (ALP) designates the project site for “future NASM expansion,” and its land use plan
designates the site as “National Air and Space Museum” (see Attachment 3). Photographs and a
key map of photograph locations are included in Attachment 4.
5. Alternatives to the Project: Describe any other reasonable actions that may feasibly
substitute for the proposed project, and include a description of the “No Action” alternative.
If there are no feasible or reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, explain why (attach
alternatives drawings as applicable):
Alternatives for the proposed storage facilities at the Dulles Collections Center are described below.
Alternative 3 (Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar - Large
Footprint) is the Preferred Alternative for the proposed action.
Alternatives Considered and Dismissed
Renovating/Upgrading at Garber: An alternative consisting of building new facilities for NASM

at Garber to replace the unacceptable existing buildings was considered and dismissed. This
alternative would require multiple moves of collections, placing them at further risk, as the
buildings are demolished and replaced. This alternative would preclude future development of
Suitland as a pan-Institutional campus, as recommended in the Collections Space Framework Plan
and the Suitland Master Plan. New facilities at Garber would also not be available to house
collections from the National Mall Building during renovation.
Alternatives Considered in Detail
Alternative 1: Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar

(Small Footprint)
Alternative 1 consists of two three-story collections storage modules plus a hangar building, with a
total of 237,350 gross square feet (gsf). The three-story modules would be approximately 60 feet
tall, and the hangar facility would be approximately 45 feet tall. The proposed length of each
module is 235 feet, which matches the length of the existing UHC storage wing. The modules and
hangar would provide a total of 186,850 net square feet (nsf) of collections storage space.
Alternative 1 does not provide enough collections storage space to accommodate NASM’s
collections storage need or enough swing space for the National Mall Museum renovation. See
Attachment 5 for a graphic schematic of Alternative 1.
Alternative 2: Two-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar

Alternative 2 consists of two two-story collections storage modules plus a single-story free span
module. Full build-out would provide 164,060 nsf of collections storage space within 200,940 gsf of
construction. The two-story modules would be 40 feet tall to match the adjacent UHC building, and
the single-story module would be 45 feet tall. The proposed length of the modules is 269 feet,
slightly longer than the adjacent UHC building, in order to maximize the storage capacity for large
objects. The two-story modules would each provide 68,910 nsf of collections storage and the single-
story free span module would provide 26,240 nsf of storage for large air and space craft. While
Alternative 2 would provide greater ground floor storage capacity for large objects, the overall
collections storage area does not meet NASM’s collection storage needs or provide enough swing
space for the National Mall Museum renovation. See Attachment 6 for a graphic schematic of
Alternative 2.
Alternative 3: Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar

(Large Footprint) (Preferred Alternative)
Alternative 3 consists of two three-story collections storage modules plus a single-story free span
module. Full build-out provides 241,880 nsf of collections storage space within 283,795 gsf of
construction. The three-story modules would be 60 feet tall, and the single-story module would be
45 feet tall. The proposed length of the modules is 269 feet, slightly longer than the adjacent UHC
building, in order to maximize the storage capacity for large objects. The three-story modules would
each provide 107,820 nsf of collections storage and the single-story free span module would
provide 26,240 net square feet of storage for large air and space craft. Alternative 3 is the Preferred
Alternative because it is the only option that provides enough collections storage space to
accommodate NASM’s collection and provide the swing space needed for the National Mall
Museum renovation. See Attachment 7 for a graphic schematic of Alternative 3.
Alternative 4: No Action Alternative

Alternative 4 consists of the No-Action Alternative. The NASM would continue with existing
operations, and utilize the existing space for museum collections storage. No new collection storage
areas are proposed under the No Action Alternative. This alternative forces the NASM collection to
remain in over-crowded spaces within facilities that are in extremely poor condition.
6. Environmental Consequences – Special Impact Categories (refer to the Instructions page

and corresponding sections in 1050.1F, the 1050.1F Desk Reference, and the Desk Reference
for Airports Actions for more information and direction. Note that when the 1050.1F Desk
Reference and Desk Reference for Airports Actions provide conflicting guidance, the 1050.1F
Desk Reference takes precedence. The analysis under each section must comply with the
requirements and significance thresholds as described in the Desk Reference).
(A) AIR QUALITY

(1) Will the proposed project(s) cause or create a reasonably foreseeable emission increase? Prepare
an air quality assessment and disclose the results. Discuss the applicable regulatory criterion and/or
thresholds that will be applied to the results, the specific methodologies, data sources and
assumptions used; including the supporting documentation and consultation with federal, state,
tribal, or local air quality agencies.
Air quality impacts associated with the project would originate from temporary construction
activities and permanent stationary sources at the facility. The proposed project would not result in
a long-term increase in aircraft activities and operations or vehicular traffic, as the only additional
traffic would be from occasional deliveries of collections to the Center.
The proposed project would result in minor short-term impacts to air quality from fugitive dust
resulting from grading activities and from construction vehicle exhaust emissions. These impacts
will be temporary, lasting only for the duration of construction activities. The Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) State Implementation Plan accounts for emissions
generated by construction equipment in Northern Virginia. During construction, fugitive dust will
be kept to a minimum by using applicable control methods outlined in 9 Virginia Administrative
Code (VAC) 5-50-60 et seq. of the Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution.
NASM currently holds a Synthetic Minor Source State Operating Permit (SOP) and has submitted
an application for a New Source Review for a project at an existing source that is exempt from
Article 6, which regulates permit procedures for new and modified stationary sources of air
emissions. Stationary sources that would generate air emissions at the collections facilities include
heating equipment and emergency generators. The NASM Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan
estimates that the heating load for the proposed collections facilities and hangar would be 1,200
MBH (352 KW) and that the anticipated heating plant equipment would consist of three 600 MBH
(175 KW) condensing boilers, four 200-pound per hour (91 kg/hr) and two 50-pound per hour (23
kg/hr) gas-fired packaged steam generators. The Master Plan anticipates that emergency
generators would consist of two 1000-KW diesel fueled generators and one 50-KVA diesel fueled
generator. Actual equipment types and capacities would be verified during the design phase of the
project. Emergency generators would only be used during emergency situations (i.e., when electric
power from the local utility is interrupted), and for a very short time to perform maintenance checks
and operator training. The emissions associated with stationary sources for the proposed project
were determined to be below the de minimis levels for which a conformity determination must be
performed, as shown in Table 1 below:
Effective 11/19/2015 10
Table 1. Predicted Air Emissions for Proposed Collections Facilities
de
minimis High Fire Low Fire
threshold
Gas input 750 Cfh 150 cfh
Yearly Run
4000
Hours
ppm, ppm,
lbs/MM lbs/MM
Pollutants: corrected lbs/hr ton/year corrected lbs/hr ton/year
(input) (input)
3%O2 3%O2
100
NOx 18 0.0159 0.0212 0.0319 18 0.0032 0.0042 0.0064
ton/yr
Volatile
Organic 50 ton/yr X 0.0041 0.0055 0.0082 X 0.0008 0.0011 0.0017
Compounds
Total
X 0.0057 0.0076 0.0115 X 0.0011 0.0015 0.0023
Particulates
(2) Are there any project components containing unusual circumstances, such as emissions sources
in close proximity to areas where the public has access or other considerations that may warrant
further analysis? If no, proceed to (c); if yes, an analysis of ambient pollutant concentrations may
be necessary. Contact your local ADO regarding how to proceed with the analysis.
No. The project is located away from designated visitor parking areas and entrances, and is not
accessible to the public.
(3) Is the proposed project(s) located in a nonattainment or maintenance area for the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established under the Clean Air Act?
Yes. Northern Virginia, including Fairfax County, is a non-attainment area for ozone and an
attainment/maintenance area for PM2.5 (EPA Greenbook, 2015; VDEQ Air Quality Planning Areas,
2015).
4) Are all components of the proposed project, including all connected actions, listed as exempt or
presumed to conform (See FRN, vol.72 no. 145, pg. 41565)? If yes, cite exemption and go to (B)
Biological Resources. If no, go to (e).
No, the proposed project is not an “exempted action” under the General Conformity Rule.
(5) Would the net emissions from the project result in exceedances of the applicable de minimis
threshold (reference 1050.1F Desk Reference and the Aviation Emissions and Air Quality
Handbook for guidance) of the criteria pollutant for which the county is in non-attainment or
maintenance? If no, go to (B) Biological Resources. If yes, stop development of this form and
prepare a standard Environmental Assessment.
No. As shown in Table 1 above, net emissions from the project would not exceed the applicable de
minimis threshold for NOX.
Effective 11/19/2015 11
(B) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Describe the potential of the proposed project to directly or indirectly impact fish, wildlife, and
plant communities and/or the displacement of wildlife. Be sure to identify any state or federal
species of concern (Candidate, Threatened or Endangered).
1) Are there any candidate, threatened, or endangered species listed in or near the project area?
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) Fish and Wildlife Information
Service (VaFWIS) and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) Division
of Natural Heritage were consulted to determine confirmed occurrences of threatened and
endangered species within 2 miles of the project area. Two listed species were identified as
confirmed within the search radius: the state-listed threatened wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta)
and the state-listed threatened upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda). Cub Run, located over 1
mile from the project site, is listed as a Stream Conservation Unit (SCU) and predicted habitat for
the wood turtle. Cain Branch, located approximately 650 feet southwest, is a tributary to Cub Run.
Wood turtle habitat includes forested floodplains, fields, wet meadows, and farmland, in close
proximity to a creek or stream. The wood turtle does occupy upland areas that are characterized by
successional fields, meadows and agricultural areas. Upland sandpiper habitat includes extensive
open pastures and grassy fields, with grasses being at least 1 to 3 feet high. Since the project area
consists entirely of maintained lawn with no natural vegetation or water resources, no suitable
habitat for these species exists within the project area. There is currently no documentation of the
wood turtle being located in Cain Branch. If future development is planned in the forested areas
surrounding Cain Branch, wood turtle surveys would likely be required. An Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan will be developed and strictly followed during construction to prevent sedimentation
of Cain Branch and subsequently Cub Run. Therefore, no effects to state-listed threatened and
endangered species are anticipated. A copy of the VaFWIS Report and Map and the DCR response
are included in Attachment 8. VDGIF provided concurrence via email on September 8, 2016, that
no impacts to the wood turtle are anticipated (Attachment 17).
The USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) service was consulted to identify
federally listed species that occur within the project area. One threatened species, the northern
long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) was listed. Because no trees will be removed as a result of
this project, no impacts to this species are anticipated. The Official Species List acquired from the
IPaC system is included as Attachment 9.
(2) Will the action have any long-term or permanent loss of unlisted plants or wildlife species?
The project area consists entirely of maintained lawn with no natural vegetation, water resources, or
habitats, so no unlisted plants or wildlife habitat would be affected.
(3) Will the action adversely impact any species of concern or their habitat?
The VDGIF VaFWIS was consulted to determine confirmed occurrences of federal species of
concern within 2 miles of the project area. One species of concern, the yellow lance mussel (Elliptio
lanceolata), was identified as confirmed within the search radius. This species lives only in lakes,
streams, and canals. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and strictly followed
Effective 11/19/2015 12
during construction to prevent sedimentation of surface waters. No impacts to surface waters are
anticipated; therefore, no adverse effects to this species will occur.
(4) Will the action result in substantial loss, reduction, degradation, disturbance, or fragmentation of
native species habitats or populations?
The project area consists entirely of maintained lawn with no natural vegetation or habitat. No
impacts to native species habitats would occur.
(5) Will the action have adverse impacts on a species’ reproduction rates or mortality rate or ability
to sustain population levels?
No (See response to B(2)).
(6) Are there any habitats, classified as critical by the federal or state agency with jurisdiction,
impacted by the proposed project?
The USFWS Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species Online Mapper was consulted
to determine the presence of critical habitats within two miles of the project area. No critical habitat
was identified.
(7) Would the proposed project affect species protected under the Migratory Bird Act? (If Yes,
contact the local ADO).
This project does not involve communications towers or wind energy. Forested areas surrounding
the project site would not be affected by the proposed construction. The proposed collections
storage buildings would be constructed adjacent to the existing building footprint, on previously
cleared land that does not provide habitat for migratory birds. No intentional or unintentional take
of migratory birds or their nests is anticipated by the proposed action.
If the answer to any of the above is “Yes”, consult with the USWFS and appropriate state agencies
and provide all correspondence and documentation.
(C) CLIMATE
(1) Would the proposed project or alternative(s) result in the increase or decrease of emissions of
Greenhouse gases (GHG)? If neither, this should be briefly explained and no further analysis is
required and proceed to (D) Coastal Resources.
The proposed project would not result in an increase or decrease of GHG emissions. This project
will not result in a long-term increase in vehicle traffic or aircraft operations. As described in Air
Quality above, operation of the proposed collections storage space would result in minimal
emissions. Construction activities would result in minor short-term emissions from construction
vehicle exhaust.
(2) Will the proposed project or alternative(s) result in a net decrease in GHG emissions (as
indicated by quantitative data or proxy measures such as reduction in fuel burn, delay, or flight
operations)? A brief statement describing the factual basis for this conclusion is sufficient.
Effective 11/19/2015 13
N/A
(3) Will the proposed project or alternative(s) result in an increase in GHG emissions? Emissions
should be assessed either qualitatively or quantitatively as described in 1050.1F Desk Reference or
Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook.
N/A
(D) COASTAL RESOURCES

(1) Would the proposed project occur in a coastal zone, or affect the use of a coastal resource, as
defined by your state's Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP)? Explain.
Yes. The project site is within the designated boundary of Virginia’s Coastal Zone (Attachment
10).
(2) If Yes, is the project consistent with the State's CZMP? (If applicable, attach the sponsor's
consistency certification and the state's concurrence of that certification).
Yes, MWAA certifies that the proposed activity complies with Virginia’s Coastal Resources
Management Program (VCP) and will be conducted in a manner consistent with the
enforceable policies listed below. In a letter dated August 25, 2016, VDEQ concurred that the
proposed action was consistent with the Commonwealth’s coastal zone program. The
Commonwealth previously concurred with the Federal Consistency Determination for the
initial construction of UHC, which was evaluated under the 1998 Environmental Assessment.
A detailed Federal Consistency Determination is included as Attachment 11. The concurrence
letter received from VDEQ is included in Attachment 17: Public Involvement.
1. Fisheries Management: No wetlands or water resources are present onsite. The closest water
body to the project area is Cain Branch, located approximately 650 feet southwest. An
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and strictly followed during
construction to prevent sedimentation of Cain Branch. Therefore, the proposed project
would not impact finfish or shellfish resources.
2. Subaqueous Lands Management: No state-owned bottomlands are present within the project
area. Therefore, this enforceable policy is not applicable to this project.
3. Wetlands Management: No jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional wetlands are present within

or adjacent to the project area. No Section 404, Section 10, or Virginia Water Protection
permits are anticipated to be required. Therefore, this enforceable policy is not applicable to
this project.
4. Dunes Management: The project is not located along a shoreline. Therefore, this enforceable
policy is not applicable to this project.
Effective 11/19/2015 14
5. Non-point Source Pollution Control: The proposed project will result in approximately 2.75
acres of land disturbance. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared in accordance with Virginia and Fairfax County
criteria and strictly adhered to in order to avoid and minimize sediment transport outside the
project area.
6. Point Source Pollution Control: Prior to construction, a Virginia Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (VPDES) permit and/or a Virginia Stormwater Management Program
permit for discharges of stormwater from land-disturbing activities greater than 1 acre will
be obtained.
7. Shoreline Sanitation: The project would not generate any additional waste water. No septic
tanks are proposed. The project is not located in a shoreline area. Therefore, this enforceable
8. Air Pollution Control: The project is located in Fairfax County, which is within an ozone
non-attainment area (EPA Green Book, 2015). Air quality impacts associated with the
project would originate from temporary construction activities and permanent stationary
sources at the facility. The project would not result in a long-term increase in vehicular
traffic, as the only additional traffic would be from occasional deliveries of collections to the
center (see Section (A) Air Quality). Therefore, FAA and MWAA find the project to be
consistent with this enforceable policy.
9. Coastal Lands Management: The project area is within a Resource Management Area
(RMA) as designated by the Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance. No
Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) or 100-year floodplains were identified within the project
area. Cain Branch, which is within a RPA, is located approximately 650 feet southwest of
the project area.
The project will be designed in accordance with the Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Ordinance, the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, and the
Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations (9 VAC 25-870-10 et seq.). An erosion and
sediment control plan and a SWPPP will be prepared and strictly adhered to during
construction to avoid and minimize sedimentation of Cain Branch and its associated RPA.
Therefore, FAA and MWAA find that the proposed project is consistent with this
enforceable policy.
(3) Is the location of the proposed project within the Coastal Barrier Resources System? (If Yes, and
the project would receive federal funding, coordinate with the FWS and attach record of
consultation).
The project area is not within the Coastal Barrier Resources System.
(E) SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES

(1) Does the proposed project have an impact on any publicly owned land from a public park,
recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or an historic
site of national, state, or local significance? Specify if the use will be physical (an actual taking of
Effective 11/19/2015 15
the property) or constructive (i.e. activities, features, or attributes of the Section 4 (f) property are
substantially impaired.) If the answer is “No,” proceed to (F) Farmlands.
The Virginia Outdoors Plan Mapper was consulted to identify public parks, recreation areas, and
wildlife or waterfowl refuges within or adjacent to the project area. None of these resources were
identified. Therefore, the proposed action will not result in a physical or constructive use of these
resources.
The Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) was consulted to determine the presence
of historic sites of national, state, or local significance. Two eligible historic sites were identified
within 1 mile of the project area. The project is adjacent to, but outside the boundary of, the
southern end of the Dulles Airport Historic District (053-0008) and approximately 2900 feet from
Sully Plantation (029-0037). The proposed action will not result in a physical or constructive use of
either of these sites. VDHR, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the Commonwealth
of Virginia, indicated their concurrence that no historic properties will be affected by the proposed
project in a letter dated June 7, 2016, included in Attachment 13.
(2) Is a De Minimis impact determination recommended? If “yes”, please provide; supporting

documentation that this impact will not substantially impair or adversely affect the activities,
features, or attributes of the Section 4 (f) property; a Section 106 finding of “no adverse effect” if
historic properties are involved; any mitigation measures; a letter from the official with jurisdiction
concurring with the recommended de minimis finding; and proof of public involvement. (See
Section 5.3.3 of 1050.1F Desk Reference). If “No,” stop development of this form and prepare a
standard Environmental Assessment.
The project will have no effect on Section 4(f) resources. VDHR, the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) for the Commonwealth of Virginia, indicated their concurrence that no historic
properties will be affected by the proposed project in a letter dated June 7, 2016, included in
Attachment 13.
(F) FARMLANDS
Does the project involve acquisition of farmland, or use of farmland, that would be converted to
non-agricultural use and is protected by the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)? (If
Yes, attach record of coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
including form AD-1006.)
According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey, no soils classified as prime farmland or farmland of
statewide importance are located within the project area (Attachment 12).
(G) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, SOLID WASTE, AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

(1) Would the proposed project involve the use of land that may contain hazardous materials or
cause potential contamination from hazardous materials? (If Yes, attach record of consultation with
appropriate agencies). Explain.
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) VEGIS mapping application was used
to identify hazardous waste and petroleum facilities and releases near the project area. The UHC is
listed as a registered petroleum facility with two Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) onsite. The
Effective 11/19/2015 16
Fairfax County Police Training Track Facility, located approximately 3,000 feet west of the project
area, is also a registered petroleum facility with one UST. Two Small-Quantity Generators (SQGs)
are located in the office park west of the project area. No releases from any of these facilities have
been reported. Three petroleum releases were identified; however, these releases are all over a half-
mile from the project area and have all been closed. No Superfund sites, Voluntary Remediation
Program (VRP) sites, or sites requiring corrective action were identified. Therefore, the presence of
contamination within the project area is highly unlikely.
The proposed collections storage would be constructed on previously cleared land adjacent to the
existing building footprint. The existing UHC was constructed with new building materials.
General waste is regulated under Virginia Administrative Code Agency 20, Chapter 81. The
construction contractor would be responsible for removing construction waste from the site and
disposing of it in accordance with these regulations. In addition, solid waste generated during
operation of the facility would be removed by a private waste removal company and disposed of in
accordance with State regulations. During operation of the facility, any onsite storage of solvents or
chemicals for artifact preservation would be handled and stored according to the Material Safety
Data Sheets.
(2) Would the operation and/or construction of the project generate significant amounts of solid
waste? If Yes, are local disposal facilities capable of handling the additional volumes of waste
resulting from the project? Explain.
The proposed collections storage would contribute a minimal volume of solid waste to the already
existing volumes generated by the NASM UHC. No demolition of existing structures is proposed.
(3) Will the project produce an appreciable different quantity or type of hazardous waste? Will
there be any potential impacts that could adversely affect human health or the environment?
Any onsite storage of solvents or chemicals for artifact preservation would be handled and stored
according to the Material Safety Data Sheets.
(H) HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL

RESOURCES
(1) Describe any impact the proposed project might have on any properties listed in, or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. (Include a record of your consultation and
response with the State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (S/THPO)).
Consultation with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR), the SHPO for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, was initiated on May 5, 2016. The submission to VDHR is included as
Attachment 13 and incorporated herein by reference.
The Area of Potential Effect (APE), also referred to as the Visual APE in the letter to VDHR, for
architectural resources includes the 2.75 acres of total ground disturbance, as well as the area of
additional visual effects that will extend beyond the structural footprint.
The table below lists the closest recorded architectural resources, their NRHP eligibility status, and
their separation from the closest point of the Visual APE.
Effective 11/19/2015 17
Table 2. Architectural Resources within APE
Resource NRHP Status Distance from APE

14600 Lee Jackson Highway (029-0304) Not Eligible 936 feet
Manassas Gap Rail Bed (029-5274) Not Eligible 1,734 feet
14600 Lee Jackson Highway (029-0307) Not Eligible 2,816 feet
Sully Plantation (029-0037) Listed 2,882 feet
Dulles Airport Historic District (053-0008) Eligible 3,990 feet
The Dulles Airport Historic District was determined eligible for the NRHP by the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) in 1978. The historic district is eligible for the NRHP
under Criterion A as the first airport in the United States to be designated specifically for
commercial jet aircraft and under Criterion C as an outstanding work of Finnish-born master
architect Eero Saarinen. Contributing resources within the Dulles Airport Historic District include
the Main Terminal and Airport Traffic Control Tower, the Cargo Building (Cargo Building No. 1),
the Air Mail Facility, the Vehicle Maintenance Building, the Fire-Crash Station, the Heating and
Air Conditioning Plant, the Telephone Exchange, the former Gladieux Corporation In-Flite Kitchen
(LSG/Sky Chefs), the former Hot Shoppes In-Flite Food Building (LSG/Sky Chefs), and the former
Allied Fueling Building, as well as the mobile lounges, the runways, the terminal area landscape,
and the Dulles Airport Access Highway.
Sully Plantation (029-0037) was determined eligible for the NRHP in 1970. The plantation was
built in 1794 by Richard Bland Lee, uncle of General Robert E. Lee. The plantation passed through
various private owners until 1957 when it was acquired by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), as
it was then known, as part of the land for Dulles International Airport. The plantation consists of
four contributing structures and serves as an important example of a late-18th-century farm complex,
enhanced by its connection to the Lee family.
Both the properties along Lee Jackson Highway (029-0304 and 029-0307) have been previously
determined Not Eligible for the NRHP. The portion of the Manassas Gap Railroad Bed (029-5274)
that is located on airport property also was determined Not Eligible, with VDHR indicating
concurrence with this determination on March 12, 2014 (VDHR Project 2014-0198).
A visual analysis of the Udvar Hazy Center completed for the 1998 Environmental Assessment
found that the Udvar Hazy Center is not visible from various viewpoints, including the Sully
Plantation (029-0037) and the main Dulles terminal. Given the location and scale of the proposed
expansions (maximum three stories), the new facility will not be higher than the existing Udvar
Hazy Center and will not be visible from either Sully Plantation or the Dulles Airport Historic
District (053-0008). As a result, it has been determined that the proposed project would not affect
any properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. MWAA
received concurrence of this determination of No Historic Properties Affected from VDHR on June
7, 2016 (Attachment 13).
Effective 11/19/2015 18
(2) Describe any impacts to archeological resources as a result of the proposed project. (Include a
record of consultation with persons or organizations with relevant expertise, including the S/THPO,
if applicable).
As described in the submittal to VDHR dated May 5, 2016, the Archaeological APE for the
proposed project consists of the 2.75 acres of proposed ground disturbance. The proposed project
falls within the area of the airport that was the subject of prior archeological investigation as part of
the 1998 Environmental Assessment for the NASM. The technical report for this project,
Smithsonian Institution Proposed National Air and Space Museum (NASM) Dulles Center, Phase I
Archeological Identification and Phase II Archeological Evaluation (Dames & Moore 1997), was
reviewed and received concurrence from VDHR staff (VDHR Project 97-1868). Although this
survey did identify a number of archeological sites in the area, none of these fall within the
Archeological APE for the current project. Therefore, no adverse effects to archaeological resources
are anticipated. MWAA received concurrence of this determination of No Historic Properties
Affected from VDHR on June 7, 2016.
(I) LAND USE

(1) Would the proposed project result in other (besides noise) impacts that have land use
ramifications, such as disruption of communities, relocation of residences or businesses, or impact
natural resource areas? Explain.
The proposed project is located within a previously cleared portion of existing UHC property,
adjacent to the existing UHC building footprint. The project area consists entirely of maintained
grassy lawn. While the site is designated as Residential (R-1) by Fairfax County, Virginia, it is
located within the property boundary of Dulles International Airport. The proposed action is
compatible with the existing UHC, and no communities, residences, businesses, or natural resource
areas would be affected.
(2) Would the proposed project be located near or create a wildlife hazard as defined in FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5200-33, "Wildlife Hazards On and Near Airports"? Explain.
The proposed project would not create a new wildlife hazard. The proposed collections storage
would be located on previously cleared land and near existing stormwater management ponds. Due
to the proximity to Dulles International Airport, these stormwater management ponds are not
permitted to have standing pools of water which could attract wildlife.
(3) Include documentation to support sponsor’s assurance under 49 U.S.C. § 47107 (a) (10), of the
1982 Airport Act, that appropriate actions will be taken, to the extent reasonable, to restrict land use
to purposes compatible with normal airport operations.
The proposed action will not result in any changes to land use, and will thereby not introduce any
non-compatible land uses that would conflict with airport operations.
(J) NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY SUPPLY

What effect would the project have on natural resource and energy consumption? (Attach record of
consultations with local public utilities or suppliers if appropriate)
Effective 11/19/2015 19
The existing NASM UHC was constructed between 2000 and 2010 using Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) rating system energy goals. The UHC currently has high rated
insulation and R-values, reflected heat surfaces and high efficiency lamps and light fixtures. The
proposed project would be similarly constructed using sustainable design practices, including
energy-efficient building practices and environmentally sensitive design, with a goal of LEED
Silver certification.
The Smithsonian Institution manages its buildings and operations consistent with the requirements
of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, to the extent practical.
Local public utilities at UHC are provided by Fairfax Water, Dominion Virginia Power, and
Washington Gas. The increased energy consumption of the proposed collections storage would be
minimal and is not expected to exceed the capacities of these providers.
(K) NOISE AND NOISE-COMPATIBLE LAND USE

Will the project increase noise by DNL 1.5 dB or more for a noise sensitive area that is exposed to
noise at or above the DNL 65 dB noise exposure level, or that will be exposed at or above the DNL
65 dB level due to a DNL 1.5 dB or greater increase, when compared to the no action alternative for
the same timeframe? (Use AEM as a screening tool and AEDT 2b as appropriate. See FAA Order
1050.1F Desk Reference, Chapter 11, or FAA Order 1050.1F, Appendix B, for further guidance).
Please provide all information used to reach your conclusion. If yes, contact your local ADO.
The proposed project would not result in any permanent increases in ambient noise. The proposed
action occurs in an area that is away from public access and visitor parking areas. One school, the
Auburn School, is located approximately 1,000 feet west of the project area in the adjacent office
park. No other noise sensitive receptors are located within 1 mile of the project area. Due to the
distance of the project area from the school, no noise impacts are anticipated. The increase in noise
levels would be short term and minor in duration and associated primarily with the construction
activities, and not exceed applicable standards.
(L) SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH

AND SAFETY RISKS
(1) Would the project cause an alteration in surface traffic patterns, or cause a noticeable increase in
surface traffic congestion or decrease in Level of Service?
No, the project would not substantially increase traffic or alter existing traffic patterns during
construction or operation of the collections storage. The project is located away from designated
visitor parking areas and entrances, and is not accessible to the public. Traffic generated by the
proposed project would be limited to construction traffic and occasional deliveries of museum
collections after the collection center opens. Construction is anticipated to take 18 months during
which time construction vehicles may enter and exit the site several times a day. As collections are
transferred to and from NASM and the DCC, it is anticipated that there would be two deliveries per
day with peak movement of collections forecasted for 2021. After the NASM National Mall
Building renovation is complete, deliveries would be made to the DCC approximately three times a
week. Currently, the DCC receives an average of two deliveries per week.
Effective 11/19/2015 20
Construction and delivery traffic would enter and exit the site by way of the existing employee
entrance off of Route 50. Therefore, the flow of exiting traffic volumes and the Level of Service on
the local roadway network would not be affected.
(2) Would the project cause induced, or secondary, socioeconomic impacts to surrounding
communities, such as changes to business and economic activity in a community; impact public
service demands; induce shifts in population movement and growth, etc.?
Construction activities would result in temporary positive impacts to the regional economy through
the employment of construction workers, spending on materials, and spending in the local economy
by construction workers. The proposed project would not change the availability of permanent
housing, permanent employment, or retail opportunities. There would be no permanent shifts in the
patterns of population movement and growth, public service demands or changes in business or
economic activity.
(3) Would the project have a disproportionate impact on minority and/or low-income communities?
Consider human health, social, economic, and environmental issues in your evaluation. Refer to
DOT Order 5610.2(a) which provides the definition for the types of adverse impacts that should be
considered when assessing impacts to environmental justice populations.
The most recent American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates were used to identify census tracts
adjacent to the project area that contain minority, Hispanic/Latino, or low-income populations. Two
census tracts are adjacent to the project area (Census Tracts 9802 and 4901.03, shown in Figure 1
below). The population percentages of race, Hispanic/Latino origin, and poverty status for each
census tract and Fairfax County are included in Table 3.
Tract 9802 is unpopulated. Overall, Tract 4901.03 has a lower percentage of nonwhite residents
(27.3%) than Fairfax County as a whole (36.8%). However, Tract 4901.03 has a higher percentage
of Hispanic/Latino residents (23%) than Fairfax County (16%). Less than 3% of residents in Tract
4901.03 are below the poverty level, which is lower than the percentage for Fairfax County (6%)
(American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2014).
Effective 11/19/2015 21
Figure 1. Census Tracts Adjacent to Project Area
Table 3. Population Characteristics
Census
Fairfax Census
Tract
County Tract 9802
4901.03
Race
White 63.2% 72.7% -
Black or African American 9.3% 3.9% -
Asian 18.1% 10.7% -
Some other race 5.0% 10.2% -
Two or more races 4.4% 2.6% -
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 16.0% 23.0% -
Percent Below Poverty Level 6.0% 2.4% -
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
While there are minority populations in the vicinity of the project, they would not be
disproportionately affected by construction or operation of the DCC. As documented in this
assessment, the project would not result in impacts that would affect the health and safety of
populations in the vicinity of the project area. Construction related impacts such as fugitive dust
would not affect local populations as the project site is isolated from residential areas. Construction
traffic would enter and exit the DCC directly from Route 50 and would not travel through
residential neighborhoods.
(4) Would the project have the potential to lead to a disproportionate health or safety risk to
children?
One school, the Auburn School, is located approximately 1,000 feet west of the project area in the
adjacent office park. No other schools, day care providers, or children’s health clinics are located
Effective 11/19/2015 22
within 1 mile of the project area. Due to the distance from the project area, no impacts to the school
or its students are anticipated.
The project would not result in other impacts that would affect the health and safety of any
populations near the project area. During construction, fugitive dust will be kept to a minimum by
using applicable control methods outlined in 9 Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 5-50-60 et seq.
of the Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution. Construction traffic would enter
and exit the DCC directly from Route 50 and would not travel through residential neighborhoods or
near schools.
If the answer is “YES” to any of the above, please explain the nature and degree of the impact. Also
provide a description of mitigation measures which would be considered to reduce any adverse
impacts.
Effective 11/19/2015 23
(M) VISUAL EFFECTS INCLUDING LIGHT EMISSIONS
(1)Would the project have the potential to create annoyance or interfere with normal activities from
light emissions for nearby residents?
No residential areas are within the viewshed of the project site. The adjacent office park is blocked
from view of the project site by a forested area. The planning of the lighting for the collections
storage would be consistent with the existing UHC and will include minimal light fixtures at egress
and personnel doors.
(2) Would the project have the potential to affect the visual character of nearby areas due to light
emissions?
The lighting for the collections storage would be consistent with the existing UHC. There will be
minimal light fixtures at egress and personnel doors. No additional site lighting is planned for the
DCC.
(3) Would the project have the potential to block or obstruct views of visual resources?
No visual resources are within the viewshed of the project area.
If the answer is “YES” to any of the above, please explain the nature and degree of the impact using
graphic materials. Also provide a description of mitigation measures which would be considered to
reduce any adverse impacts.
(N) WATER RESOURCES (INCLUDING WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, SURFACE

WATERS, GROUNDWATER, AND WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS)
(1) WETLANDS
(a) Does the proposed project involve federal or state regulated wetlands or non-jurisdictional
wetlands? (Contact USFWS or appropriate state natural resource agencies if protected resources are
affected) (Wetlands must be delineated using methods in the US Army Corps of Engineers 1987
Wetland Delineation Manual. Delineations must be performed by a person certified in wetlands
delineation Document coordination with the resource agencies).
The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was consulted to determine the presence of wetlands
onsite. No wetlands were identified. The site is previously disturbed and consists entirely of
maintained lawn. Therefore, no impacts to wetlands are anticipated. The NWI wetlands map is
included as Attachment 14.
(b) If yes, does the project qualify for an Army Corps of Engineers General permit? (Document
coordination with the Corps).
No Section 404, Section 10, or Virginia Water Protection permits are anticipated to be required.
(c) If there are wetlands impacts, are there feasible mitigation alternatives? Explain.
N/A
Effective 11/19/2015 24
(d) If there are wetlands impacts, describe the measures to be taken to comply with Executive Order
11990, Protection of Wetlands.
N/A
(2) FLOODPLAINS
(a) Would the proposed project be located in, or would it encroach upon, any 100-year floodplains,
as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)?
The project area is shown on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map number 51059C0115E (Attachment
15). The project area is not within the 100-year floodplain.
(b) If Yes, would the project cause notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain
values as defined in Paragraph 4.k of DOT Order 5620.2, Floodplain Management and Protection?
N/A
(c) If Yes, attach the corresponding FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and describe the
measures to be taken to comply with Executive Order 11988, including the public notice
requirements.
N/A
(3) SURFACE WATERS

(a) Would the project impact surface waters such that water quality standards set by Federal, state,
local, or tribal regulatory agencies would be exceeded or would the project have the potential to
contaminate a public drinking water supply such that public health may be adversely affected?
The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was consulted to determine the presence of surface
waters onsite. No surface waters were identified onsite. The site is previously disturbed and consists
entirely of maintained lawn. The closest water body to the project area is Cain Branch, located
approximately 650 feet southwest.
(b) Would the water quality impacts associated with the project cause concerns for applicable
permitting agencies or require mitigation in order to obtain a permit?
No impacts to surface waters are anticipated. For construction activities disturbing one acre or
more, a NPDES/Virginia Stormwater Management Program permit for stormwater discharges and
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required. The Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VDEQ) is EPA’s authorized state agency to which to apply under the
federal water permitting program. A SWPPP would be developed that documents standard
operation procedures and best management practices to be implemented to prevent the contact of
stormwater with construction debris and sediment. During construction, all best management
practices would be utilized to prevent sedimentation into nearby waterways and stormwater,
including Cain Branch (located approximately 650 feet southwest of the project area). The use of
silt fences, temporary stabilization, dust suppression, and proper construction phasing would reduce
impacts to de minimis levels. The increase in impervious area created by the new facilities would
Effective 11/19/2015 25
be mitigated for by the use of best stormwater practices in accordance with the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, and Virginia and Fairfax County regulations. Level 1
bioretention facilities are proposed to capture and treat stormwater from the DCC (see Attachment
16).
If the answer to any of the above questions is “Yes”, consult with the USEPA or other appropriate
Federal and/or state regulatory and permitting agencies and provide all agency correspondence.
(4) GROUNDWATER
(a) Would the project impact groundwater such that water quality standards set by Federal, state,
local, or tribal regulatory agencies would be exceeded or would the project have the potential to
contaminate an aquifer used for public water supply such that public health may be adversely
affected?
The proposed project would not require a new well or groundwater withdrawal during construction
or operation. The project would result in an increase in impervious surface area and a total of 2.75
acres of land disturbance during construction. The increase in impervious area created by the new
facilities would be mitigated for by the use of best stormwater practices in accordance with the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and Virginia and Fairfax County regulations. An
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and SWPPP will be prepared in accordance with Virginia and
Fairfax County criteria and strictly adhered to in order to avoid and minimize sediment and
contaminant transport outside the project area.
(b) Would the groundwater impacts associated with the project cause concerns for applicable
permitting agencies or require mitigation in order to obtain a permit?
As discussed in Section 3(b), a NPDES/Virginia Stormwater Management Program permit for

stormwater discharges would be obtained from VDEQ. A SWPPP would be developed that
documents standard operation procedures and best management practices to be implemented to
prevent the contact of stormwater with construction debris and sediment. During construction, all
best management practices would be utilized to prevent sedimentation or contamination into nearby
waterways and stormwater. The use of silt fences, temporary stabilization, dust suppression, and
proper construction phasing would reduce impacts to de minimis levels.
(c) Is the project to be located over an EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer?
There are no sole source aquifers in the vicinity of the proposed action (EPA Office of Water,
2015).
If the answer to any of the above questions is “Yes”, consult with the USEPA or other appropriate
Federal and/or state regulatory and permitting agencies and provide all agency correspondence as an
attachment to this form.
Effective 11/19/2015 26
(5) WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
Would the proposed project affect a river segment that is listed in the Wild and Scenic River System
or Nationwide River Inventory (NRI)? (If Yes, coordinate with the jurisdictional agency and attach
record of consultation).
No. According to the National Wild and Scenic River System, the State of Virginia does not have
any designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. No rivers or streams are located in or adjacent to the
project area.
(O) CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Discuss impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects both on and off the
airport. Would the proposed project produce a cumulative effect on any of the environmental impact
categories above? Consider projects that are connected and may have common timing and/or
location. For purposes of this Form, generally use 3 years for past projects and 5 years for future
foreseeable projects.
The proposed project is adjacent to the UHC, which was constructed between 2000 and 2010.
Impacts from construction of the UHC consist of approximately 7 acres of wetland impacts and
approximately 80 acres of impacts to forested and non-forested vegetative cover. These impacts
were mitigated through the restoration of more than 100 acres of re-contoured battlefields, and the
permanent creation of 8.68 acres of wetlands, in addition to the demarcation of an additional 18
acres of riparian wetland buffer zones within Manassas National Battlefield Park. No cultural
resource sites were impacted as a result of the construction of the UHC.
Other recently completed or ongoing projects within the past three years in the project vicinity
include:
• Dulles Metro Rail Project, Phase 2: An 11-mile extension of the existing Silver Line, Phase I
of which was completed in 2014. It will be operated by WMATA and run from Wiehle
Avenue to IAD and into Loudoun County. This project includes six new Metro Rail stations
and a new rail yard on Dulles Airport property. A “Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project” for both phases of the project was published
in 2004, and the “Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project – Phase 2 Preliminary Engineering
Design Refinements Environmental Assessment” was published in April 2012. Construction
on Phase 2 started in 2014, and the project is expected to be completed in 2020. The Rail
Project has the potential to affect wetlands, traffic patterns, noise and vibration, land use,
and historic resources, but a Record of Decision with mitigation measures (Federal Transit
Administration, 2006) has been issued for the entirety of the project. Although air quality
impacts were mentioned in the Rail EIS, it was determined that the total operation emissions
for Dulles Airport are below minimum levels and conform to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP).
• Taxiway Z and Taxilane C Reconstruction: Reconstruction of Taxiway Z, Section 2, located

between Taxiway E and Taxiway Y9, for a length of approximately 1,300 feet (97,500
square feet), and reconstruction of Taxilane C, Section 1, starting immediately east of
Taxiway Z, extending approximately 1,050 feet (105,000 square feet). Construction began in
late 2014, and was expected to be completed in July 2015. A Categorical Exclusion was
Effective 11/19/2015 27
approved for this project in 2014, and it will not result in any meaningful environmental
impacts.
• Route 28 Bridge over the Dulles Airport Access Road Bridge Widening: VDOT under a
Public Private Partnership is currently widening the Route 28 bridge over the Dulles Airport
Access Road, in the northeast portion of IAD. The bridge widening project is a precursor to
future widening of Route 28 from 6 to 8 lanes, and will only widen the bridge structure (in
advance of the Metro Rail line being constructed). The bridge project will not increase the
number of lanes on Route 28. Construction began in early 2015. No NEPA document was
prepared for this project, as it was determined to not constitute a federal action.
• Dominion Substation Expansion: Construction of a substation expansion in the area to the

east of the existing Dulles Airport substation, and construction of six underground
distribution circuits to connect to the existing regional distribution network. Construction
began in late 2014, and is expected to last for approximately nine months. A Finding of No
Significant Impact was issued in October 2014 for this project, as it will not result in any
meaningful environmental impacts other than temporary impacts associated with
construction.
• United Airlines Maintenance Hangar: United Airlines constructed an aircraft maintenance

facility on an approximately 8-acre site at the north end of the airport, adjacent to existing
hangar sites. The project included approximately 93,000 square feet of aircraft apron, an
additional 103,000 square feet of hangar space, and other improvements. Construction was
completed in early 2014. An EA document was prepared, which did not identify any
significant environmental impacts. A FONSI was issued by the FAA in 2012.
• Snow Equipment Storage Facility: Construction of a snow equipment storage facility

adjacent to Stonecroft Boulevard on the south airfield of IAD, between Gate 313 and
existing airport maintenance facilities. The building will maintain snow equipment in a
ready condition and protect the equipment from ultraviolet (UV) light deterioration.
Construction was completed in the Summer of 2014. A Categorical Exclusion was approved
for this project in 2013, and it will not result in any meaningful environmental impacts.
• Historic Air Traffic Control Tower Exterior Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation of the historic Air
Traffic Control Tower was completed to stabilize the historic resource that was part of the
original airport construction, and to allow for potential future adaptive reuse. The project
included refinishing exterior surfaces of the tower and replacing the old Airport Surface
Detection Equipment (ASDE) enclosure on the top of the tower with a replica matching the
appearance of the original historic radome. The project did not result in any meaningful
environmental impacts.
• Police Range and Training Facility: Construction of a police range and training facility in
the southern portion of the airport, south of the Automated People Mover Vehicle
Maintenance Facility. The proposed facility will include one 300-yard range, two 50-yard
ranges, one 98-foot by 60-foot modular training building, and ammunition storage building,
gravel access roads, a gravel parking lot, and utility connections. Construction was started in
Effective 11/19/2015 28
the summer of 2015. A Short Environmental Assessment Form was completed, and a
Finding of No Significant Impact was issued on July 9, 2015.
Reasonably foreseeable future projects in the project vicinity include:
• Taxilane C and Taxiway Z Reconstruction: Reconstruction of the middle section of Taxilane

C and the south section of Taxiway Z at Washington Dulles International Airport. The
Taxilane C area is approximately 100 feet wide and 1,940 feet long. The Taxiway Z area is
approximately 75 feet wide and 340 feet long and also includes isolated panel replacement
at Taxiway Y11. The full depth reconstruction includes the replacement with full strength
PCC pavement with new joint spacing and underdrain system. The construction contract for
this project has not yet been awarded.
• Exterior Renovation of Cargo Buildings 1-4: Rehabilitation of the landside exterior of cargo
buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4 to include demolition of existing portions of canopy roofing,
flashings, edge metal and fascia, cleaning/repair of structural steel framing and installation
of a new roofing system, roof drains, and lightning protection. The project was awarded in
February 2016, but construction is currently unscheduled at this time. The project will not
result in any environmental impacts other than temporary impacts associated with
construction.
• Route 606 Loudoun County Boulevard/Old Ox Road Reconstruction: VDOT has proposed a
project to improve the capacity and safety of Route 606 in Loudoun County, and to provide
a critical leg of the proposed Dulles Loop by widening the existing two-lane roadway to a
four-lane roadway with divided median and signalized intersections. A construction date has
not yet been established for this project. An EA document was prepared which did not
identify any significant environmental impacts. Although impacts to jurisdictional streams
and wetlands were noted, the project will require a State Programmatic General Permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in which mitigation measures will be identified for the
impacted resources. The Federal Highway Administration issued a FONSI in 2013.
• Route 28 Corridor Project: VDOT under a Public Private Partnership intends to widen Route
28 in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia. The proposed project will include widening
the existing Route 28 from six to eight lanes. The project limits extend from north of the
intersection of Route 50 and Route 28 to north of the intersection of Sterling Boulevard and
Route 28. Approximately 5 miles of the project is located adjacent to or within the Dulles
International Airport property. These improvements will increase the capacity of Route 28
and improve the Level of Service (LOS) through the corridor. Some minor adjustments to
the current Airports Authority easement for Route 28 are anticipated to be necessary,
therefore Federal Aviation Administration authorization and National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) documentation is required. No federal funds are anticipated for use on this
project. Funding for this project has not yet been finalized, so a projected start-finish date is
not available at this time.
• Taxilane B Reconstruction and Widening (East Section): Reconstruction and widening of

Taxilane B, which is original Dulles pavement. The reconstructed pavement limits are
approximately 75 feet wide by 4,400 feet long, and include the entire length of Taxilane B.
Effective 11/19/2015 29
The pavement will be widened approximately 35 feet to the north to accommodate ADG VI
aircraft on a new centerline positioned 30 feet north. Construction on the East section,
between Taxiway J to Gate A19 (for approximately 1,000 feet) was initiated in June 2015
and is expected to last one year. The remaining sections are not currently scheduled for
construction. A Categorical Exclusion was approved for this project in January 2015, and it
will not result in any meaningful environmental impacts.
• Fuel and Convenience Concession Site: MWAA is constructing a new, larger fuel and
convenience facility to replace the current concession. The proposed facility will be located
near the intersection of Rudder Road and Ariane Way, directly across Ariane Way from the
existing fuel and convenience concession facility, which will be decommissioned. This site
is a previously disturbed 3-acre area that provides adequate space to build all new fuel and
convenience facilities, and is located in a convenient and easily accessible location to both
incoming and outgoing airport traffic. The proposed fuel and convenience concession site
will provide critical services and products to air passengers, employees, patrons of other
airport services, and other service providers. MWAA prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) and determined that no significant environmental effects will result from
the proposed action. The FAA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in 2016.
Future projects within the land set aside for the Dulles Collections Center could impact
undeveloped and/or forested areas, which would require review and permitting for Section 106 of
the NHPA, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Any
future development would require compliance with NEPA, and all federal, state, and local
permitting regulations for development.
Because this proposed project occurs in a previously cleared area that is adjacent to the existing
UHC building footprint, would have negligible impacts to natural resources, traffic, utilities, or air
quality, it would contribute negligible cumulative impacts to the past and future projects in the area.
7. PERMITS
List all required permits for the proposed project. Has coordination with the appropriate agency
commenced? What feedback has the appropriate agency offered in reference to the proposed
project? What is the expected time frame for permit review and decision?
• Construction Permits – MWAA

• Erosion and Sediment Control Plan – DEQ
• NPDES/VPDES Permit – DEQ
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) – DEQ
• New Stationary Source Air Permit – DEQ
• Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration pursuant to Title 14 CFR Part 77 - FAA
Permit applications have not been submitted to these agencies.
Effective 11/19/2015 30
8. MITIGATION
Describe those mitigation measures to be taken to avoid creation of significant impacts to a

particular resource as a result of the proposed project, and include a discussion of any impacts that
cannot be mitigated.
For all construction activities, the construction contractor would ensure that all applicable state and
local regulations are followed. All appropriate sediment and erosion control best practices would be
implemented in order to minimize fugitive dust generation from grading activities. Measures such
as silt fencing, temporary watering and seeding and other methods would be used. Some emissions
in the form of fugitive dust would be generated during construction, but these impacts are short-
term.
For construction activities disturbing one acre or more, a NPDES/Virginia Stormwater Management
Program permit for stormwater discharges and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is
required. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) is EPA’s authorized state
agency to which to apply under the federal water permitting program. A SWPPP would be
developed that documents standard operation procedures and best management practices to be
implemented to prevent the contact of stormwater with construction debris and sediment.
9. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Describe the public review process and any comments received. Include copies of Public Notices
and proof of publication.
A public notice was published in local newspapers and copies of the Short Environmental
Assessment Form were made available for the public to review at the Chantilly Regional Library,
4000 Stringfellow Road, Chantilly, VA; the Centreville Regional Library, 14200 St. Germain Drive,
Centreville, VA; and the Sterling Library, 120 Enterprise Street, Sterling, VA 20164. The 30-day
review period began on July 13, 2016 and ended on August 11, 2016.
The only comments received during the 30-day review period were from the National Capital
Planning Commission and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Office of
Environmental Impact Review (OEIR). The OEIR stated that the Proposed Action is consistent
with all enforceable policies of the CZM program and is expected to have no impact or less than
significant impacts to wetlands and water quality, stormwater management and erosion and
sediment control, ambient air quality, solid wastes and hazardous materials, natural heritage
resources and listed species, public water supply, and historic resources, provided that all applicable
permits and approvals are obtained and all listed requirements are followed.
The public notice, along with copies of the comments and responses to substantive comments, are
included in Attachment 17.
Effective 11/19/2015 31
10. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Airport Layout Plan and Land Use Plan
4. Existing Conditions – Key Map and Photos
5. Alternative 1
6. Alternative 2
7. Alternative 3
8. DGIF and DCR Consultation
9. USFWS IPaC Trust Resources Report
10. Virginia Coastal Zone Boundary Map
11. Coastal Zone Federal Consistency Determination
12. Web Soil Survey Farmland Classifications
13. Section 106 Correspondence with VDHR
14. National Wetlands Inventory Map
15. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
16. Stormwater Management Plan
17. Public Involvement
Effective 11/19/2015 32
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1
Project Location
Dulles Collections
Center
Attachments: Page 1
Attachments: Page 2
Attachment 2
Dulles Collections Center Site Plan
Attachments: Page 3
Attachments: Page 4
Attachment 3
Airport Layout Plan and Land Use Plan
Attachments: Page 5
Attachments: Page 6
Dulles International Airport - Airport Layout Plan
Attachments: Page 7
Dulles International Airport - Land Use Plan
Attachments: Page 8
Attachment 4
Existing Site Conditions
Photo Key Map
Photo 2
Photo 1
Attachments: Page 9
Photo 1. View into project area of the proposed collections facility, facing northwest.
Photo 2. View into project area of proposed collections facility, facing north.
Attachments: Page 10
Attachment 5
Alternative 1 – Dulles Collections Center
Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar (Small Footprint)
View from the Northwest
Attachment 6
Two-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar
Attachment 7
Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar (Large Footprint) (Preferred Alternative)
Attachment 8
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and Department of Conservation and Recreation
Consultations
10/8/2015 VAFWIS Seach Report
VaFWIS Initial Pr oject Assessment Repor t Compiled on Help

10/8/2015, 4:15:29 PM
Known or likely to occur within a 2 mile r adius ar ound point 38.9090556 -77.4443611

in 059 Fair fax County, 107 Loudoun County, VA
View Map of
Site Location
733 Known or Likely Species ordered by Status Concern for Conservation
(displaying first 37) (37 species with Status* or Tier I** or Tier II** )
BOVA
Status* Tier ** Common Name Scientific Name Confir med Database(s)
Code
Sturgeon, Acipenser
010032 FESE II BOVA
Atlantic oxyrinchus
Wedgemussel, Alasmidonta
060003 FESE II BOVA
dwarf heterodon
Bat, northern Myotis
050022 FT BOVA
long-eared septentrionalis
Alasmidonta
060006 SE II Floater, brook BOVA
varicosa
Glyptemys
030062 ST I Turtle, wood Yes BOVA,TEWaters,Habitat
insculpta
Falcon,
040096 ST I Falco peregrinus BOVA
peregrine
Sandpiper, Bartramia
040129 ST I Yes BOVA,SppObs
upland longicauda
Shrike, Lanius
040293 ST I BOVA
loggerhead ludovicianus
Sparrow, Ammodramus
040379 ST I BOVA
Henslow's henslowii
Skipper,
100155 FSST I Appalachian Pyrgus wyandot BOVA
grizzled
Lasmigona
060081 ST II Floater, green BOVA
subviridis
Lanius
Shrike, migrant
040292 ST ludovicianus BOVA
loggerhead
migrans
Speyeria idalia
100248 FS I Fritillary, regal BOVA
idalia
Haliaeetus
040093 FS II Eagle, bald BOVA
leucocephalus
Butterfly, Persius Erynnis persius Attachments: Page 17
https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPages/VaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.asp?pf=1&Title=VaFWIS+GeographicSelect+Options&pf=0&placeName=… 1/4
100154 FS II duskywing persius BOVA
Hesperia attalus
100166 FS II Skipper, Dotted BOVA
slossonae
Elliptio
060029 FS III Lance, yellow Yes BOVA,SppObs
lanceolata
Alosa
010038 FS IV Alewife BOVA
pseudoharengus
Herring,
010045 FS Alosa aestivalis BOVA
blueback
Caddisfly, Ceratopsyche
080340 FS BOVA
Buffalo Springs etnieri
030063 CC III Turtle, spotted Clemmys guttata BOVA
Rattlesnake,
030012 CC IV Crotalus horridus BOVA
timber
Notropis
010077 I Shiner, bridle BOVA
bifrenatus
040372 I Crossbill, red Loxia curvirostra BOVA
Sapsucker, Sphyrapicus
040225 I BOVA
yellow-bellied varius
Warbler, black-
040319 I Dendroica virens BOVA
throated green
Warbler, golden- Vermivora
040306 I BOVA
winged chrysoptera
Bittern, Botaurus
040038 II BOVA
American lentiginosus
Duck, American
040052 II Anas rubripes BOVA
black
Heron, little Egretta caerulea
040029 II BOVA
blue caerulea
Night-heron, Nyctanassa
040036 II BOVA
yellow-crowned violacea violacea
Owl, northern Aegolius
040213 II BOVA
saw-whet acadicus
040105 II Rail, king Rallus elegans BOVA
040186 II Tern, least Sterna antillarum BOVA
Warbler, Dendroica
040320 II BOVA
cerulean cerulea
Warbler, Limnothlypis
040304 II BOVA
Swainson's swainsonii
Troglodytes
040266 II Wren, winter BOVA
troglodytes
To view All 733 species View 733
To view All 733 species View 733
* FE=Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened; FC=Federal Candidate;
FS=Federal Species of Concern; CC=Collection Concern
** I=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier I - Critical Conservation Need;
II=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier II - Very High Conservation Need;
III=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier III - High Conservation Need;
IV=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier IV - Moderate Conservation Need
Bat Colonies or Hibernacula: Not Known
Anadr omous Fish Use Str eams
N/A
Colonial Water Bir d Sur vey
N/A
Thr eatened and Endanger ed Water s ( 1 Reach )
View Map of All
Thr eatened and Endanger ed Water s
T&E Water s Species
Highest View
Str eam Name BOVA Code, Status*, Tier **, Map
TE * Common & Scientific Name
Cub Run Turtle, Glyptemys
ST 030062 ST I Yes
(02070010) wood insculpta
Managed Tr out Str eams
N/A
Bald Eagle Concentr ation Ar eas and Roosts
N/A
Bald Eagle Nests
N/A
Habitat Pr edicted for Aquatic WAP Tier I & II Species ( 5 Reaches )

View Map Combined Reaches fr om Below of Habitat Pr edicted for WAP Tier I & II

Aquatic Species
Tier Species
Highest View
Str eam Name BOVA Code, Status*, Tier **, Map
TE * Common & Scientific Name
Turtle, Glyptemys
(20700101) ST 030062 ST I Yes
wood insculpta
Turtle, Glyptemys
Cub Run (20700101) ST 030062 ST I Yes
wood insculpta
Turtle, Glyptemys
Cub Run (20700102) ST 030062 ST I Yes
wood insculpta
Turtle, Glyptemys
Dead Run (20700101) ST 030062 ST I Yes
wood insculpta
Sand Branch Turtle, Glyptemys
ST 030062 ST I Yes
(20700101) wood insculpta
Habitat Pr edicted for Ter r estr ial WAP Tier I & II Species
N/A
Public Holdings:
N/A
Compiled on 10/8/2015, 4:15:35 PM I685994.0 report=IPA searchType= R dist= 3218.688 poi= 38.9090556 -77.4443611
PixelSize=64; Anadromous=0.155844; BECAR=0.141455; Bats=0.149338; Buffer=0.100178; County=1.363888; Impediments=0.150626; Init=0.742994; PublicLands=0.847527;
SppObs=1.412668; TEWaters=0.639915; TierReaches=0.861923; TierTerrestrial=0.164143; Total=26.314788; Tracking_BOVA=19.444196; Trout=0.173329
10/8/2015 VaFWIS Map
Site Location
38,54,32.6 -77,26,39.7
is the Sear ch Point
back 3 8 ,5 6 ,2 0 .5 -7 7 ,2 7 ,5 3 .1 Refr esh Br owser Page
Map Map Screen Help
Click Scale Size
Show Position Rings
Yes No
1 mile and 1/4 mile at the
Search Point
Show Sear ch Ar ea
Yes No
2 Search distance miles
radius
Search Point is at
map center
Base Map Choices
BW Aerial Photography
Map Over lay Choices
Current List: Position, Search,
BECAR, BAEANests,
TEWaters, TierII, Habitat,
Trout, Anadromous
Map Over lay Legend
Point of Search 38,54,32.6 -77,26,39.7
Map Location 38,54,32.6 -77,26,39.7
Select Coordinate System: Degrees,Minutes,Seconds Latitude - Longitude
Decimal Degrees Latitude - Longitude
Meters UTM NAD83 East North Zone
Meters UTM NAD27 East North Zone
Base Map source: Black & White USGS Aerial Photography (see Microsoft terraserver-usa.com for
details)
Map projection is UTM Zone 18 NAD 1983 with left 283256 and top 4314325. Pixel size is 16
meters . Coordinates displayed are Degrees, Minutes, Seconds North and West. Map is currently
displayed as 600 columns by 600 rows for a total of 360000 pixles. The map display represents
10/8/2015 VaFWIS Map
9600 meters east to west by 9600 meters north to south for a total of 92.1 square kilometers. The
map display represents 31501 feet east to west by 31501 feet north to south for a total of 35.5
square miles.
Topographic maps and Black and white aerial photography for year 1990+-
are from the United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey.
Color aerial photography aquired 2002 is from Virginia Base Mapping Program, Virginia
Geographic Information Network.
Shaded topographic maps are from TOPO! ©2006 National Geographic
http://www.national.geographic.com/topo
All other map products are from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries.
map assembled 2015-10-08 15:04:53 (qa/qc December 5, 2012 8:04 - tn=685994.0
dist=3218.688 I )
$poi=38.9090556 -77.4443611
| DGIF | Credits | Disclaimer | Contact shirl.dressler@dgif.virginia.gov |Please view our privacy policy |
© 1998-2015 Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/maps/zMapFormJava.asp?autoscale=14&coord=LL&display_only=1&dist=3218.688&dp=&gap=&ln=kimley&opoi=&overlay_list… 2/2
Attachment 9
US Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC)
Official Species List
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Virginia Ecological Services Field Office
6669 SHORT LANE
GLOUCESTER, VA 23061
PHONE: (804)693-6694 FAX: (804)693-9032
URL: www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/
Consultation Code: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1491 February 17, 2016

Event Code: 05E2VA00-2016-E-01822
Project Name: NASM Udvar-Hazy Collections Facility
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of
your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills
the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Any activity
proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination'
conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or
concerns.
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of
the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can
be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed
list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and
the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2)
of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required
to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and
endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered
species and/or designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation,

that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan
(http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects
should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing
impacts to migratory birds and bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at:
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm;
http://www.towerkill.com; and
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office.
Attachment
2
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: NASM Udvar-Hazy Collections Facility
Official Species List

Provided by:
Virginia Ecological Services Field Office
6669 SHORT LANE
GLOUCESTER, VA 23061
(804) 693-6694
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/
Consultation Code: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1491

Event Code: 05E2VA00-2016-E-01822
Project Type: Federal Grant / Loan Related
Project Name: NASM Udvar-Hazy Collections Facility

Project Description: Construction of new collections facility adjacent to the south wall of Udvar-
Hazy Center. Project area consists of previously disturbed grassy lawn. 2.75 acres of land
disturbance is proposed. No trees or natural vegetation will be removed or disturbed.
Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it
may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code
matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by'
section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 02/17/2016 12:52 PM

1
Project Location Map:
Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-77.44566321372986 38.91033701504591, -

77.44619965553284 38.910311969758965, -77.4462640285492 38.90819978542943, -
77.44607090950012 38.90807455513591, -77.44456887245178 38.90809125252114, -
77.44437575340271 38.90827492349951, -77.44436502456664 38.909368590848885, -
77.4457061290741 38.90944372768176, -77.44566321372986 38.91033701504591)))
Project Counties: Fairfax, VA

2
Endangered Species Act Species List
There are a total of 1 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in
an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain
fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the
Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your
project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS
office if you have questions.
Mammals Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)
Northern long-eared Bat (Myotis Threatened

septentrionalis)

3
Critical habitats that lie within your project area

There are no critical habitats within your project area.

4
Appendix A: FWS National Wildlife Refuges
There are no refuges within your project area.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 02/17/2016 12:52 PM - Appendix A

1
Attachment 10
Virginia Coastal Zone Management Area
Dulles Collections
Center
Attachment 11
Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency Determination
Proposed Collections Facilities at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space
Museum Dulles Collections Center
This document provides the Commonwealth of Virginia with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA)’s Consistency Determination under CZMA section
307(c)(2) and 15 CFR Part 930, subpart C, for the Smithsonian Institution’s (SI) proposed Collections
Storage Facility at the National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center (DCC) adjacent to the
Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center located in Chantilly, Virginia. A Vicinity Map is included as Attachment 1 of
the Form C package. The information in this Consistency Determination is provided pursuant to 15 CFR
§930.39.
Certification:
The Authority certifies that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable programs of Virginia’s
Coastal Resources Management Program (VCP) and will be conducted in a manner consistent with the VCP.
Necessary Data and Information:
The proposed project includes the construction of new collections space in the form of storage modules
immediately adjacent to the Udvar-Hazy Center.
These new collections modules would provide space to relocate NASM collections from the Paul E. Garber
Preservation, Restoration, and Storage Facility (Garber). The modules would also accommodate NASM’s
collections from the Ramsey building at Dulles, collections growth, objects from other collecting units, and
swing space during renovations and relocations. The proximity to the Udvar-Hazy Center would allow the
new storage modules to take advantage of the collections processing, security, and staff resources already
located in the Udvar-Hazy Center building. The proposed project is part of a NASM Master Plan and a pan-
Smithsonian Collections Space Framework Plan that recommends additional collections space.
Three alternatives, as described below, along with the No Action Alternative, are under consideration for the
Collections Center. The alternatives are shown in Attachments 4-6 of Form C.
Alternative 1: Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar (Small
Footprint)
Alternative 1 consists of two three-story collections storage modules plus a hangar building, with a total of
237,350 gross square feet (gsf). The three-story modules would be approximately 60 feet tall, and the hangar
facility would be approximately 45 feet tall. The proposed length of each module is 235 feet, which matches
the length of the existing Udvar-Hazy Center storage wing. The modules and hangar would provide 186,850
net square feet (nsf) of collections storage space. Alternate 1 does not provide enough collections storage
space to accommodate NASM’s collections storage need or enough swing space for the National Mall
Museum renovation.
Alternative 2: Two-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar
Alternative 2 consists of two two-story collections storage modules plus a single-story free span module. Full
build-out would provide 164,060 nsf of collections storage space within 200,940 gsf of construction. The
two-story modules would be 40 feet tall to match the adjacent Udvar-Hazy Center building, and the single-
story module would be 45 feet tall. The proposed length of the modules is 269 feet, slightly longer than the
adjacent Udvar-Hazy building, in order to maximize the storage capacity for large objects. The two-story
modules would each provide 68,910nsf of collections storage and the single-story free span module would
provide 26,240 nsf of storage for large air and space craft. While Alternative 2 would provide greater ground
floor storage capacity for large objects, the overall collections storage area does not meet NASM’s collection
storage needs or provide enough swing space for the National Mall Museum renovation.
Alternative 3: Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar (Large
Footprint) (Preferred Alternative)
Alternative 3 consists of two three-story collections storage modules plus a single-story free span module.
Full build-out provides 241,880 nsf of collections storage space within 283,795 gsf of construction. The
three-story modules would be 60 feet tall, and the single-story module would be 45 feet tall. The proposed
length of the modules is 269 feet, slightly longer than the adjacent Udvar-Hazy building, in order to
maximize the storage capacity for large objects. The three-story modules would each provide 107,820 nsf of
collections storage and the single-story free span module would provide 26,240 net square feet of storage for
large air and space craft. Alternative 3 is the Preferred Alternative because it is the only option that provides
enough collections storage space to accommodate NASM’s collection and provide the swing space needed
for the National Mall Museum renovation.
The construction of any of these alternatives would result in approximately 2.75 acres of land disturbance.
The area of the proposed construction was previously disturbed during the construction of the Udvar-Hazy
Center and currently consists of maintained grassy lawn.
FAA and MWAA have determined that none of the alternatives for the proposed project will affect the land
or water uses or natural resources of Virginia, as described below:
• The VDGIF VaFWIS and the VDCR Division of Natural Heritage were consulted to determine
confirmed occurrences of threatened and endangered species within 2 miles of the project area. Two
listed species were identified as confirmed within the search radius: the state-listed threatened wood
turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) and the state-listed threatened upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda).
Cub Run, located over one mile from the project site, is listed as a Stream Conservation Unit (SCU)
and predicted habitat for the wood turtle. Cain Branch, located approximately 650 feet southwest, is
a tributary to Cub Run. Since the project area consists entirely of maintained lawn with no natural
vegetation or water resources, no suitable habitat for these species exists within the project area. An
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and strictly followed during construction to
prevent sedimentation of Cain Branch and subsequently Cub Run. Therefore, no impacts to state-
listed threatened and endangered species are anticipated. A copy of the VaFWIS Report and Map
and the DCR response are included in Attachment 7 of Form C.
• The USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) service was consulted to identify
federally listed species that occur within the project area. One threatened species, the northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) was listed. Because no trees will be removed as a result of this
project, no impacts to this species are anticipated. The Official Species List acquired from the IPaC
system is included as Attachment 8 of Form C.
• The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory was consulted to determine the presence of wetlands and
surface waters onsite. No wetlands were identified. The site is previously disturbed and consists
entirely of maintained lawn. Therefore, no impacts to wetlands or water resources are anticipated.
The NWI wetlands map is included as Attachment 14 of Form C.
• The project area is shown on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map number 51059C0115E (Attachment
15 of Form C). The project area is not within the 100-year floodplain.
• There are no historic structures within the viewshed of the project area. The site was previously
disturbed and, therefore, will not affect archaeological resources.
The Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program requires consistency with the enforceable policies listed
below. The following is an analysis of the project’s consistency with each policy, if applicable:
1. Fisheries Management: The project area was previously disturbed during the construction of the
Udvar-Hazy Center, and currently consists of maintained lawn. No wetlands or water resources are
present onsite. The closest water body to the project area is Cain Branch, located approximately 650
feet southwest. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and strictly followed
during construction to prevent sedimentation of Cain Branch. Therefore, the proposed project would
not impact finfish or shellfish resources.
2. Subaqueous Lands Management: No state-owned bottomlands are present within the project area.
Therefore, this enforceable policy is not applicable to this project.
3. Wetlands Management: The project area was previously disturbed during the construction of the
Udvar-Hazy Center, and currently consists of maintained lawn. No jurisdictional or non-
jurisdictional wetlands are present within or adjacent to the project area. No Section 404, Section 10,
or Virginia Water Protection permits are anticipated to be required. Therefore, this enforceable
4. Dunes Management: The project is not located along a shoreline. Therefore, this enforceable policy
is not applicable to this project.
5. Non-point Source Pollution Control: The proposed project will result in approximately 2.75 acres of
land disturbance. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
will be prepared in accordance with Virginia and Fairfax County criteria and strictly adhered to in
order to avoid and minimize sediment transport outside the project area.
6. Point Source Pollution Control: The proposed project will result in approximately 2.75 acres of land
disturbance. Prior to construction, a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES)
permit and/or a Virginia Stormwater Management Program permit for discharges of stormwater from
land-disturbing activities greater than one acre will be obtained.
7. Shoreline Sanitation: The project would not generate any additional waste water. No septic tanks are
proposed. The project is not located in a shoreline area. Therefore, this enforceable policy is not
applicable to this project.
8. Air Pollution Control: The project is located in Fairfax County, which is within an ozone non-
attainment area (EPA Green Book, 2015). Air quality impacts associated with the project would
originate from temporary construction activities and permanent stationary sources at the facility. The
project would not result in a long-term increase in vehicular traffic, as the only additional traffic
would be from occasional deliveries of collections to the center.
The proposed project would result in minor short-term impacts to air quality from fugitive dust from
grading activities and construction vehicle emissions. These impacts would be temporary, lasting
only for the duration of construction. During construction, fugitive dust will be minimized by using
applicable control methods outlined in 9 VAC 5-50-60 et seq. of the Regulations for the Control and
Abatement of Air Pollution.
Stationary sources that would generate air emissions at the collections facilities include heating
equipment and emergency generators. Equipment types and capacities will be determined and
verified during the design phase of the project. Emergency generators would only be used during
emergency situations and for very short time periods during maintenance checks and operator
training. The emissions associated with these stationary sources for the proposed project were
determined to be below de minimis thresholds. Even though airport activity levels exceed de minimis
thresholds, a NAAQS assessment is not necessary for this project because the project’s direct
emissions are below de minimis thresholds and the project will not result in an increase in aircraft
activities and operations. Therefore, FAA and MWAA find the project to be consistent with this
enforceable policy.
9. Coastal Lands Management: The project area is located in Fairfax County, which is considered a
Tidewater Locality by the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act. The project area is within a Resource
Management Area as designated by the Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance.
No Resource Protection Areas or 100-year floodplains were identified within the project area. Cain
Branch, which is within a RPA, is located approximately 650 feet southwest of the project area.
The project will be designed in accordance with the Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Ordinance, the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, and the Virginia Stormwater
Management Regulations (9 VAC 25-870-10 et seq.). An erosion and sediment control plan and a
SWPPP will be prepared and strictly adhered to during construction to avoid and minimize
sedimentation of Cain Branch and its associated RPA. Therefore, FAA and MWAA find that the
proposed project is consistent with this enforceable policy.
The Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program recommends consistency with the advisory policies listed
below. The following is an analysis of the project’s consistency with each policy, if applicable:
1. Coastal Natural Resource Areas: No wetlands, spawning grounds, dunes, barrier islands, wildlife
habitat, public recreation areas, sand and gravel resources, or historic sites will be affected by the
project.
2. Coastal Natural Hazard Areas: The project area is not within a highly erodible area or a floodplain.
3. Waterfront Development Areas: Not applicable.
4. Shorefront Access Planning and Protection:
a. Virginia Public Beaches: Not Applicable
b. Virginia Outdoors Plan: According to the VOP Online Mapper, no lands managed under the
VOP were identified within or adjacent to the project area.
c. Parks, Natural Areas, and Wildlife Management Areas: The project area consists of
maintained lawn adjacent to the existing Udvar Hazy Center. No parks, natural areas, or
wildlife habitats would be affected by the project.
d. Waterfront Recreational Land Acquisition: Not Applicable
e. Waterfront Recreational Facilities: Not Applicable
f. Waterfront Historic Properties: Not Applicable
Based upon the above information, data, and analysis, the FAA and MWAA find that the proposed project is
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the Virginia Coastal Zone
Management Program.
Pursuant to 15 CFR Section 930.41, the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program has 60 days from the
receipt of this letter in which to concur with or object to this Consistency Determination, or to request an
extension under 15 CFR section 930.41(b). Virginia’s concurrence will be presumed if its response is not
received by MWAA on the 60th day from receipt of this determination.
The State’s concurrence, objection, or notification of review status shall be sent to:
Susan Stafford
FAA Environmental Specialist
Federal Aviation Administration
FAA Beckley ADO
176 Airport Circle
Beaver, WV 25813
Erik Schwenke
Planning Department
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
45045 Aviation Drive,
Dulles, Virginia, 20166
Jane Passman
Senior Facilities Master Planner
Smithsonian Institution
PO BOX 37012 MRC 511
Washington DC 20013-7012
Attachment 12
NRCS Web Soil Survey Farmland Classification
Farmland Classification—Fairfax County, Virginia
77° 26' 52'' W
77° 26' 32'' W

(Udvar-Hazy DCC Farmland Map)
287790 287870 287950 288030 288110 288190

38° 54' 43'' N 38° 54' 43'' N
4309810
4309810
4309730
4309730
4309650
4309650
4309570
4309570
4309490
4309490
4309410
4309410
4309330
4309330
4309250
4309250
38° 54' 22'' N 38° 54' 22'' N
287790 287870 287950 288030 288110 288190

77° 26' 52'' W
77° 26' 32'' W
Map Scale: 1:3,110 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Meters
N 0 45 90 180 270
Feet
0 150 300 600 900
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Attachments: Page 45

Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI) Prime farmland if Prime farmland if Prime farmland if irrigated Prime farmland if
Area of Interest (AOI) subsoiled, completely protected from flooding or and reclaimed of excess irrigated and drained
removing the root not frequently flooded salts and sodium Prime farmland if
Soils inhibiting soil layer during the growing season Farmland of statewide irrigated and either
Soil Rating Polygons Prime farmland if irrigated Prime farmland if irrigated importance protected from flooding
and the product of I (soil Farmland of local or not frequently flooded
Not prime farmland Prime farmland if drained
erodibility) x C (climate importance during the growing
factor) does not exceed 60 and either protected from season
All areas are prime
flooding or not frequently Farmland of unique
farmland Prime farmland if irrigated Prime farmland if
flooded during the growing importance
Prime farmland if drained and reclaimed of excess subsoiled, completely
season Not rated or not available
salts and sodium removing the root
Prime farmland if Prime farmland if irrigated inhibiting soil layer
Farmland of statewide Soil Rating Points
protected from flooding or and drained
importance Prime farmland if
not frequently flooded Prime farmland if irrigated Not prime farmland
Farmland of local irrigated and the product
during the growing season and either protected from of I (soil erodibility) x C
importance All areas are prime
Prime farmland if irrigated flooding or not frequently (climate factor) does not
farmland
Farmland of unique flooded during the growing exceed 60
Prime farmland if drained importance season Prime farmland if drained
Prime farmland if
and either protected from Not rated or not available Prime farmland if Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of
flooding or not frequently subsoiled, completely protected from flooding or excess salts and sodium
flooded during the growing Soil Rating Lines removing the root not frequently flooded Farmland of statewide
season Not prime farmland inhibiting soil layer during the growing season importance
Prime farmland if irrigated Prime farmland if irrigated
All areas are prime Prime farmland if irrigated Farmland of local
and drained and the product of I (soil
farmland importance
Prime farmland if irrigated erodibility) x C (climate Prime farmland if drained
and either protected from Prime farmland if drained factor) does not exceed 60 and either protected from Farmland of unique
flooding or not frequently flooding or not frequently importance
flooded during the growing flooded during the growing Not rated or not available
season season
Water Features
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
MAP INFORMATION
Streams and Canals The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000.
Transportation
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Rails
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
Interstate Highways misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
US Routes placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Major Roads
Local Roads Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Background
Aerial Photography
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Fairfax County, Virginia
Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 23, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Data not available.
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
Farmland Classification—Fairfax County, Virginia Udvar-Hazy DCC Farmland Map
Farmland Classification
Farmland Classification— Summary by Map Unit — Fairfax County, Virginia (VA059)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
1A Albano silt loam, 0 to 2 Not prime farmland 0.8 1.5%
percent slopes
2B Ashburn silt loam, 0 to 7 Not prime farmland 2.7 5.2%
percent slopes
12 Chantilly loam, 0 to 45 Not prime farmland 11.7 22.6%
percent slopes
14B Chantilly-Ashburn Not prime farmland 1.9 3.7%
complex, 2 to 7
percent slopes
34A Dulles silt loam, 0 to 2 All areas are prime 3.6 7.0%
percent slopes farmland
85B Penn silt loam, 2 to 7 All areas are prime 1.0 2.0%
percent slopes farmland
85C Penn silt loam, 7 to 15 Farmland of statewide 0.0 0.0%
percent slopes importance
89A Rowland silt loam, 0 to 2 Not prime farmland 0.6 1.2%
percent slopes,
frequently flooded
95 Urban land Not prime farmland 29.3 56.8%
Totals for Area of Interest 51.6 100.0%
Description
Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of
statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies
the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage,
and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlands
are published in the "Federal Register," Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: No Aggregation Necessary
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/21/2016

Farmland Classification—Fairfax County, Virginia Udvar-Hazy DCC Farmland Map
Aggregation is the process by which a set of component attribute values is reduced

to a single value that represents the map unit as a whole.
A map unit is typically composed of one or more "components". A component is

either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, e.g., rock outcrop. For the attribute
being aggregated, the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attribute
value for each of a map unit's components. From this set of component attributes,
the next step of the aggregation process derives a single value that represents the
map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic
map for soil map units can be rendered. Aggregation must be done because, on
any soil map, map units are delineated but components are not.
For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding percent composition is

recorded. A percent composition of 60 indicates that the corresponding component
typically makes up approximately 60% of the map unit. Percent composition is a
critical factor in some, but not all, aggregation methods.
The majority of soil attributes are associated with a component of a map unit, and
such an attribute has to be aggregated to the map unit level before a thematic map
can be rendered. Map units, however, also have their own attributes. An attribute
of a map unit does not have to be aggregated in order to render a corresponding
thematic map. Therefore, the "aggregation method" for any attribute of a map unit
is referred to as "No Aggregation Necessary".
Tie-break Rule: Lower
The tie-break rule indicates which value should be selected from a set of multiple
candidate values, or which value should be selected in the event of a percent
composition tie.
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/21/2016

Attachment 13
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Department of Historic Resources (State Historic Preservation Office) Correspondence
M. Holma, VASHPO/DHR
SHPO-DHR
Page 7
Properties Affected as regards archeological resources.
10. All of the proposed expansion alternatives would occur on the south side of the existing
facility, in a location that will have limited visibility from any on-airport or off-airport
historic properties or historically sensitive viewsheds.
11. Given the location and scale of the proposed expansions (maximum three stories), the new
facility will not be visible from either Sully Plantation (029-0037) or the Dulles Airport
Historic District (053-0008).
12. As a result, it has been determined that the proposed Preferred Alternative for the NASM -
DCC Expansion will result in No Historic Properties Affected as regards architectural
resources.
?-~;~ Date
VASHPO I DR Project No.
Figure 1: Proposed National Air and Space Museum – Dulles Collections Center Expansion
Proposed Project Location
Washington Dulles International Airport, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties
Project Location
Figure 2: Proposed National Air and Space Museum – Dulles Collection Center Expansion
Historic District Boundary and Proposed Project Location
Proposed Expansion
Existing Facilities and Proposed Expansion
N
Existing Facilities and Proposed Expansion (view from South)
Area of Potential Effects (Visual and Archeological)

Axonometric Rendering of Proposed Expansion (Preferred Alternative) – View from Northwest
Axonometric Rendering of Proposed Expansion (Preferred Alternative) – View from East
Visual APE and Architectural Resources (VCRIS Data – 26 April 2016)
Attachment 14
National Wetlands Inventory Map
Attachment 15
Flood Insurance Rate Map
Attachment 16
Proposed Stormwater Management
Dulles Collections Center – Proposed Stormwater Management
Summary of Stormwater Functions Provided by
Bioretention Basins
Stormwater Function Level 1 Design

Annual Runoff Volume 40%
Reduction (RR)
Total Phosphorus (TP) EMC
Reduction1 by BMP Treatment 25%
Process
Total Phosphorus (TP) Mass 55%
Load Removal
Total Nitrogen (TN) EMC
Reduction1 by BMP Treatment 40%
Process
Total Nitrogen (TN) Mass Load 64%
Removal
Channel and Flood Protection Use the Runoff Reduction Method (RRM)
Spreadsheet to calculate the Cover Number
(CN) Adjustment
OR
Design extra storage (optional; as needed) on
the surface, in the engineered soil matrix, and
in the stone/underdrain layer to accommodate
a larger storm, and use NRCS TR-55 Runoff
Equations2 to compute the CN Adjustment.
1 Change in event mean concentration (EMC) through the practice. Actual nutrient
mass load removed is the product of the removal rate and the runoff reduction
rate(see Table 1 in the Introduction to the New Virginia Stormwater Design
Specifications).
2 NRCS TR-55 Runoff Equations 2-1 thru 2-5 and Figure 2-1 can be used to
compute a curve number adjustment for larger storm events based on the retention
storage provided by the practice(s).
Source:
http://www.vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/NonPBMPSpecsMarch11/VASWMBMPSpec9BIORETENTION.html[9/1/20
16 2:45:53 PM]
Attachment 17
Public Involvement
A public notice was published in local newspapers and copies of the Short Environmental
Assessment Form were made available for the public to review at the Chantilly Regional Library,
4000 Stringfellow Road, Chantilly, VA; the Centreville Regional Library, 14200 St. Germain
Drive, Centreville, VA; and the Sterling Library, 120 Enterprise Street, Sterling, VA 20164. The
30-day review period began on July 13, 2016 and ended on August 11, 2016.
The only comments received during the 30-day review period were from the National Capital
Planning Commission and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Office of
Environmental Impact Review (OEIR). The OEIR stated that the Proposed Action is consistent
with all enforceable policies of the CZM program and is expected to have no impact or less than
significant impacts to wetlands and water quality, stormwater management and erosion and
sediment control, ambient air quality, solid wastes and hazardous materials, natural heritage
resources and listed species, public water supply, and historic resources, provided that all applicable
permits and approvals are obtained and all listed requirements are followed.
Following are responses to substantive comments received on the Draft EA:
Pg. 4 – What is the expected period of construction, and will this be impacted by the phasing?
Response: The anticipated construction period is from March 2017 through September 2018.
The Dulles Collections Center (DCC) Storage Module 1 interim use will be as swing space
for artifacts that need to be moved out of the NMB to allow for renovation work. Any
slippage in the DCC Storage Module 1 construction period would delay the start of any
meaningful renovation work.
Pg. 18 – This indicates the proposed expansions would not be visible from the Dulles Airport
Historic District. Was this confirmed through a visual analysis? Noting the existing height of the
existing museum building would be helpful for context.
Response: A visual analysis of the Udvar Hazy Center completed for the 1998
Environmental Assessment, found that the Udvar Hazy Center is not visible from various
viewpoints including the Sully Plantation (029-0037) and the main Dulles terminal. Given
the location and scale of the proposed expansions (maximum three stories), the new facility
will not be higher than the existing Udvar Hazy Center and will not be visible from either
Sully Plantation or the Dulles Airport Historic District (053-0008).
Pg. 19 – Where are the existing stormwater management ponds? A keyed plan (similar to
Attachment 3) would be helpful. Would these ponds be altered in any way?
Response: The existing stormwater management ponds designs are based on regulations and
calculations that are no longer in effect. They will remain unaltered by this project. To
comply with the stormwater regulations for the DCC project, two Level 1 bioretention
facilities will be constructed. The stormwater management plan has been attached to the
Form C (Attachment 16)
Pg. 19 - An excerpt from the Dulles Airport Master Plan/ Land Use Plan would be helpful in
determining whether the proposed action is consistent with those broader plans.
Response: MWAA’s Airport Layout Plan (ALP) designates the project site for “future
NASM expansion,” and its land use plan designates the site as “National Air and Space
Museum” The Dulles Airport Layout Plan and Land Use Plan have been added (Attachment
3).
Pg. 24 – Please note that E.O. 11988 has been amended by EO 13690, Establishing a Federal Flood
Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input.
Among other things, this requires agencies to consider the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain for
critical actions.
Response: The project site is located outside of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (500-year)

floodplain (see Attachment 15).
Pg. 24-25 – As noted stormwater should comply with EISA, state and local standards. It is unclear
whether the increase in impervious cover will require substantial stormwater measures that may
alter the surrounding landscape or result in other impacts.
Response: Response: The existing stormwater management ponds designs are based on
regulations and calculations that are no longer in effect. They will remain unaltered by this
project. To comply with the stormwater regulations for the DCC project, two Level 1
bioretention facilities will be constructed. The stormwater management plan has been
attached to the Form C (Attachment 16)
Pg. 30 – Please confirm if stormwater permits or other permits are required from Fairfax County.
Response: MWAA has jurisdiction over stormwater management on the site and is the
permitting agency for the project. As such they are reviewing the project for Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality for compliance with stormwater management
regulations.
Attachment 2 – What is the dashed line located west of the proposed expansion area? Also, we
recommend north arrows on the plans and diagrams where possible to assist the reader.
Response: The Site Plan has been revised for clarity and north arrows added.
Attachment 3 [Attachment 4 in the Final Environmental Assessment] – We understand this is a key

map for the photos, but there is a lot of additional information here indicated by the varying
colors/hatches. Can they also be noted in a key?
Response: Attachment 4 (Photo Key Map) has been replaced with an aerial photograph of
the site.
Attachment 4-6 – It may be helpful to distinguish the proposed expansion by a different color. A
statement “View from Northwest” or north arrows would assist in orienting the reader.
Response: The plans for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 have been revised for clarity.
Other – Please confirm whether there will be any change in the number of employees at the facility
due to the expansion.
Response: There will be a short term increase of staff to support the temporary storage of
artifacts associated Revitalization of the National Mall Building from 2018 to 2024;
however, as these are artifact storage spaces, the long term increase due to the new facility is
expected to be the 2 to 4 staff previously indicated.
Other – Please confirm that Smithsonian Institution will coordinate on-road transportation of large
objects with the appropriate agencies, including Fairfax County DOT and Virginia DOT, when
appropriate.
Response: Yes, the Smithsonian Institution will coordinate all on-road transportation with
the appropriate agencies, to include VDOT, MDOT, Virginia and Maryland State Police,
DC Police, Capitol Police, National Park Service, etc. Note: There will definitely be large
deliveries, both associated with revitalization of the NASM National Mall Building and as a
regular course of NASM operations.
Notice of Availability
Draft Environmental Assessment
National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (NEPA) (42 US.C. 4321, et
seq.) and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Smithsonian Institution, in cooperation with
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority and the Federal Aviation Administration, has
prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the National Air and Space Museum
Dulles Collections Center at Washington Dulles International Airport, in Fairfax County, Virginia.
The Draft EA is being made available to the public and federal and local government agencies
for review and comment. The record will be open for comment from July 13, 2016 until 5:00
p.m. August 11, 2016. Please send all written comments and inquiries to Ms. Jane Passman,
Senior Facilities Master Planner, Smithsonian Institution, PO Box 37012, MRC 511,
Washington, DC 20013-7012 or by email at passmj@si.edu.
A copy of the Draft EA is available for public review at the following locations: Chantilly Regional
Library, 4000 Stringfellow Road, Chantilly, VA 20151; Centreville Regional Library, 14200 St.
Germain Drive, Centreville, VA 20121; and Sterling Library, 120 Enterprise Street, Sterling, VA
20164. The Draft EA may also be accessed online at http://www.mwaa.com/about/public-notice-
july-13-2016.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying
information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment – including your personal
identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in
your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
COMMONWEALTHofVIRGINIA
DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTALQUALITY
Streetaddress: 629 EastMainStreet, Richmond,Virginia23219
Molly JosephWard Mailingaddress: P.O. Box 1105, Richmond,Virginia23218 David K. Paylor
SecretaryofNatural Resources
Fax: 804-698-4019-TDD(804) 698-4021 Director
www.deq. virginia.gov
(804)698-4020
1-800-592-5482
August 25, 2016
Jane Passman
Senior Facilities Master Planner
P. O. Box 37012 MRC 511
Washington, DC 20013-7012
RE: Comments on the ShortEnvironmental Assessment and Federal Consistency

Determination forthe Collections Storage Facilityat the National Airand Space
Museum Duties Collections Center at Washington Dulles International Airport
proposed by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Smithsonian Institution,
Fairfax and Loudoun Counties (DEQ 16-159F).
Dear Ms. Passman:
The Commonwealth of Virginia has completed its review of the above-referenced

documents. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is responsible for
coordinating Virginia's review of federal environmental documents submitted under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and responding to appropriate federal
officials on behalf ofthe Commonwealth. DEQ is also responsible for coordinating
Virginia's review of federal consistency documents submitted pursuant to the Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA) and providing the state's response. This is in response
to the Short Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Federal Consistency
Determination (FCD) included in Appendix 10 of the EA, received July 11,'2016, for the
above referenced project. The following agencies and locality participated in the review
of this proposal:
Department of Environmental Quality

Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR)
Department of Health (VDH)
Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Fairfax County
Collections Storage Facility - NASM Dulles Collections Center
EAandFCD, 16-159F
In addition, the Department of Historic Resources (DHR), Department of Game and

Inland Fisheries (DGIF), the Department ofAviation (DOAV), the Northern Virginia
Regional Commission, and Loudon County were invited to comment on the proposal.
PROJECTDESCRIPTION
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is working in conjunction with the

Smithsonian Institution (Sl) on the proposed Collections Storage Facility at the National
Airand Space Museum (NASM) Duties Collections Centeradjacent to the Steven F.
Udyar-Hazy Center (UHC) located in Chantilly, Fairfax County, VA. The Sl operates the
Dulles Collections Center undera long-term leasewiththe Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority (MWAA). The project involves the construction of new collections
space in the form of storage modules and would provide space to relocate NASM
collections from the Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration, and Storage Facility. The
modules would also accommodate NASM's collections from the Ramsey'building at
Dulles, collections growth, objects from other collecting units, and provide extra space
during renovations and relocations. The proposed project is part of the NASM Master
Plan and a pan-Smithsonian Collections Space Framework Plan that recommends
additional collections space Three alternatives wereconsidered withAlternative 3 being
the preferred alternative. Alternative 3 consists oftwothree-story collections storage
modules (60 feet tail) plus a single-story (45 feet tall) free span module. This alternative
would provide 241, 880 net square feet of collections storage space and is the only
alternative that provides enough spaceto storethe NASM'scollection andtheswing
space needed forthe National Mail Museum renovation. The construction ofanyofthe
alternatives would result in 2. 75 acres of land disturbance on a vacant parcel of'land
that was previously disturbed during the construction of the UHC
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
1. Water Quality and Wetlands. The EA (page 14) states that no jurisdictional or non-
jurisdictional wetlands are present on the project site. The National Wetlands Inventory
was consulted and no wetlands were identified. The site is previously disturbed and
consists of maintained lawn (EA, page 23).
1(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The State Water Control Board promulgates Virginia's water
regulations covering a variety of permits to include the Virginia Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit (VPDES) regulating point source discharges to surface
waters, Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit regulating sewage sludge, storage and
land application of biosolids, industrial wastes (sludge'and wastewater), municipal
wastewater, and animal wastes, the Surface and Groundwater Withdrawal Permit, and
the Virginia Water Protection fVWP) Permit regulating impacts to streams, wetlands,
and other surface waters. The VWP permit is a state permit which governs wetlands,
surface water, and surface waterwithdrawals and impoundments. "Italso serves as
§401 certification ofthe federal Clean WaterAct §404 permits for dredge and fill
activities in waters of the U. S. The VWP Permit Program is under the Office of
Collections Storage Facility- NASM Dulles Collections Center
EAandFCD, 16-159F
Wetlands and Stream Protection, within the DEQ Division ofWater Permitting. In
addition to central office staff that review and issue VWP permits for transportation and
water withdrawal projects, the six DEQ regional offices perform permit application
reviews and issue permits for the covered activities:
. Clean Water Act, §401 ;

. Section 404(b)(i) Guidelines Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement (2/90);
. State Water Control Law, Virginia Code section 62. 1 -44. 15:20 e?see?.; and
. State Water Control Regulations, 9 VAC 25-210-10.
1(b) Agency Findings. The DEQ Northern Regional Office (NRO) did not indicate that
wetlands or surface waters would be impacted by the project.
Fairfax County commented that none ofthe alternatives would impact wetlands.
1(c) Recommendation. Impacts to wetlands and surface waters should be avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
1(d) Conclusion. As designed, the project is consistent with the wetlands management
enforceable policy ofthe Virginia Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program.
2. Non-Point Source Pollution Control. The EA (page 14) states that 2. 75 acres of
land disturbance will occur. An erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan and
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared to minimize exposed soils
eroding into nearby waterbodies.
2(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The DEQ Office of Stormwater Management administers

the following laws and regulations governing construction activities:
. Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control (ECS) Law(§ 62. 1-44. 15:51 et seq. ) and
Regulations (9VAC25-840) (VESCL&R);
. Virginia Stormwater Management Act (§ 62. 1-44. 15:24 et seq. ) (VSWML);
. Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) regulation (9VAC25-(
(VSWMR}; and
. 2014 General Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit
for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities (9VAC25-880).
In addition, DEQ is responsible for the Virginia Stormwater Management Program
(VSMP) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities related
to Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) and construction activities for the
control of stormwater discharges from MS4s and land disturbing activities under the
Virginia Stormwater Management Program (9VAC25-890-40).
2(b) Requirements. The DEQ Office of Stormwater Management did not comment on
the proposed project. Regulatory guidance on stormwater management and erosion
and sediment controls is provided below.
3
EAandFCD, 16-159F
(i) Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management Plans

The Sl is responsible for submitting a project-specific erosion and sediment control
(ESC) plan to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority (MWAA) for review and
approval. The MWAA and its authorized agents conducting regulated land-disturbing
activitieson Private and Public lands in the state must comply with the VESCL&R,
VSWML&Randotherapplicablefederal nonpoint source pollution mandates (e. g. Clean
WaterAct-Section 313, federal consistency underthe Coastal ZoneManagementAct).
Clearing and grading activities, installation of staging areas, parking lots, roads,
buildings, utilities, or other structures, soil/dredge spoil areas, or refated land conversion
activities that disturb greater than 2, 500 square feet would be regulated bythe
VESCL&R and VSWML&R. Accordingly, the 81 must prepare and implement erosion
and sediment control (ESC) and stormwater management (SWM) plans to ensure
compliance with state lawand regulations. The MWAA is ultimately responsible for
achieving project compliance through oversight ofon-site contractors, regularfield
inspection, prompt action against non-compliant sites, and/or other mechanisms
consistent with agency policy.
(ii) General VPDESPermit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction

Activities (VAR10)
The operator orownerofa construction activityinvolving land disturbance ofequalto or
greater than 1 acre is required to register for coverage under the General VPDES
Permitfor DischargesofStormwaterfrom Construction Activities anddevelop a project
specificstormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).TheSWPPPmust be prepared
prior to submission ofthe registration statement for coverage underthe General Permit
andtheSWPPPmustaddresswaterqualityand quantity in accordancewiththe Virginia
Stormwater Management Program Regulations. General information and registration
forms for the General Permit are available on DEQ's website at
www. dea. virQinia. aov/Proarams/Water/StormwaterManaaement/VSMPPermits/Constru
ctionGenera IPerm it.asDx.
2(c) Conclusion. Provided adherence to the above requirements, the project is

consistent with the non-point source pollution control enforceable policy of the CZM
Program.
3- Chesapeake BayPreservation Areas/Coastal Lands Management. The EA(page

15) states that the project is located within a Resource Management Area (RMA) as
designated by the Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance. No
Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) will be impacted. Cain Brach, which is within the
RPA, is located approximately 650 feet southwest ofthe project area; an erosion and
sediment control plan and stormwater pollution prevention plan will be implemented to
avoid sedimentation of Cain Branch.
3(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The DEQOffice of Local Government Programs

administers the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Virginia Code §62.~1-44. 15:67 et
Collections Storage Facility - NASM Duties Collections Center
EAandFCD, 16-159F
seq.) and Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management

Regulations (9_VAC25-830-10etseq.). EachTidewaterlocality musfadopt a program
based_on the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Area Designation and Management Regulations. The Act and regulations recognize
local government responsibility for land use decisions and are designed to establish a
framework for compliance without dictating precisely whatlocal programs must look like.
Localgovernments haveflexibilityto develop waterquality preservation programs that
reflect unique local characteristics and embody other community goals. Such flexibility
also facilitates innovative and creative approaches in achieving program objectives.
The regulations address nonpoint source pollution by identifying and protecting certain
lands called Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. The regulations use a resource-
based approach that recognizes differences between various land forms and treats
them differently.
3(b) Agency Comments. In Fairfax County, the areas protected bythe Chesapeake
Bay Preservation Act, as locally implemented, require conformance with performance
criteria. These areas include RPAs and RMAs as designated bythe local government.
RPAs include tidal wetlands, certain non-tidal wetlands and tidal shores, and a minimum
100-foot vegetated buffer area located adjacent to and landward of these features and
along both sides ofanywater bodywith perennial flow. RMAs, which require less
stringent performance criteria, include all areas ofthe County outside ofdesignated
RPAs.
Federal actions on federal lands located within TidewaterVirginia are required to be

consistent with the performance criteria ofthe Regulations on lands analogous to locally
designated RPAs/RMAs. There are no wetlands or lands analogous to RPAs on the
project site.
3(c) Agency Requirement. Development on lands analogous to RMAs issubjectto

general performance criteria found in 9 VAC 25-830-130 ofthe Regulations, including
requirements to:
. minimize land disturbance (including access and staging areas);

. retain indigenous vegetation; and
. minimize post-development impervious surfaces.
For land disturbance over2, 500 square feet, the project must comply with:
. the requirements ofthe Virginia Erosion & Sediment Control Handbook, Third
Edition, 1992; and
. stormwater management criteria consistent with water quality protection
provisions of the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations (9 VAC 25-870-
EAandFCD, 16-159F
3(d) Conclusion. Provided adherence with the above requirements as provided in

§9VAC25-830-130 ofthe Regulations, the proposed activity would be consistent with
the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and the Regulations.
4. Air Pollution Control. The EA(page 10)states thatthe construction activitywould

create temporary air emissions including fugitive dust and exhaust from construction
equipment. Long-term airquality impacts would be limited to the operation of heating
equipment and emergency generators. The project would not result in a long-term
increase in vehicular traffic.
4(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The DEQAir Division, on behalfof the State Air Pollution
contro1
B?al"dl is resPC)nsible for developing regulations that implement Virginia's Air
Pollution Control Law(Virginia Code §10. 1-1300 etseq. ). DEQ'is charged with carrying
out mandates ofthe state lawand related regulations as well as Virginia'sfederal
obligations under the Clean AirAct as amended in 1 990. The objective is to protect and
enhance public health and quality of life through control and mitigation of air pollution.
The division ensures the safety and quality ofairinVirginia by monitoring and analyzing
air quality data, regulating sources of air pollution, and working with local, state and
federal agenciesto plan and implement strategies to protect Virginia'sairquality. The
appropriate DEQregional office is directly responsible forthe issuance of necessary
permits to construct and operate all stationary sources in the region as well as
monitoring emissions from these sources for compliance. In the case of certain projects,
additional evaluation and demonstration must be made underthe general conformity
provisions of state and federal law.
The Air Division regulates emissions of air pollutants from industries and facilities and
implements programs designed to ensure that Virginia meets national air quality
standards. The most common regulations associated with major projects are:
. Open burning: 9VAC5-130efseg.
. Fugitive dust control: 9 VAC 5-50-60 et seq.
. Permits for fuel-burning equipment: 9 VAC 5-80-1100 etseq.
4(b) Agency Findings. The DEQAir Division determined that the project area is
located in anozone non-attainment andemission control areaforoxidesofnitrogen
(NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) area. Precursors to ozone (Os) pollutic
include VOCs and NOx.
4(c)_Recommendation. Take all reasonable precautions to limit emissions of NOxand

VOCs, principally by controlling or limiting the burning of fossil fuels.
4(d) Requirements.
(i) Fugitive Dust

During construction, fugitive dust must be kept to a minimum by using control methods
Collections Storage Facility - NASM Duties Collections Center
EA and FCD, 16-159F
outlined in 9 VAC 5-50-60 et seq. of the Regulations for the Control and Abatement of
Air Pollution. These precautions include, but are not limited to, the following:
. Use, where possible, ofwater or chemicals for dust control;
. Installation and use of hoods, fans, and fabric filters to enclose and vent the
handling of dusty materials;
. Covering of open equipment for conveying materials; and
. Prompt removal ofspilled ortracked dirt or other materials from paved streets
and removal of dried sediments resulting from soil erosion.
(ii) Open Burning

If project activities include the open burning of construction material or the use of
special incineration devices, this activity must meet the requirements under 9 VAC 5-
130 et seq. ofthe Regulations for open burning, and may require a permit. The
Regulations provide for, but do not require, the local adoption of a model ordinance
concerning open burning. The applicant should contact local officials to determine what
local requirements, if any, exist.
(iii) Fuel-Burning Equipment

Shouldthe proposed project require the installation offuel-burning equipment (boilers,
generatore etc), or other air pollution emitting equipment, the project may be subject to
9 VAC 5-80, Article 6, Permits for New and Modified sources.
(iv) Asphalt Paving

A Precaution, whichtypically appliesto roadconstruction and paving work(9 VAC5-45-
780 et seq.), places limitations on the use of"cut-back" (liquefied asphalt cement,
blended with petroleum solvents), and may apply to the project. The asphalt must be
"emulsified" (predominantly cement andwaterwith a small amount ofemulsifying agent)
except when specified circumstances apply. Moreover, there are time-of-year
restrictions on its use from April through October in VOC emission control areas.
4(e) Conclusion. Provided adherence to the above requirements, the project is

consistent withthe airpollution control enforceable policy ofthe Virginia CZM Program.
5. Solidand Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials. The UHC, adjacentto the
project site, has two underground petroleum storage tanks on site (EA, page 16). No
releases from the UHC have been reported. Three petroleum releases have occurred in
the vicinity, but are located over halfa mile from the site. The EA concludes that the
presence ofcontamination within the project area is unlikely. Solid waste generated
duringthe construction ofthe Collections Storage Facilitywill be removecTby a private
waste removal company and disposed of in accordance with waste regulations (EA,
page 17).
5(a)_Agency Jurisdiction. On behalf of the Virginia Waste Management Board, the

DEQDivisionofLandProtection and Revitalization is responsible forcarrying outthe
7
EAandFCD, 16-159F
mandates ofthe Virginia Waste Management Act (Virginia Code §10. 1-1400 et seq. ), as
well as meeting Virginia's federal obligations under the Resource"Conservation and
RecoveryAct andtheComprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability
Act, commonly known as Superfund. The DEQ Division of Land Protection and
Revitalization also administers those laws and regulations on behalf of the State Water
Control Board governing Petroleum Storage Tanks (Virginia Code §62. 1-44. 34:8 et
se<7. ), includingAboveground StorageTanks(9VAC25-91 etseq. ) and Underground
StorageTanks_(9VAC25-580 etseq. and 9VAC25-580-370 etseq.), also knownas
VirginiaTank Regulations', and§ 62. 1-44. 34:14et seq. whichcovers oil spills.
.
Virginia:
. Virginia Waste Management Act, Virginia Code §10. 1-1400 et seq.

. Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations, 9 VAC 20-81
o (9 VAC20-81-620 applies to asbestos-containing materials)
. Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, 9 VAC 20-60
o (9 VAC 20-60-261 applies to lead-based paints)
. Virginia Regulations for the Transportation of Hazardous Materials, 9 VAC 20-
110.
Federal:
. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U. S. Code sections 6901

etseq.
. U. S. Department of Transportation Rules for Transportation of Hazardous
Materials, 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107
. Applicable rules contained in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
5(b)AgencyFindings DEQ'sDivisionofLandProtection and Revitalization (DLPR)
determined that both solid and hazardous waste issues and sites were addressed in the
report. DLPRstaffconducted a cursory database search (500-foot radius) and did not
identifyanywastesites in close proximitywhich might impactthe project activity.
Additionally, nowastesites ofpossible concern werefoundwithinthe samezipcode.
5(c) Recommendation. DEQ encourages all projects and facilities to implement
pollution prevention principles, including:
o the reduction, reuse and recycling of all solid wastes generated; and
o the minimization and proper handling of generated hazardous wastes.
5(d) Requirements.
(i) Contaminated Waste

Any soil that is suspected ofcontamination orwastes that are generated must be tested
and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and
regulations.
EAandFCD, 16-159F
(ii) Fuel Storage Tanks

The removal, relocation or closure or installation/operation ofany regulated petroleum
storage tanks, aboveground storage tank (AST) or underground storage tank (UST),
must be conducted in accordance with the requirements ofthe Virginia Tank
Regulations 9 VAC25-91-10et seq. (AST) and/ or9 VAC25-58CMOet seq. (UST).
(iii) Petroleum Release Sites
Ifevidence ofa petroleum release is discovered during implementation ofthis project, it
must be reported to DEQ, as authorized by Virginia Code § 62. 1-44. 34. 8 through 9 and
9 VAC 25-580-10 et seq.
6. Pesticides and Herbicides. DEQ recommends that the use of herbicides or

pesticides for construction or landscape maintenance should be in accordance with the
principles of integrated pest management. The least toxic pesticides that are effective in
controlling the target species should be used to the extent feasible. Contact the
Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Services at (804) 786-3501 for more
information.
7. Natural Heritage Resources. According to the EA (page 13), the project area
consists of maintained lawn with no natural vegetation or habitat. Habitat'destruction will
not occur. Prior consultation with DCR has been completed.
7(a) Agency Jurisdiction.
(i) The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's (OCR) Division of

Natural Heritage fDNH). DNH'smission is conserving Virginia'sbiodiversity
through inventory, protection and stewardship. The Virginia Natural Area
Preserves Act (Virginia Code §10. 1-209 through 217), authorized DCR to
maintain a statewide database for conservation planning and project review,
protect land for the conservation of biodiversity, and the protect and ecologically
manage the natural heritage resources of Virginia (the habitats of rare,
threatened and endangered species, significant natural communities, geologic
sites, and other natural features).
(ii) The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS): The
Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act of 1979 (Virginia Code Chapter 39
§3. 1-1020through 1030)authorizesVDACSto conserve, protect and manage
endangered and threatened species of plants and insects. Under a Memorandum
ofAgreement established between VDACSand the DCR, DCR represents
VDACS in comments regarding potential impacts on state-listed threatened and
endangered plant and insect species.
7(b) Agency Findings. DCR DNH has searched its Biotics Data System for
occurrences of natural heritage resources from the area outlined on the submitted map
Collections Storage Facility- NASM Duties Collections Center
EAandFCD, 16-159F
The Cub Run Stream Conservation Unit(SCU) is located downstream from the project
site and has been given ^biodiversity ranking of B5 which represents a site ofgeneral
biodiversity significance. The natural heritage resource associated with this site is the
wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta, G3/S2/NL/LT).
Threats to the Wood turtle include habitat fragmentation, urbanization, and automobile
mortality. The Wood turtle is currently classified asthreatened bythe DGIF. In addition,
Cub Run has been designated by the DGIF as a "Threatened and Endangered Soeck
Waters"for the Wood turtle.
(i) State-listed Plant and Insect Species

DCR DNHdetermined thatthe proposed activity will not affect anydocumented state-
listed threatened or endangered plants or insects.
(ii) State Natural Area Preserves

DCR's files do not indicate the presence of any State Natural Area Preserves underthe
agency's jurisdiction in the project vicinity.
7(c) Additional Information. The DGIFmaintains a database ofwildlife locations,

including threatened and endangered species, trout streams, and anadromous fish
waters that may contain additional information. Their database may be accessed from
httD://vafwis. ora/fwis/ or contact Ernie Aschenbach at 804-367-2733 or
Ernie. Aschenbach(5)dciif. Virginia. aov.
7(d) Recommendation. Implement and strictly adhere to applicable state and local
erosion and sediment control/storm water management laws and regulations.
Coordinate with DGIF directly regarding protection of the state-listecf threatened wood
turtle.
Contact DCR-DNHto secure updated information on natural heritage resources ifthe

scope of the project changes and/or six months has passed before'it is utilized. New
and updated information is continually added to the Biotics Data System.
8. Water Supply. According to the DEA (page 25), there are no sole source aquifers
located in the vicinity ofthe project site. No impacts to surface waters are anticipated
(page 24).
8(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) Office of Drinking
Water reviews projects for the potential to impact public drinking water sources
(groundwater wells, springs and surface water intakes). VDH administers both federal
and state laws governing waterworks operation.
8(b) Agency Findings. VDH-ODWfound that there are no public groundwater wells
within a 1-mile radius of the project site and no surface water intakes located within a 5-
mile radiusofthe project site. The project is within the watershed ofthe Occoquan
10
EAandFCD, 16-159F
Reservoir public surface water intake for the Fairfax County Water Authority.
8(c) Requirement. Potential impacts to public waterdistribution systems must be
verified by the local utility.
9. Transportation Impacts. The EA does not address impacts to transportation.
9(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The Virginia Department ofTransportation (VDOT) provides

comments pertaining to potential impacts to existing and future transportation systems.
9(b) Agency Findings. The VDOT Northern Virginia District staffcommented that the
proposed project will not impact existing or proposed VDOT infrastructure. The
proposed work is within airport property and is not anticipated to generate many
additional trips.
9(c) Recommendation. Ifthe scopeoftheworkchangesandwork became necessary

in the VDOT operated and maintained right-of-way, compliance with applicable state
andfederal environmental lawswould be the responsibility ofthe project owner.
10. Historic and Archeological Resources. The EA(page 16) indicates that DHR has
been consulted on this project and determined that no historic properties will be
affected.
10(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The Department of Historic Resources (DHR) conducts

reviews of projects to determine their effect on historic structures or cultural resources
under itsjurisdiction. DHR, as the designated State's Historic Preservation Office,
ensures that federal actions comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1962 (NHPA), as amended, and its implementing regulation at 36
CFR Part 800. The NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of federal
projects on properties that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. Section 106 also applies ifthere are any federal involvements, such as
licenses, permits, approvals or funding. DHR also provides comments to DEQthrough
the state environmental impact report review process.
10(b) Agency Findings. DHR did not comment on the proposal.
10(c) Recommendation. If necessary, continue to coordinate with DHR pursuant to

Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its
implementing regulation 36 CFR Part 800
11. Local Comments.
11(a) Agency Jurisdiction. In accordance with 15 CFR Part 930, Subpart A, §

930. 6(b) ofthe Federal Consistency Regulations, DEQ, on behalfof the state, is
responsible for securing necessary review and comment from other state agencies, the
11
EAandFCD, 16-159F
public, regional government agencies, and local government agencies, in determining

the Commonwealth's concurrence or objection to a federal consistency certification.
11(b) Local Comments. Fairfax County reviewed the project and stated that none of
the alternatives will have an impact on existing wetland, water or forest resources. The
project site is currently vacant land that has been previously cleared and prepared for
future development. FairfaxCountydoes notanticipate negative environmental impacts
to result from this project.
12. Pollution Prevention. DEQadvocates that principles of pollution prevention and

sustainability be used in all construction projects as well as in facility operations.
Effective siting, planning, and on-site Best Management Practices (BMPs) will help to
ensure that environmental impacts are minimized. However, pollution prevention and
sustainability techniques also include decisions related to construction materials,
design, and operational procedures that will facilitate the reduction of wastes at the
source.
12(a) Recommendations. We have several pollution prevention recommendations that

may be helpful in constructing or operating this facility:
. cor1sicler development of an effective Environmental Management System

(EMS). An effective EMSwill ensure that the proposed facility is committed to
complying with environmental regulations, reducing risk, minimizing
environmental impacts, setting environmental goals, and achieving
improvements in its environmental performance. DEQoffers EMS development
assistance and recognizes facilities with effective Environmental Management
Systems through its Virginia Environmental Excellence Program (VEEP). VEEP
provides recognition, annual permit fee discounts, and the possibility for
alternative compliance methods.
. Consider environmental attributes when purchasing materials. Forexample, the
extent of recycled material content, toxicity level, and amount of packaging
should be considered and can be specified in purchasing contracts.
. Consider energy efficiency when choosing materials and products, like insulation,
fixtures, and HVAC systems.
. Consider contractors' commitment to the environment when choosing
contractors. Specifications regarding raw materials and constructiorTpractices
can be included in contract documents and requests for proposals.
. Choose sustainable materials and practices for building construction and design.
. Integrate pollution prevention techniques into the facility maintenance and
operation, to include inventory control for centralized storage of hazardous
materials. Maintenance facilities should have sufficient and suitable space to
allow for effective inventory control and preventive maintenance.
DEQ's Office of Pollution Prevention provides information and technical assistance

relating to pollution prevention techniques and EMS. If interested, please contact
12
EAandFCD, 16-159F
Meghann Quinn, (804) 698-4021
13. Water Conservation. The following recommendations will result in reduced water
use associated with the operation of the facility.
. Grounds should be landscaped with hardy native plant species to conserve water
as well as minimize the need to use fertilizers and pesticides.
. Convert turf to lowwater-use landscaping such as drought resistant grass,
plants, shrubs and trees.
. Consider installing low-flow restrictors/aerators to faucets.
. Improve irrigation practices by:
o upgrading with a sprinkler clock; watering at night, if possible, to reduce
evapotranspiration (lawns need only 1 inch of water per week and do not
need to be watered daily; over watering causes 85 percent of turf problems);
o installing a rain shutoff device; and
o collecting rainwater with a rain bucket orcistern system with drip lines.
. Check for and repair leaks during routine maintenance activities.
14. Energy Conservation. The proposed facility should be planned and designed to
comply with state and federal guidelines and industry standards for energy conservation
and efficiency. The commonwealth encourages architectural and engineering designers
to recognize and incorporate the energy, environmental, and sustainability concepts
listed in the LEEDGreen Building Rating System into the development and
procurement of their projects.
The energy efficiency of the facilities can be enhanced by maximizing the use of the
following:
. thermally-efficient building shell components (roof, wall, floor, windows, and

insulation);
. facility siting and orientation with consideration towards natural lighting and solar
loads;
. high efficiency heating, ventilation, air conditioning systems;
. high efficiency lighting systems and daylighting techniques; and
. energy-efficientappliances.
Contact the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, David Spears at (434)951
6350, for assistance in meeting this challenge.
13
EAandFCD, 16-159F
FEDERALCONSISTENCYUNDER THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (§ 1456(c)), as amended, and
theêderaLconsistency re9ulations implementing the CZMA (15CFR Part 930, Subpart
. ; § 930-30 et se(7-)' federal actions that can have reasonablyforeseeable effects on
Virginia's coastal uses or resources must be conducted in a manner which is consistent.
tothe maximumjixtent practicable, withthe Virginia Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
Program. The CZM Program is comprised ofa network ofprograms administered by
several agencies. In orderto be consistent withthe CZM Program, the federal agency
must obtain all the applicable permits and approvals listed under the enforceable
policies ofthe CZM Program priorto commencing the project.
Federal Consistency Public Participation
!n ^, ccâJ?c^ with 15CFR§ 930-2' Publicnotice ofthe Proposed actionwaspublished
lnAheOEIRpro9ram Newsletter andon DEQ'swebsitefrom July 14, 2016to'August 9,
2016. No public comments were received in response to the notice.
Federal Consistency Documentation
A Federal Consistency Determination forthe proposed Collections Storage Facility was
included inthe EAasAppendix 10. The document provided an analysis ofthe project's
impact on each ofthe nine enforceable policies. According to the FCD, the project will
be consistent with each ofthe enforceable policies and will have no significant impact
on Virginia'scoastal zone.
The FCDstates thatthe proposed activitywill have no effectonthefollowing

enforceable policies ofthe Coastal Zone Management Program: fisheries management,
subaqueous lands, dunes management, point source pollution control, wetlands
management and shoreline sanitation.
The project will have a minor effect on air pollution control due to dust and emissions
generated during construction as well emissions from emergency generators when in
use. Ground disturbance may result in an increase in stormwater runoff and erosion and
the VAR 10 VDPES permit for discharges of stormwater from construction activities will
be obtained. The project is expected to have less than significant impacts to coastal
lands (RMAs) and all erosion and sediment control and stormwater management
requirements will befollowed. These impacts andjurisdictional agency comments,
recommendations, and requirements are discussed above in the "Environmental
Impacts and Mitigation" section of this document.
Federal Consistency Concurrence

Based on our review ofthe FCD and the comments submitted by agencies
administering theenforceable policiesofthe CZM Program, DEQfindsthatthe proposal
is consistent with the CZM Program provided all applicable permits and approvals are
obtained as described below in the Regulatory and Coordination Needs section.
However, other state approvals which may applyto this project are not included in this
consistency concurrence. Therefore, the Smithsonian Institute must ensure that this
14
EAandFCD, 16-159F
project is operated in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and
regulations.
REGULATORY AND COORDINATION NEEDS
1. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control.
1(a) Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management. The Sl and
MWAA must ensure that this project is in compliance with Virginia's Erosion and
Sediment Control Law (Virginia Code § 62. 1-44. 15:61) and Regulations (9 VAC 25-840-
30 etseq. ) and Stormwater Management Law (Virginia Code § 62. 1-44. 15:31) and
Regulations (9 VAC 25-870-210 et seq.). Land-disturbing activities of equal to or greater
than 2, 500 square feet or more in a Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area would be
regulated by VESCL&R and VSWML&R.
Erosion and sediment control, and stormwater management questions should be

directed to the DEQ Northern Regional Office (NRO) at (703) 583-3800.
1(b) Virginia Stormwater Management Program General Permit for Stormwater

Discharges from Construction Activities (VAR10). For projects involving land-
disturbing activities of equal to or greater than one acre the applicant is required to
register for coverage under the Virginia Stormwater Management Program General
Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities (9 VAC 25-870-1 et
seq. ). Specific questions regarding the Stormwater Management Program
requirements should be directed to DEQ, Holly Sepety at (804) 698-4039.
2. Air Quality Regulations. Guidance on minimizing the emission ofVOCs and NOx
during construction may be obtained from DEQ-NRO. Activities associated with this
project may be subject to air regulations administered by DEQ. The installation of fuel
burning equipment (e. g. boilers and generators), may require a permit (9 VAC 5-50-10
et seq. and 9 VAC 5-80-10 et seq. ) prior to construction. For additional information and
coordination concerning potential requirements for air pollution control, contact DEQ-
NRO at (703) 583-3800.
3. Solid and Hazardous Wastes. All solid waste, hazardous waste, and hazardous
materials must be managed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local
environmental regulations.
For additional information concerning location and availability of suitable waste

management facilities in the project area or if free product, discolored soils, or other
evidence of contaminated soils are encountered, contact DEQ NRO at (703) 583-3800.
4. Natural Heritage Resources. Contact DCR-DNH, Rene Hypes at (804) 371-2708, to

secure updated information on natural heritage resources if the scope of the project
15
EAandFCD, 16-159F
changes and/or six months has passed before the project is implemented, since new
and updated information is continually added to the Biotics Data System.
5. Protected Species. Coordinate with DGIF (Amy Ewing, 804-367-2211) regarding the
potential impacts on the state-listed threatened wood turtle.
6. Coastal Lands Management. The project must be conducted in a manner that is

consistent with the coastal lands management enforceable policy of the CZM Program
as administered by DEQ pursuant to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Virginia
Code §62. 1-44. 15 et seq.) and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and
Management Regulations (9 VAC 25-830 et. seq. ).
For additional information and coordination, contact DEQ-OLGP, Daniel Moore at (804)
698-4520.
7. Historic Resources. If necessary, continue to coordinate with DHR pursuant to

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its
implementing regulation 36 CFR Part 800.
8. Water Distribution and Sewage Collection System. Impacts on the public water
distribution and sanitary sewer collection system must be verified with the local utility
Contact VDH (Arlene Warren, 804-864-7781) with questions.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the Environmental Assessment
and Federal Consistency Determination for the Collections Storage Facility at the
National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center in Fairfax. Detailed
comments of reviewing agencies are attached for your review. Please contact me at
(804) 698-4204 or Janine Howard at (804) 698-4299 for clarification of these comments.
Sincerely,
Bettina Sullivan, Program Manager

Environmental Impact Review
Ec: Amy Ewing, DGIF

Robbie Rhur, DCR
Roy Soto, VDH
Roger Kirchen, DM R
16
EAandFCD, 16-159F
Chip Ray, VDOT

Jim Cromwell, VDOT
Liz Jordan, VDOT
Susan Stafford, FAA
Erik Schwenke, MWAA
Greg Wollard, MWAA
Rusty Harrington, DOAV
Mark Gibb, Northern Virginia Regional Commission
Denise James, Fairfax County
Tim Hemstreet, Loudoun County
Joan Glynn, Stantec Consulting Services, LLC
Jane Passman, Smithsonian Institution
17

Molly Joseph Ward Rochelle Altholz
Secretan' of Natural Resources
Deputy Director of
Administration and Finance
Clyde E. Cristman
Director David C. Dowling
Deputy Director of
Soil and Water Conservation
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA and Dtim Safety'
Thomas L. Smith
DEPARTMENTOF CONSERVATIONAND RECREATION
Depiit)' Director of Operations
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 9, 2016
TO: JanineHoward, DEQ
FROM: Roberta Rhur, Environmental Impact Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: DEQ 16-159F, National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center Short EA
Division of Natural Heritaee
The Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural Heritage CDCR) has searched its
Biotics DataSystem for occurrences ofnatural heritageresources from the area outlined on the submitted
map. Natural heritage resources are defined as the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and
animal species, unique or exemplary natural communities, andsignificant geologic formations.
According to the information currently in our files, the Cub Run Stream Conservation Unit [SCU) is located
downstream from the project site. SCUs identify stream reaches that contain aquatic natural heritage
resources, including 2 miles upstream and 1 mile downstream of documented occurrences, and all
tributaries within this reach. SCUs are also given a biodiversity significance ranking based on the rarity,
quality, and number of element occurrences they contain. The Cub Run SCU has been given a biodiversity
ranking of B5, which represents a site ofgeneral biodiversity significance. The natural heritage resource
associated with this site is:
Gtyptemys insculpta Wood turtle G3/S2/NL/LT
The Wood turtle ranges from southeastern Canada, south to the Great Lake states and New England. In
Virginia, it is know from northern counties within the Potomac River drainage [NatureServe, 2009). The
Wood turtle inhabits areas with clear streams with adjacent forested floodplains and nearby fields, wet
meadows, and farmlands [Buhlmann et al., 2008; Mitchell, 1994). Since this species overwinters on the
bottoms ofcreeks andstreams, a primary habitatrequirement isthe presence ofwater (Mitchell, 1994).
Threats to the Woodturtle include habitat fragmentation, urbanization, andautomobile or farm machinery
mortality (Buhlmann et al., 2008). Please note that the Wood turtle is currently classified asthreatened by
the Virginia Department ofGame and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF).
In addition, Cub Run has been designated by the VDGIF as a "Threatened and Endangered Species Waters"
for the Wood turtle.
600EastMainStreet,24thFloor Richmond,Virginia23219 804-786-6124
State Parks . Soil and Water Conservation . Outdoor Recreation Planning

Natural Heritage . Dam Safety and FloodplainManagement . LandConservationAttachments: Page 101
To minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem as a result of the proposed activities, DCR
recommends the implementation ofand strict adherence to applicable state and locaferosion and sediment
control/storm water management laws and regulations. Due to the legal status of the Wood turtle, DCR
also recommends coordination with Virginia's regulatory authority for the management and protection of
tMs species, the VDGIF,to ensure compliance withtheVirginiaEndangeredSpeciesAct (VAST§§29. 1-563
Thereareno StateNaturalAreaPreserves underDCR'sjurisdiction intheprojectvicinity.

Under a Memorandum of Agreement established between the Virginia Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services [VDACS) andthe DCR, DCRrepresents VDACS in comments regarding potential impacts
on state-Iisted threatened and endangered plant and insect species. The current activity'will not affect any
documented state-Iisted plants or insects.
New and updated information is continually added to Biotics. Please re-submit project information and
map for an update on this natural heritage information if the scope of the project changes and/or six
months has passedbefore it is utilized.
The Virginia Department ofGame and Inland Fisheries [VDGIF) maintains a database ofwildlife locations,
includingthreatened andendangeredspecies,trout streams, andanadromousfishwatersthatmaycontain
information notdocumented inthisletter. Theirdatabasemaybeaccessedfrom http://vafwis. org/fwis/ or
contact ErnieAschenbach at 804-367-2733 or Ernie.AschenbachOdeif. virmnia. gov.
The remaining DCR divisions have no comments regarding the scope of this project. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment.
Cc:Amy Ewing,VDGIF

Literature Cited
Buhlmann, K,J. Tuberville, andW.Gibbons. 2008. Turtles ofthe southeast. University ofGeorgia Press.
Athens, GA. 252 pp.
Mitchell, J.C. 1994. Reptiles ofVirginia. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington. pp. 88-91.
Natureserve' 20?9' Natureserve Explorer: An online encyclopedia oflife [web application]. Version 7. 1.
!Sêserve' Arlington' Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve. org/explorer. CAccessed: April 8,

COMMONWEALTHofVIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Streetaddress: 629 EastMain Street,Richmond,Virginia23219
Molly JosephWard Mailingaddress:P.O. Box 1 105, Richmond,Virginia23218 DavidK. Paylor
SecretaryofNatural Resources www.deq.virginia.gov Director
(804) 698-4000
1-800-592-5482
MEMORANDUM
TO: Janine Howard, DEQ EIR Coordinator
FROM: Daniel Moore, Principal Environmental Planner
DATE: July 13, 2016
SUBJECT: DEQ #16-159F: FAA/Smithsonian - National Air and SPACE Museum Dulles
Collection Center Expansion, Fairfax County
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed project and offer the
following comments regarding consistency with the provisions of the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations (Regulations):
In Fairfax County, the areas protected by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, as locally
implemented, require confonnance with performance criteria. These areas include Resource
Protection Areas (RPAs) and Resource Management Areas (RMAs) as designated by the local
government. RPAs include tidal wetlands, certain non-tidal wetlands and tidal shores, and a
minimum 100-foot vegetated buffer area located adjacent to and landward of these features and
along both sides of any water body with perennial flow. RMAs, which require less stringent
performance criteria, include all areas of the County outside of designated RPAs. Areas within
the RMA are subject to the general performance criteria as specified in § 9VAC 25-830-130 of
the Regulations and the local ordinance. Projects within the RMA must minimize land
disturbance (including access and staging areas), retain existing vegetation and minimize *
impervious cover.
Federal actions on installations located within Tidewater Virginia are required to be consistent
with the performance criteria of the Regulations on lands analogous to locally designated
RPAs/RMAs as provided in §9VAC25-830-130 and 140 of the Regulations, including
compliance with the requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, and
stormwater management criteria consistent with water quality protection provisions of the
Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations. " For land disturbance over 2,500 square feet,

the project must comply with the requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook.
Based on the information contained in the EA submittal, the proposed project involves the
construction ofthree new storage buildings onpreviously disturbed land (currently a maintained
/awnarGSadjacenttotheSmithsonian NationalAirandSpaceMuseum StephenF.Udvar-Hazy
Center. Theproject wouldresult in241, 880additionalsquarefeetofstoragearea. Thereareno
wetlands on-site and no lands analogous to RPA. Provided adherence with the above
requirements as provided in §9VAC25-830-130 and 140 of the Regulations, the proposed
activitywouldbeconsistentwiththeChesapeakeBayPreservationActandtheRegulations'

Howard, Janine (DEQ)
From: Warren, Arlene (VDH)

Sent: Thursday, July28, 2016 10:50AM
To: Howard, Janine (DEQ)
Subject: RE: NEW PROJECTFAA 16-159F
Project Name: National Air and Space Museum Duties Collections Center
Project #: 16-159 F
UPC#:N/A
Location: Loudoun/FairfaxCounties
VDH - Office of Drinking Water has reviewed the above project. Below are our comments asthey relate to proximity to
public drinking water sources (groundwater wells, springs and surface water intakes). Potential impacts to public water
distribution systems or sanitary sewage collection systems must be verified by the local utility.
There are no publicgroundwaterwells withina 1 mile radiusofthe project site.
There are no surface water intakes located within a 5 mile radius ofthe project site.
The project iswithin the watershed ofthe following public surface watersources (intakes where the project falls within
5 miles into their watershed are formatted in bold):
PWSID SYSNAME FACNAME
6059501 FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY OCCOQUAN RESERVIOR INTAKE
Best regards,
Arlene Fields Warren

Virginia Department of Health,
Office of Drinking Water
James Madison Building
109 Governor St,
Richmond, VA 23219
804. 864. 7781
From: Fulcher, Valerie (DEQ)

Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:31 PM
To: dgif-ESS Projects (DGIF); Rhur, Robbie (DCR); odwreview (VDH); Dacey, Katy (DEQ); Narasimhan, Kotur (DEQ);
Gavan, Larry (DEQ); Moore, Daniel (DEQ); Sepety, Holly (DEQ); Burstein, Daniel (DEQ); Kirchen, Roger (DHR); Ray,
Alfred C. (VDOT); Cromwell, James R. (VDOT); Jordan, Elizabeth (VDOT); ama@novareaion. ora: coadmin(a)lo'udoun'. aov;
Denise.James@fairfaxcounty.gov; Harrington, Rusty N. (DOAV)
Cc: Howard, Janine(DEQ)
Subject: NEWPROJECTFAA 16-159F
Good afternoon - this is a new OEIR review request/project:
DocumentType: EA/FederalConsistency Determination

Project Sponsor: Federal Aviation Administration/SmithsonianInstitute
Project Title: National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
MEMORANDUM
TO: JanineHoward,DEQ/EIREnvironmentalProgramPlanner
FROM: Katy Dacey, Division of Land Protection & Revitalization Review Coordinator
DATE: July 15, 2016
COPIES: Sanjay Thirunagari, Division ofLand Protection & Revitalization Review Manager; file
SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Review: EIRProj No 16-159FNational Air and SpaceMuseum
Dulles Collection Center, Loudoun and Fairfax Counties, VA
The Division ofLand Protection & Revitalization (DLPR) has completed its cursory review ofthe
National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collection Center located at 14390 Air and Space Museum
Parkway, Chantilly, VA 20151
Project Scope: constmction ofthree collections storage buildings

Solidandhazardouswasteissues were addressedin the submittal. The submittal did indicatethat a
searchofFederal or Stateenvironmental databases wasconducted. DLPRstaffconducted a cursory
search (500 feet radius) of solid and hazardous waste databases for waste sites in close proximity to the
project area, and did not identify any waste sites in close proximity which might impact the project
activity. Additionally, no waste sites ofpossible concern were located within the same zip code, 20151.
TheDEQDLPRstaffhasreviewedthe submittal andoffers the following comments concerning possible
waste issues associated with this proposed project:
Hazardous Waste/RCRA Facilities - none in close proximity to theproject site
CERCLASites- nonein zip codeoftheprojectsite

FUDS -none
Solid Waste - none
VRP- none
Petroleum Releases nonein closeproximity to projectsite
GENERAL COMMENTS

Soil. Sediment,andWasteManasement
Anysoilthatissuspectedofcontamination orwastesthataregeneratedmustbetestedanddisposedofin
accordancewithapplicableFederal, State,andlocal lawsandregulations. Someoftheapplicable state
lawsandregulations are:VirginiaWasteManagement Act, CodeofVirginiaSection 10. 1-1400etseq.
Virginia Hazardous WasteManagement Regulations (VHWMR) (9VAC 20-60); Virginia SolidWaste
Management Regulations (VSWMR) (9VAC 20-81); VirginiaRegulations fortheTransportation of
HazardousMaterials (9VAC20-110). SomeoftheapplicableFederallawsandregulations are:the
Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA), 42U. S.C. Section 6901 etseq~, andtheapplicable
regulations contained inTitle 40oftheCodeofFederal Regulations; andtheU. S^Department of
Transportation Rules forTransportation ofHazardous Materials, 49 CFRPart 107
Pollution Prevention - Reuse - Recycline
PleasenotethatDEQencouragesallconstructionprojectsandfacilitiestoimplementpollutionprevention
principles, including thereduction reuse, andrecycling ofall solidwastes generated. All generation of
hazardous wastes shouldbeminimized andhandledappropriately.
Ifyouhaveanyquestions orneed further information, please contact KatyDaceyat (804) 698-4274.

Howard, Janine(DEQ)
From: Burstein, Daniel (DEQ)
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:08 AM
To: Howard, Janine (DEQ)
Subject: Re:_FAA/smithsonian lnstitute- National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center.
DEQ#16-159F-Review ' -----.-.. ---..-.,
NROCOmments regardingthe Environmental Assessment andFederal Consistency Determination forthe

FAA/Smithsonian Institute- National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center located in
Loudoun/Fairfax Counties, Virginia are as follows:
LandProtection Division- Theproject managerisremindedthatifanysolidorhazardouswasteis

generated/encountered during construction, theFAA would follow applicable federal, state, and i
regulations for their disposal.
Air CompUance/Permittmg - Theproject managerisreminded thatduringtheconstruction phasesthatoccur

??û!ir?^ct;. thepy<)Ject^ su1?Jec.t totheFugitiveDust/Fugitive EmissionsRule9 VAC5-50-60throuî 9
VAC5-50-120. Inaddition,shouldtheprojectinstall fuelburningequipment(Boilers, Generators,
Compressors, etc. ), oranyotherairpollution emitting equipment, theproject maybesubject to 9 VAC 5-80,
Article 6, j>ermitsjbr NewandModified sources andassuchtheproject manager should contact theAir Permit
ManagerDEQ-NROpriortoinstallationorconstruction, andoperation,offuefbumingorotherairponution
emittingequipment fora permittingdetermination. Lastly,shouldanyopenburningoruseofspecial
incinerationdevicesbeemployedinthedisposaloflandclearingdebrisduringdemolitionandconstruction, the
operation wouldbesubject to the OpenBurning Regulation 9 VAC 5-130-10through 9 VAC 5-130-60 and'9
VAC 5-130-100.
Iir8iâ^vater, protectionpermit^VWPP^Proeram- Theprojectmanagerisremindedthata VWPpermit

fromDEQmayberequired shouldimpacts to surfacewatersbenecessary. DEQVWPstaffrecommends that
theavoidanceandminimizationofsurfacewaterimpactstothemaximumextentpracticableasweUas
coordinationwiththeUSArmyCorpsofEngineers. Uponreceiptofa JointPermitApplication forthe
proposed surface waterimPacts' DEQvwp permit staffwill review theproposed project in accordance with
theVWPpermit program regulations andcurrent VWPpermit program guidance.
WaterPernuttms/VPDESProffram/Stormwater: Theprojectmanagerisremindedtofollowallapplicable
regulations related to stormwater management and erosion and sediment controls.
Daniel Burstein
Regional Enforcement Specialist, Senior II
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Northern Virginia Regional Office
13901 Crown Court
Woodbridge, VA22193
Phone:(703)583-3904
daniel. burstein(S), deq. Virginia,sov.

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISIONOF AIR PROGRAM COORDINATION
ENVIRONMENTALREVIEWCOMMENTSAPPLICABLETO AIR QUALITY
TO: Janine L. Howard DEQ - OEIA PROJECT NUMBER: DEQ #16-159F
PROJECTTYPE: D STATE EA/EIRXFEDERALEA/EIS D SCC
X CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
PROJECTTITLE: National Air and Space Museum Dulles Collections Center
PROJECT SPONSOR: Federal Aviation Administration/Smithsonian Institute
PROJECTLOCATION: X OZONE NONATTAINMENT

AND EMISSION CONTROL AREA FOR NOX & VOC
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTSMAY BE APPLICABLE TO: X CONSTRUCTION

D OPERATION
STATE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REGULATIONS THAT MAY APPLY-

9 VAC 5-40-5200 C & 9 VAC 5-40-5220 E - STAGE I
9 VAC 5-45-760 et seq. - Asphalt Paving operations
3. X 9 VAC 5-130 et seq. - Open Burning
4. X 9 VAC 5-50-60 et seq. Fugitive Dust Emissions
5. 9 VAC 5-50-130 et seq. - Odorous Emissions; Applicable to_
9 VAC 5-60-300 et seq. - Standards of Performance for Toxic Pollutants
7. D 9 VAC 5-50-400 Subpart_, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,
designates standards of performance forthe_
8. 9 VAC 5-80-1100 et seq. of the regulations - Permits for Stationary Sources
9. 5 9 VAC 5-80-1605 et seq. Ofthe regulations - Major or Modified Sources located in
PSD areas. This rule may be applicable to the
10. D 9 VAC 5-80-2000 et seq. of the regulations - New and modified sources located in
non-attainment areas
11. D 9 VAC 5-80-800 et seq. Ofthe regulations - State Operating Permits. This rule may be
applicable to
COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECT:

All precautions are necessary to restrict the emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
i^. s^^
(KoturS. Narasimhan)
Office of Air Data Analysis DATE: July 18, 2016

COMMONWEALTHofVIRQINIA
DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION
CHARLES A. KILPATRICK, P.& 4975 Alliance Drive
COMMISSIONER Fairfax, VA 22030
August 9, 2016
MEMORANDUM
To: Ms. JanineHoward; Department ofEnvironmental Quality

From: Rahul Trivedi, P.E. ; VDOTNoVA, Transportation Planning Section
Subj: NewProject FAA 16-159F - National Air and SpaceMuseum Duties Collections Center
Thesubjectproject consists ofconstruction ofnewcollection andstorage spaceforthe
SmithsonianInstitutionforlongtermuseoftheDutiesCollection Center(DCC)locatedatthe
DullesInternationalAirport. Thepuq>oseofthisprojectistoprovideadequatestoragespacefor
medium and large object collections maintained by the Smithsonian Institution^ National Air
andSpaceMuseum (NASM). NASMmaintainsthelargestcollection ofhistoric airand
spacecraft in theworld; and is a vital center forresearch, science, and technology in aviation and
space flight. Fouralternatives arebeing evaluated ranging from theno build alternative to the
pêfTê.d altemative whichresults inadditionofmaximum space- 241, 880netsquare feet(nsf)
ofadditional storagespace. Thepreferred alternative consists of two three-story modules each
?!°^1 gJ?7'820 nsfofcollections storage anda single-story freespanmodule providing
26,240nsffor storage forlargeairandspacecraftstorage. Entireproject iswithintheaiiport
property and adjacent to the existing Udvar Hazy Center.
The VDOT, Northern Virginia District Office staffhas reviewed the draft Environmental
Assessmentforthesubjectproject andastheproposedworkiswithintheairportpropertyandis
anticipatedto notgeneratemanytripsit will nothaveanimpacttoexistingorproposedVDOT
infiastructure. However, ifthiswereto changeandworkisrequired to bedonewithinthestate
right-of-wayoperated andmaintainedbyVDOT,thenSmithsonianortheirdesigneewouldIbe
responsible for compliance with applicable federal and state environmental laws.
ec: Mr. JohnMuse, VDOT

Mr. Brian Costello, VDOT
Mr. Robert Caparas, VDOT
Mr. Terry Yates, VDOT
Mr. PaulKraucunas,VDOT
Mr. Imad Salous,VDOT
Mr. Jim Cromwell, VDOT
Mr. Alfred Ray, VDOT
Ms. ElizabethJordan,VDOT
VirginiaDot.org
WE KEEPVIRGINIAMOVING

County of Fairfax, Virginia
To protect andenrich thequality oflife forthepeople, neighborhoods anddiverse communities ofFairfaxCounty
I
'ÊCEr August9,2016
Janine Howard
i MJG ^W
Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Environmental Impact Review 'TOQ-Offic90(E"WQn-"dl
629 East Main Street, 6th Floor ImpactReview
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Ms. Howard:
The Fairfax County Department ofPlanning and Zoning (DPZ) has reviewed the Draft Environmental
Assessment andthe Coastal Consistency determination for the expansion ofthe National Air and Space
Museum (NASM) Dulles Collections Center. Thisproject consistsoftheconstruction eithera two-story
collections facility witha single story hangaror a three-story collections facilityanda single storyhangar
in order to provide the Smithsonian with more space for storing the museum collections and storage
during renovations.
None ofthe alternative configurations will have an impact on existing wetland, water or forest resources.
The areaunderconsideration for the storage structures is currently vacant landpreviously cleared and
prepared fordevelopment immediately adjacentto the StevenF.Udvar-Hazy Center. Thisproject ispart
ofthe NASM Master Plan and a pan-Smithsonian Space Framework both ofwhich recommend additional
collection space. Fairfax County staffdoes not anticipate any negative environmental impacts from this
proposed project.
Thankyou fortheopportunity to comment onthisEnvironmental Assessment. Ifyouhaveanyquestions

about our comments, please do not hesitate to contact Mary Ann Welton ofmy staffat 703-324-1380.
Sincerely,
Marianne R. Gardner, Director

Planning Division, Department of Planning and Zoning
MRG: MAW
ec: Board of Supervisors

EdwardL. LongJr., County Executive
Robert A. Stalzer, Deputy County Executive
Denise M. James, Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ)
Mary Ann Welton, Environmental Planner, DPZ
^
Department of Planning and Zoning
PlanningDivision
12055 Government Center Parkway, Suite 730
Fairfax, Virginia 22035
Excellence * Innovation * Stewardship Phone 703-324-1380 FAX 703-653-9447
PLANNING
Integrity * Teamwork* Public Service www. fairfaxcounty. gov/dpz/ &ZONING
Cooper, Laura
From: Ewing, Amy (DGIF) <Amy.Ewing@dgif.virginia.gov>

Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:21 PM
To: Cooper, Laura
Cc: Howard, Janine (DEQ)
Subject: RE: FAA Collections Storage Facility 16-159F - Next Steps (ESSLog# 37158)
Laura (and Janine),

I apologize for the delay. I am behind in everything right now due to some unforeseen and extensive database issues.
I have reviewed this project and based on its scope and location, we do not anticipate any impacts upon state Threatened
wood turtles, which have been documented from Cub Run.
We appreciate your coordination with us, as well as your patience.
Amy
Amy M. Ewing
Environmental Services Biologist/FWIS Biologist Supervisor
Chair, Team WILD (Work, Innovate, Lead and Develop)
VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
7870 Villa Park Dr., Suite 400, PO Box 90778, Henrico, VA 23228
804-367-2211  www.dgif.virginia.gov
 Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Cooper, Laura [mailto:Laura.Cooper@stantec.com]

Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:44 PM
To: Ewing, Amy (DGIF)
Cc: Glynn, Joan
Subject: FAA Collections Storage Facility 16-159F - Next Steps
Amy,
We have recently received the completed Federal Consistency Review for the National Air and Space
Museum Dulles Collections Center project. The response from DEQ instructed us to coordinate directly with you
about potential impacts to the wood turtle. The wood turtle was addressed in our Environmental Assessment as
follows:
According to our VaFWIS results, the wood turtle is listed as confirmed in Cub Run in the T&E Waters database,
and Cain Branch is listed as predicted habitat. Cub Run is located over one mile from the project area, and
Cain Branch is located approximately 650 feet southwest. The project will require coverage under the VSMP
General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities, and subsequently a SWPPP and
erosion and sediment control plan, which would prevent any sedimentation to Cain Branch. We indicated that
by developing and adhering to a strict E&SC plan, no impacts to the wood turtle would occur.
We would like to touch base with you regarding DEQ’s instructions. What specific coordination needs to occur?
Thank you very much for you time, and we hope to hear from you soon.
Regards,
Laura Cooper
1
Environmental Scientist
6110 Frost Place Laurel MD 20707-2927
Phone: (301) 220-1892
Cell: (703) 501-2807
Fax: (301) 220-2595
laura.cooper@stantec.com
The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with
Stantec's written authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify us immediately.
 Please consider the environment before printing this email.
2

Final Form C - Nasm Dulles Collections Center PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Form C - Nasm Dulles Collections Center PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This page intentionally left blank.

THIS FORM IS FOR LIMITED USE ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF PROJECTS. AIRPORT

Availability: An electronic version of this Short Form EA is available on-line at

(a) Approval of a project on an Airport Layout Plan (ALP),

4) The proposed action requires a construction period exceeding 3 years.

5) The proposed action involves substantial public controversy on environmental grounds.

Airport Sponsor Information

Evaluation Form Preparer Information

3. Project Purpose and Need:

Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

Renovating/Upgrading at Garber: An alternative consisting of building new facilities for NASM

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative 1: Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar

Alternative 2: Two-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar

Alternative 3: Three-Story Collections Facility plus Single-Story Free Span Module/Hangar

Alternative 4: No Action Alternative

6. Environmental Consequences – Special Impact Categories (refer to the Instructions page

(A) AIR QUALITY

No (See response to B(2)).

(D) COASTAL RESOURCES

3. Wetlands Management: No jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional wetlands are present within

6. Point Source Pollution Control: Prior to construction, a Virginia Pollutant Discharge

(E) SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES

(2) Is a De Minimis impact determination recommended? If “yes”, please provide; supporting

(G) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, SOLID WASTE, AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

(H) HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL

Resource NRHP Status Distance from APE

(I) LAND USE

(J) NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY SUPPLY

(K) NOISE AND NOISE-COMPATIBLE LAND USE

(L) SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH

Table 3. Population Characteristics

No visual resources are within the viewshed of the project area.

(N) WATER RESOURCES (INCLUDING WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, SURFACE

(3) SURFACE WATERS

As discussed in Section 3(b), a NPDES/Virginia Stormwater Management Program permit for

(c) Is the project to be located over an EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer?

(O) CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

• Taxiway Z and Taxilane C Reconstruction: Reconstruction of Taxiway Z, Section 2, located

• Dominion Substation Expansion: Construction of a substation expansion in the area to the

• United Airlines Maintenance Hangar: United Airlines constructed an aircraft maintenance

• Snow Equipment Storage Facility: Construction of a snow equipment storage facility

Reasonably foreseeable future projects in the project vicinity include:

• Taxilane C and Taxiway Z Reconstruction: Reconstruction of the middle section of Taxilane

• Taxilane B Reconstruction and Widening (East Section): Reconstruction and widening of

• Construction Permits – MWAA

Permit applications have not been submitted to these agencies.

Describe those mitigation measures to be taken to avoid creation of significant impacts to a

1. Project Location Map

3. Airport Layout Plan and Land Use Plan

4. Existing Conditions – Key Map and Photos

8. DGIF and DCR Consultation

9. USFWS IPaC Trust Resources Report

10. Virginia Coastal Zone Boundary Map

11. Coastal Zone Federal Consistency Determination

12. Web Soil Survey Farmland Classifications

13. Section 106 Correspondence with VDHR

14. National Wetlands Inventory Map

15. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)

16. Stormwater Management Plan

17. Public Involvement

Photo Key Map

VaFWIS Initial Pr oject Assessment Repor t Compiled on Help