APPENDIX D: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF GALENA …forces. Because the FOL at Galena was on the...

APPENDIX D: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF GALENA AIR BASE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DISPOSAL OF AIR FORCE PROPERTY

AT GALENA AIRPORT, ALASKA

April 2007

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT DISPOSAL OF AIR FORCE PROPERTY

GALENA AIRPORT, ALASKA The attached environmental assessment (EA) analyzes the potential for impacts to the environment as a result of the disposal of Air Force property at Galena Airport, Alaska. The EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1580, and Air Force policy and procedures (32 CFR Part 989). This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) summarizes the Proposed Action and alternatives and the results of the evaluation of the demolition of Air Force facilities at Galena airport. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives The Proposed Action would include the demolition of more than 50 Air Force structures at Galena Airport over a 2-year period. Some Air Force facilities would not be demolished because they are considered vital to continued operation of the Galena Airport. These facilities would be turned over to the operators of the airport. The Air Force leased property at Galena Airport is approximately 73 acres in size; most of this area would be disturbed during demolition activities. After demolition activities are complete, the area would be reseeded with grasses. All demolition activities would be completed in 2008. Under the Conveyance Alternative, the Air Force would terminate their lease with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT & PF) and convey the Air Force facilities to interested Federal, State, and local agencies and groups. Under the No-Action Alternative the Air Force would retain their lease with the State of Alaska DOT & PF and maintain the Air Force facilities in caretaker status. Summary of Environmental Consequences Initial analyses indicated that the Proposed Action or alternatives would not result in either short- or long-term impacts to the following resources: transportation, aesthetics, pesticide usage, radon, medical/biohazardous waste, ordnance, radioactive materials, and noise. The resources analyzed in more detail are socioeconomics, environmental justice, land use, utilities, hazardous materials management, hazardous waste management, Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) sites, storage tanks, asbestos-containing material (ACM), lead-based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), geology and soils, water resources, air quality, biological resources, and cultural resources. Closure of the installation would result in approximately 40 Air Force caretaker employee positions being eliminated. It is assumed that most of these employees would relocate from the Galena area and would not contribute to a significant increase in the unemployment rate of Galena. The anticipated reduction in on-site employment would not result in effects to the natural or physical environment. Activities associated with the disposal of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport would not have a significant impact on any of the resources analyzed in the attached EA. As a result, no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority, low-income, or child populations would be expected. Demolition of Air Force facilities would result in an increase in open space among the facilities that are retained for airport use.

The power plant would be removed; however, the electrical distribution system would remain in place to allow continued electrical service to retained facilities. Other utility infrastructure (i.e., water, sewer, and steam heating) would be demolished. Because these systems would be demolished, the facilities that would be retained would be required to install appropriate heating systems, make arrangements for water service, and treatment of sewage (i.e., installation of septic tanks and leach fields). Building demolition activities would generate approximately 150,000 cubic yards of solid waste, including wood, drywall, cardboard, metals, concrete, and roofing material. Some building materials would likely be recycled/reused by local residents. Demolition debris that is not recycled would be disposed in an expanded Air Force landfill at former Campion Air Force Station (AFS) or the city of Galena landfill. Buildings with the potential to contain ACM and/or lead-based paint would be sampled prior to demolition activities to ensure proper disposal and abatement of these materials. Storage, handling, and transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations and established procedures. Minimal quantities of hazardous materials and waste would be stored or generated by the demolition contractor. Any spills or releases of hazardous materials/waste would be cleaned up by the demolition contractor. Disposal and or use of some Galena properties may be delayed or limited by the extent and type of contamination at ERP sites and by current and future ERP remediation activities. Based on the results of ERP investigations, the Air Force may, where appropriate, place limits on property use. These sites will remain the responsibility of the Air Force until regulator concurrence on no further action decisions have been obtained. The Air Force would retain rights-of-access to the sites to inspect monitoring wells or conduct other remedial activities, as necessary. Storage tanks and oil/water separators associated with Air Force facilities at Galena Airport would be removed. Any investigations or remedial actions at these tank locations would remain the responsibility of the Air Force. Underground fuel lines from the barge unloading area would be closed in place. ACM and lead-based paint would likely be encountered during demolition activities. Demolition activities would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulations to minimize the potential risk to human health and the environment. ACM and lead-based paint waste generated as a result of demolition activities would be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Transformers containing oil with concentrations of PCBs les than 50 parts per million and light ballasts of older light fixtures containing PCBs may be present at Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. The demolition contractor would be notified of the potential presence of PCBs in transformers and light ballasts and would be responsible for managing any items containing PCBs, including maintenance, removal, and disposal, in accordance with applicable regulations. Short-term erosion impacts could occur to soils and water resources as a result of ground disturbance associated with demolition activities. Potential impacts would be minimized by implementing standard construction best management practices (BMPs) such as using protective cover, implementing storm water diversions, and limiting the area and period of time that barren ground is left exposed. Air emissions from demolition activities would not adversely affect the regional air quality. BMPs would be implemented such as watering exposed surfaces to keep them moist at all times and watering haul roads to reduce dust and particulate emissions. Non-native vegetation would be disturbed during demolition activities. Impacts to such highly disturbed, human-created habitats are considered to be insignificant. Most of the species known to inhabit the area are common and/or disturbance tolerant. Potential impacts to wildlife include displacement of individuals to adjacent areas and direct mortality to burrowing species (e.g., mice and rats) or individuals that are less mobile. These impacts to common wildlife species are not expected to be significant. If nesting swallows are present, the demolition date should be adjusted until after the chicks have fledged. There are no federal- or state-listed plant or animal species known to inhabit the project study area. The area

around Galena Airport is not designated as critical habitat for any federal or state species of special concern. It is not expected that ground-disturbing activities would impact subsurface archaeological resources because the entire installation is built on 4 to 20 feet of imported fill. In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are encountered during demolition, the contractor would suspend work in the immediate area and report the discovery to the installation cultural resources manager. The installation cultural resources manager would then notify the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to determine if additional investigation is required. Twelve buildings identified as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) properties are present at Galena Airport. Consultation has been initiated with the Alaska SHPO regarding potential adverse effects of demolishing or conveying Air Force facilities at Galena Airport that have been determined eligible for listing on the National Register. Appropriate measures as agreed to with the Alaska SHPO would be implemented prior to conducting demolition activities or conveying the facilities. Cumulative Impacts Other future actions in the region were evaluated to determine whether cumulative environmental impacts could result due to the implementation of Air Force property disposal actions in conjunction with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. Other actions that would occur in the region include the Air Force’s continued remediation/monitoring of ERP sites at Galena Airport and the potential expansion of the Campion AFS landfill, to hold an additional 150,000 cubic yards of debris from demolition of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. Neither of these activities are anticipated to result in cumulative impacts when added to potential impacts of proposed Air Force disposal activities. Mitigations The Air Force may, where appropriate, place limits on property use where ERP investigations/remediation is ongoing. The Air Force would retain rights-of-access to ERP sites to inspect monitoring wells or conduct other remedial activities, as necessary. Appropriate construction BMPs would be implemented to avoid potential impacts associated with erosion and air quality. Appropriate measures as agreed to with the Alaska SHPO would be implemented prior to demolishing facilities that are eligible for listing on the National Register. Decision As a result of the analysis of impacts in the EA, it was concluded that, with the incorporation of appropriate construction practices identified in the EA and referenced in this FONSI, the proposed activities would not have a significant effect on human health or the natural environment; therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. Major Timothy Imdike Date Environmental Flight Commander, 611 CES/CEV Attch: Environmental Assessment

COVER SHEET ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR THE DISPOSAL OF AIR FORCE PROPERTY AT GALENA AIRPORT, ALASKA

a. Responsible Agency: U.S. Air Force

b. Proposed Action: Air Force termination of their lease with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT & PF) and the demolition or removal for reuse of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport.

c. Written comments and inquiries regarding this document should be directed to: Mr. Dave Hertzog, 611 CES/CEVR, 10471 20th Street, Suite 302, Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-2200; telephone: (907) 552-7261.

d. Report Designation: Environmental Assessment

e. Abstract: This environmental assessment (EA) evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the disposal of Air Force property at Galena Airport (also know as Forward Operating Location [FOL] at Galena). Pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510, Title XXIX), the Department of Defense must realign and reduce its military forces. Because the FOL at Galena was on the Commission’s list, the decision to close the installation is final. The FOL at Galena is scheduled to close on September 30, 2008. This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act to analyze the potential environmental consequences of the Proposed Action, Conveyance Alternative, and the No-Action Alternative. As part of the closure action, the Proposed Action would include the demolition of more than 50 Air Force structures at Galena Airport over a 2-year period. Some Air Force facilities would not be demolished because they are considered vital to continued operation of the Galena Airport. These facilities would be turned over to the operators of the airport. The Air Force leased property at Galena Airport is approximately 73 acres in size; most of this area would be disturbed during demolition activities. After demolition activities are complete, the area would be reseeded with grasses. Under the Conveyance Alternative, the Air Force would terminate their lease with the State of Alaska DOT & PF and convey the Air Force facilities to interested Federal, State, and local agencies and groups. Under the No-Action Alternative the Air Force would retain their lease with the State of Alaska DOT & PF and maintain the Air Force facilities in caretaker status. This alternative is not viable due to the BRAC Commission decision to close the Air Force FOL at Galena. The environmental resources potentially affected by the Proposed Action and alternatives are socioeconomics, environmental justice, utilities, land use, hazardous materials management, hazardous waste management, Environmental Restoration Program sites, storage tanks, polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos-containing material, lead-based paint, geology and soils, water resources, air quality, biological resources, and cultural resources. Based on the nature of activities associated with closure activities, the Air Force has determined that impacts to these resources would not be significant.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Environmental Assessment i Disposal of Air Force Property at Galena Airport, Alaska

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION....................................................................................1-1

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................................1-1 1.2 LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................1-1 1.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................1-1 1.4 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .......................................................................1-4 1.5 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PERMITS, LICENSES, AND FEES............................1-7

2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ..........................................................2-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................2-1 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................................2-2

2.2.1 Demolition ...........................................................................................................2-2 2.2.2 Construction ........................................................................................................2-3 2.2.3 Infrastructure and Utilities ...................................................................................2-3

2.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION............................................................2-4 2.3.1 Conveyance Alternative ......................................................................................2-4 2.3.1.1 Demolition .........................................................................................2-4 2.3.1.2 Construction ......................................................................................2-4 2.3.1.3 Infrastructure and Utilities .................................................................2-4 2.3.2 No-Action Alternative...........................................................................................2-6

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION ...........................................................................................................2-6

2.5 OTHER FUTURE ACTIONS IN THE REGION................................................................2-7 2.6 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS..........................................................2-7

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................................3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................3-1 3.2 COMMUNITY SETTING ..................................................................................................3-1

3.2.1 Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................3-2 3.2.2 Environmental Justice .........................................................................................3-2 3.2.3 Land Use.............................................................................................................3-3 3.2.4 Utilities.................................................................................................................3-4

3.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ....................3-6 3.3.1 Hazardous Materials Management .....................................................................3-6 3.3.2 Hazardous Waste Management .........................................................................3-7 3.3.3 Environmental Restoration Program Sites ..........................................................3-7 3.3.4 Storage Tanks.....................................................................................................3-8 3.3.5 Asbestos-Containing Material ...........................................................................3-12 3.3.6 Lead-Based Paint..............................................................................................3-14 3.3.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls .................................................................................3-16

3.4 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................3-16 3.4.1 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................3-16 3.4.1.1 Geology...........................................................................................3-16 3.4.1.2 Soils.................................................................................................3-18 3.4.2 Water Resources ..............................................................................................3-19 3.4.2.1 Surface Water .................................................................................3-19 3.4.2.2 Groundwater....................................................................................3-19 3.4.3 Air Quality..........................................................................................................3-20 3.4.4 Biological Resources.........................................................................................3-22 3.4.4.1 Vegetation .......................................................................................3-22 3.4.4.2 Wildlife.............................................................................................3-22

ii Environmental Assessment Disposal of Air Force Property at Galena Airport, Alaska

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

3.4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................3-23 3.4.4.4 Sensitive Habitat .............................................................................3-24 3.4.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................3-24 3.4.5.1 Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Resources ........................3-26 3.4.5.2 Historic Buildings and Structures ....................................................3-26 3.4.5.3 Traditional Cultural Resources........................................................3-27

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES........................................................................................4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................4-1 4.2 COMMUNITY SETTING ..................................................................................................4-1

4.2.1 Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................4-1 4.2.1.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-1 4.2.1.2 Conveyance Alternative ......................................................................4-1 4.2.1.3 No-Action Alternative ..........................................................................4-2

4.2.2 Environmental Justice .........................................................................................4-2 4.2.2.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-2 4.2.2.2 Conveyance Alternative ......................................................................4-2 4.2.2.3 No-Action Alternative ..........................................................................4-2

4.2.3 Land Use.............................................................................................................4-2 4.2.3.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-2 4.2.3.2 Conveyance Alternative ......................................................................4-3 4.2.3.3 No-Action Alternative ..........................................................................4-3

4.2.4 Utilities.................................................................................................................4-3 4.2.4.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-3 4.2.4.2 Conveyance Alternative ......................................................................4-4 4.2.4.3 No-Action Alternative ..........................................................................4-5

4.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ....................4-5 4.3.1 Hazardous Materials Management .....................................................................4-5

4.3.1.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-5 4.3.1.2 Conveyance Alternative ......................................................................4-5 4.3.1.3 No-Action Alternative ..........................................................................4-6

4.3.2 Hazardous Waste Management .........................................................................4-6 4.3.2.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-6 4.3.2.2 Conveyance Alternative ......................................................................4-6 4.3.2.3 No-Action Alternative ..........................................................................4-6

4.3.3 Environmental Restoration Program Sites ..........................................................4-6 4.3.3.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-6 4.3.3.2 Conveyance Alternative ......................................................................4-7 4.3.3.3 No-Action Alternative ..........................................................................4-7

4.3.4 Storage Tanks.....................................................................................................4-7 4.3.4.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-7 4.3.4.2 Conveyance Alternative ......................................................................4-7 4.3.4.3 No-Action Alternative ..........................................................................4-7

4.3.5 Asbestos-Containing Material .............................................................................4-8 4.3.5.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-8 4.3.5.2 Conveyance Alternative ......................................................................4-8 4.3.5.3 No-Action Alternative ..........................................................................4-8

4.3.6 Lead-Based Paint................................................................................................4-8

Environmental Assessment iii Disposal of Air Force Property at Galena Airport, Alaska

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

4.3.6.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-8 4.3.6.2 Conveyance Alternative ......................................................................4-9 4.3.6.3 No-Action Alternative ..........................................................................4-9

4.3.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls ...................................................................................4-9 4.3.7.1 Proposed Action..................................................................................4-9 4.3.7.2 Conveyance Alternative ......................................................................4-9 4.3.7.3 No-Action Alternative ..........................................................................4-9

4.4 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................4-10 4.4.1 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................4-10

4.4.1.1 Proposed Action................................................................................4-10 4.4.1.2 Conveyance Alternative ....................................................................4-11 4.4.1.3 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................4-11

4.4.2 Water Resources ..............................................................................................4-11 4.4.2.1 Proposed Action................................................................................4-11 4.4.2.2 Conveyance Alternative ....................................................................4-11 4.4.2.3 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................4-11

4.4.3 Air Quality..........................................................................................................4-12 4.4.3.1 Proposed Action................................................................................4-12 4.4.3.2 Conveyance Alternative ....................................................................4-13 4.4.3.3 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................4-13

4.4.4 Biological Resources.........................................................................................4-13 4.4.4.1 Proposed Action................................................................................4-13 4.4.4.2 Conveyance Alternative ....................................................................4-15 4.4.4.3 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................4-15

4.4.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................4-15 4.4.5.1 Proposed Action................................................................................4-15 4.4.5.2 Conveyance Alternative ....................................................................4-16 4.4.5.3 No-Action Alternative ........................................................................4-17

4.5 COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION WITH OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES....4-17

4.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .............................................................................4-17

4.7 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ...............4-18 4.8 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................4-18

5.0 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONTACTED ................................................5-1 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS...........................................................................6-1 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................7-1 8.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST ....................................................................................................................8-1 APPENDICES A Solid Waste Management Plan for Proposed Campion Landfill and Description of Proposed

Action and Alternatives for Proposed Campion Landfill B Response to Comments

iv Environmental Assessment Disposal of Air Force Property at Galena Airport, Alaska

LIST OF TABLES 2-1 Proposed Action, Proposed Demolition (square footage) .............................................................2-2 2-2 Facilities to be Conveyed ..............................................................................................................2-5 2-3 Summary of Influencing Factors and Environmental Impacts.......................................................2-8 3-1 Summary of Environmental Restoration Program Sites .............................................................3-10 3-2 Aboveground Storage Tanks ......................................................................................................3-13 3-3 Facilities Surveyed for Asbestos .................................................................................................3-15 3-4 Facilities Surveyed for Lead-Based Paint ...................................................................................3-17 3-5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ......................................................................................3-21 3-6 Facilities Potentially Eligible for Listing on the National Register ................................................3-28 4-1 Demolition Schedule ...................................................................................................................4-12 4-2 Proposed Action Demolition Emissions for Criteria Pollutants....................................................4-12

LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Galena Forward Operating Location .............................................................................................1-2 1-2 Regional Map Galena Forward Operating Location ......................................................................1-3 1-3 Campion AFS and Galena Airport.................................................................................................1-5 3-1 Environmental Restoration Program Sites ....................................................................................3-9

Environmental Assessment v Disposal of Air Force Property at Galena Airport, Alaska

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS AAC Alaska Administrative Code ACM asbestos-containing material ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Advisory Council Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AFI Air Force Instruction AFS Air Force Station AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act AS Alaska Statute AST aboveground storage tank AVGAS aviation gasoline BLM Bureau of :and Management BMP best management practice BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon monoxide Commission Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan CWA Clean Water Act DBRCA Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act DF-8 diesel fuel, grade 8 DOD Department of Defense DOT 8 PF Department of Transportation and Public Facilities EA environmental assessment EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act ERP Environmental Restoration Program FAA Federal Aviation Administration FOL Forward Operating Location FPMR Federal Property Management Regulation GAVTC Galena Aviation Vocational Training Technical Center GEU Galena Electric Utility GILA Galena Interior Learning Academy gpm gallon per minute GSA General Services Administration INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan JP-8 jet propulsion, grade 8 kW kilowatt MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mg/l milligram per liter MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOGAS motor gasoline

vi Environmental Assessment Disposal of Air Force Property at Galena Airport, Alaska

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

MSGP Multi-Sector General Permit NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Register National Register of Historic Places NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOX nitrogen oxide NWI National Wetlands Inventory ODPCP Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan ORL owner-requested limit OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OWS oil-water separator P.L. Public Law PCB polychlorinated biphenyl pCi/L picocurie per liter PM10 particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter POL petroleum, oils, and lubricants ppm part per million psi pound per square inch PVC polyvinyl chloride RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ROI region of influence SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SO2 sulfur dioxide SSDS Subsurface Depressurization System SVE Soil Vapor Extraction SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act U.S.C. U.S. Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UST underground storage tank V volt VOC volatile organic compound

Environmental Assessment 1-1 Disposal of Air Force Property at Galena Airport, Alaska

1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION This environmental assessment (EA) evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the disposal of Air Force property at Galena Airport (also know as Forward Operating Location [FOL] at Galena) (Figure 1-1). This document has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 4321, et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), and Air Force policy and procedures (32 CFR Part 989).

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED Pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (DBCRA) of 1990 (Public Law [P.L.] 101-510, Title XXIX), the Department of Defense (DOD) must realign and reduce its military forces. DBCRA established an independent Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (Commission) to review the Secretary of Defense’s base closure and realignment recommendations. After reviewing these recommendations, the 2005 Commission forwarded its recommended list of base closures and realignments to the President, who accepted the recommendations and submitted them to Congress on September 15, 2005. Since Congress did not disapprove the recommendations in the time given under DBCRA, the recommendations became law. The Secretary’s proposed list submitted on May 13, 2005, did not include the Air Force FOL at Galena. The installation was added by the Commission on July 19, 2005, for further consideration. Because the FOL at Galena was on the Commission’s list, the decision to close the installation is final. The FOL at Galena is scheduled to close on September 30, 2008.

1.2 LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The FOL at Galena is situated in central Alaska within the Unorganized Borough. The installation consists of approximately 50 Air Force facilities on 73 acres of leased land located adjacent to the Galena Airport and the City of Galena. The site is approximately 270 miles west of Fairbanks and 350 miles northwest of Anchorage (Figure 1-2).

1.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The Draft EA was made available for a 30-day public review and comment in January 2007. The Notice of Availability for the EA was published in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner on January 25, 2007. Copies of the Draft EA were made available for review in local libraries, on the world wide web at http://projects.earthtech.com/Galena Docs/Galena_EA, and provided to those individuals and agencies listed in Chapter 8 of the EA. More than 80 downloads of the EA were registered on the website. All comments were reviewed and addressed, when applicable, and have been included in their entirety in this

1-2 Environmental Assessment Disposal of Air Force Property at Galena Airport, Alaska

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��!�

��

��!�

��!

��!

��

��

��

��!

��!�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��!��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��!!

��

��!

��

��

��

��

��

��!

��

��

��

��

"� ��#�� "�$��


��

��

��

��

CAN

ADA

ALASKA

��

ALASKARUSSIA

Bering Sea

Kotzebue Sound

NortonSound

Bristol Bay

CookInlet

Pacific Ocean

Aleutian Islands

Arctic Ocean

Gulf of Alaska

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

� � � � �

Yuko

n R

iver


document (Appendix B). Responses to comments offering new or changes to data and questions about the presentation of data are also included. Comments simply stating facts or opinions, although appreciated, did not require a specific response.

1.4 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Consistent with the CEQ regulations, the scope of analysis presented in this EA is defined by the potential range of environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives. This document is “issue-driven,” in that it concentrates on those resources that may be affected by implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives. These activities include the disposal of Air Force property at Galena Airport. In addition to the disposal of Air Force property at Galena Airport, the landfill at Campion Air Force Station (AFS) (approximately 6 miles east of Galena) may be expanded to accept debris from the demolition of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. The potential environmental consequences of the expansion of the Campion AFS landfill will be evaluated in a separate EA. Potential impacts of the Campion AFS landfill expansion will be addressed in this EA in terms of cumulative effects in Section 4.8 Cumulative Environmental Consequences. Resources that have a potential for impact were considered in more detail in order to provide the Air Force decision maker with sufficient evidence and analysis to determine whether or not additional analysis is required pursuant to 40 CFR Part 1508.9. The resources analyzed in more detail are socioeconomics, environmental justice, utilities, land use, hazardous materials management, hazardous waste management, Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) sites, storage tanks, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos-containing material (ACM), lead-based paint, geology and soils, water resources, air quality, biological resources, and cultural resources. The affected environment and the potential environmental consequences relative to these resources are described in Chapters 3.0 and 4.0, respectively. Initial analysis indicates that disposal activities would not result in short- or long-term impacts to transportation, aesthetics, pesticide usage, radon, medical/biohazardous waste, ordnance, radioactive materials, and noise. The reasons for not addressing these resources are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs. Transportation. The number of individuals working at Air Force facilities at Galena Airport would be reduced by approximately 40 individuals. As a result, traffic in the area would likely decrease. Under the Conveyance Alternative and the No-Action Alternative, individuals working at the site would be similar to current conditions. No increase in traffic would be anticipated. Demolition-related traffic would use the dirt road leading to the Campion AFS landfill (approximately 5 miles from the Galena Airport) and would be temporary, lasting as long as the project activity (over a two-year period) (Figure 1-3). It is anticipated that demolition activities would occur during the spring/summer months (May – September [about 120 working days]) to optimize weather/working conditions. Based on an estimated 5,000 to 7,500 truck trips required to dispose of the demolition debris,


��

��

��

��

Y U K ON

RI

VE

R

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��


the number of truck trips to the landfill at Campion AFS would range between 20 and 30 trips per day. Due to the remote location of Galena, there are a limited number of vehicles that travel on the local roads. The short-term increase in demolition-related traffic would not affect the level of service on the local road network. In addition, the haul roads would be monitored for damage from truck traffic and would be repaired/maintained as appropriate. Adverse impacts to transportation are not anticipated and are not analyzed further in this EA. Aesthetics. Temporary impacts to the aesthetic quality of the area may occur during proposed demolition activities; however, the long-term, permanent impacts of removing unused buildings and creating more green space would result in a positive aesthetic effect. In the event that facilities remain in place, they would be maintained by the new owner and no changes to the aesthetic quality of the area would be anticipated. Adverse impacts to aesthetics under the Proposed Action and alternatives would not be expected and are not analyzed further in this EA. Pesticide Usage. Under the Proposed Action and alternatives, Air Force facilities would be demolished or conveyed to interested agencies. Pesticide usage would no longer occur if facilities are demolished. If facilities are conveyed, pesticide applications would be conducted by the property recipient in accordance with applicable laws and label directions; therefore, impacts from pesticide usage are not expected and are not analyzed in this EA. Radon. Radon sample results from State of Alaska radon sampling and monitoring were below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) recommended mitigation level of 4.0 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) (U.S. Air Force, 1987, 1988). Therefore, impacts from radon would not be expected and are not analyzed further in this EA. Medical/Biohazardous Waste. Medical/biohazardous waste is not generated within Air Force facilities at Galena Airport and none would be generated under the Proposed Action or alternatives. The former medical clinic at Facility 1857 is no longer in use. Therefore, impacts from medical/biohazardous waste are not expected and are not analyzed further in this EA. Ordnance. Ordnance is not stored, used, or disposed within Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. The Proposed Action and alternatives would not require the use of ordnance. Therefore, impacts from ordnance are not expected and are not analyzed further in this EA. Radioactive Materials. Radioactive materials are not stored, used, or disposed within Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. The Proposed Action and alternatives would not require the use of radioactive materials. Therefore, impacts from radioactive materials are not expected and are not analyzed further in this EA. Noise. Noise generated from proposed demolition activities would be minor and short-term. Demolition-related traffic noise would also be temporary, lasting as long as demolition activities occur. Once demolition activities are completed, limited operations on surrounding properties would occur. Impacts from noise are not expected and are not analyzed further in this EA.


1.5 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PERMITS, LICENSES, AND FEES The contractor responsible for conducting demolition activities would obtain required federal, state, and local permits. The contractor would cooperate with the Air Force to ensure compliance with applicable Air Force, federal, state, and local regulations and/or requirements.




2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the Proposed Action and alternatives for the disposal of Air Force property at Galena Airport, as well as the No-Action Alternative. The potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives are summarized in Table 2-3 at the end of this chapter (see page 2-8). Generally, the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) has authority to dispose of excess and surplus real property belonging to the federal government. With regard to closure bases however, the DBCRA requires the GSA Administrator to delegate disposal authority to the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense has since redelegated these authorities to the respective Service Secretaries. The Secretary of the Air Force has full discretion in determining how the Air Force will dispose of its property. DBCRA requires the Air Force to comply with federal property disposal laws and Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMRs) (41 CFR 101-47). In order to address the range of potential environmental impacts of disposal, the following alternatives have been developed. The Proposed Action involves the Air Force termination of their lease with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT & PF) and the demolition or removal for reuse of most or all Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. The demolition of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport is driven by stipulations in the lease and grant agreements with the State of Alaska that mandate the removal of all improvements to the property (i.e., facilities constructed on the property) once the Air Force no longer has use of the land and terminates the lease and grant. The Conveyance Alternative would involve the Air Force terminating their lease with the State of Alaska DOT & PF and the conveyance of Air Force facilities to interested federal, state, and local agencies and groups. The No-Action Alternative would involve the Air Force retaining their lease with the State of Alaska DOT & PF and maintaining the Air Force facilities in caretaker status. This alternative is not viable due to the Commission decision to close the Air Force FOL at Galena. However, this alternative is retained for NEPA purposes. During the development of alternatives addressed in this EA, the Air Force considered the compatibility of future uses of the property with current site conditions that may restrict disposal activities to protect human health and the environment. The conditions include potential contamination from past releases of hazardous substances and Air Force efforts to remediate or monitor the contamination. Long-term monitoring requirements and other environmental actions on Air Force property at Galena Airport would result in restrictions that


limit use/access to certain locations. The Air Force would retain access rights to these sites to implement remediation/monitoring.

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action involves the Air Force termination of their lease with the State of Alaska DOT & PF and the demolition or removal for reuse of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport (see Figure 1-1). After demolition activities are completed, the areas would be reseeded with grasses as specified in the Galena Airport Natural Resources Management Plan (U.S. Air Force, 1999). 2.2.1 Demolition The Proposed Action would require the demolition of more than 50 Air Force structures at Galena Airport over a 2-year period. Total square footage of Air Force structures to be demolished at Galena Airport is approximately 255,000 square feet. It has not yet been determined which structures would be demolished each year; however, these activities would be scheduled to minimize or avoid disturbance to occupants on adjacent property. Demolition activities would begin in 2007 and would be completed by September 30, 2008 (Table 2-1).

Table 2-1. Proposed Action, Proposed Demolition (square footage) Year 2007 2008 Total

Demolition 125,000 130,414 255,414Retained Facility (airport use) -- -- 39,925Retained Facility (current tenants) -- -- 75,326Total 370,665Notes: (a) For analysis purposes, facilities are assumed to be demolished over a 2-year

period.

Some Air Force facilities would not be demolished because they are considered vital to continued operation of the Galena Airport. These facilities would be turned over to the operators of the airport; the Air Force would no longer be responsible for maintenance of these facilities. The facilities include the fire station (Facility 1556), runway lighting vault (Facility 1552), Vehicle Maintenance Shop (Facility 1573), and the levee pump station (Facility 2000). The total square footage for airport-related facilities to be retained is approximately 40,000 square feet (see Table 2-1). It is assumed that Air Force facilities that are currently in use by non-Air Force agencies would continue to be utilized. The facilities would be turned over to the tenants who would make arrangements to ensure the facilities are maintained. These include facilities 1700, 1842, 1845, 1847, 1872, and 1873. The total square footage for non-Air Force tenant facilities to be retained is approximately 75,000 square feet (see Table 2-1). The structures to be demolished were constructed between 1942 and 1996. The Air Force leased property at Galena Airport is approximately 136 acres in size; most of this area would be disturbed during demolition activities. After demolition


activities are complete, the area would be reseeded with grasses. Concrete building foundations (including the Birchwood Hangar foundation) and sidewalks would be ground for use either as road fill or broken up for use as river bank stabilization material. This material would be stockpiled either on site, at specified areas around the airfield, or at Campion AFS. Traffic associated with the demolition of structures would utilize the road between Galena Airport and Campion AFS where the Air Force maintains several landfills. The City of Galena landfill is also situated near Campion AFS and could be used for disposal of demolition debris. The contractor would transport and dispose demolition debris in the landfill at Campion AFS, approximately 6 miles east of the Galena Airport. The contractor would be required to maintain a hazardous waste accumulation point and designate an individual responsible for the management of the site, including the certification, administration, and removal of hazardous wastes. If a spill occurs during activities conducted by the contractor, the spill would be cleaned up immediately by the contractor. ACM and lead-based paint within demolition debris would be disposed in designated cells at the Campion AFS landfill. If hazardous materials or hazardous waste are identified in areas proposed for demolition, removal, and disposal would be conducted by the development contractor in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. 2.2.2 Construction No permanent structures would be constructed under the Proposed Action. 2.2.3 Infrastructure and Utilities Existing paved and gravel roads would remain in place. Utilities (water lines, sewer lines, steam heating lines, and electrical distribution system) and associated utilidors would be demolished. Underground fuel lines from the barge unloading area would be closed in place in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. The existing electrical distribution system could be connected to the City of Galena system to allow continued electrical service to non-Air Force structures that are near the property and currently connected to the Air Force distribution system. However, other utility infrastructure (i.e., water, sewer, and steam heating) would be demolished as these services only connect to Air Force facilities and are not available from the City of Galena. Because these systems would be demolished, the facilities that would be left for use by current tenants or to support airport operations would be required to install appropriate heating systems, make arrangements for water service, and treatment of sewage (i.e., installation of septic tanks and leach fields). See Conveyance Alternative for discussion of potential conveyance of existing utility systems.


2.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.3.1 Conveyance Alternative The Conveyance Alternative would involve the Air Force terminating their lease with the State of Alaska DOT & PF and the conveyance of Air Force facilities to interested federal, state, and local agencies, groups, or individuals. The Conveyance Alternative would involve the conveyance of approximately 50 Air Force structures at Galena Airport. Property recipients could occupy previously owned Air Force structures on an interim basis in 2007 (if currently vacant). Ownership of the structures would not occur until 2008, when the Air Force has completed the closure of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. The specific future use of the structures is not known. However, it is likely that the facilities would be used in a manner consistent with current uses. Significant changes in current use of the facilities are not anticipated due to the specific design and function of the facilities (i.e., storage, vehicle maintenance, office/ administrative, dormitory/lodging, dining). Several of the structures are currently in use by non-Air Force entities such as the City of Galena, Alaska State Troopers, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). These facilities would likely continue to be used by those entities. The facilities to be conveyed (including associated storage tanks) would remain in their present condition with no improvements. The new owner would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of these systems and associated fuel storage tanks. A listing of facilities that would be conveyed is provided in Table 2-2. 2.3.1.1 Demolition. No demolition activities would occur under the Conveyance Alternative. 2.3.1.2 Construction. No new construction is proposed under the Conveyance Alternative. 2.3.1.3 Infrastructure and Utilities. The former Air Force facilities would remain connected to existing utility infrastructure (i.e., water, sewer, steam heating, and electric). Infrastructure such as roads, parking areas, sidewalks, lighting, utility distribution systems, utilidors, and storm water drainage systems would be conveyed. Storage tanks associated with the utility systems would also be conveyed. The new owner would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of these systems and associated fuel storage tanks.


Table 2-2. Facilities to be Conveyed Page 1 of 2

Facility ID (Building Name) Square Footage Year Constructed 1404 (Control Tower) 5,947 19861427 (Liquid Oxygen Storage) 576 19871428 (Alert Hangar) 22,242 19571429 (Guard Shack) 131 19631430 (Guard Shack) 49 19931488 (Munitions Storage) 10,623 19571495 (Power Plant Storage Shed) 288 19821497 (Sewage Treatment Plant) 1,000 19601498 (Power Plant Cooling Shed) 616 19701499 (Power Plant) 8,121 19701500 (Sewage Treatment Plant) 145 19731552 (Utility Vault)(b) 805 19621556 (Fire Station)(b) 10,614 19731568 (Radar Approach Control [RAPCON] Building) 1,350 19821569 (Electric Power Station) 88 19821570 (Maintenance Shop) 576 19711572 (Liquid Fuel Pump Station) 272 19571573 (Vehicle Maintenance Shop)(b) 28,151 19951578 (Water Treatment Plant) 2,933 19561579 (Guard Shack) 49 19841700 (Refueling Vehicle Maintenance Shop)(a) 1,248 19631719 (Liquid Fuel Pump Station) 648 19681768 (Hazardous Storage) 240 19831769 (Supply Warehouse) 34,344 19561771 (Radar Tower) 1,000 19851772 (Electric Power Station) 348 19851773 (Load and Unload Area) 1,000 19971812 (Civil Engineering Composite Shop) 3,869 19421832 (Storage Shed) 793 19511833 (Morale Welfare and Recreation [MWR] Storage) 447 19561836 (Pump Station)(a) 276 19561837 (Petroleum Operations Facility) 4,445 19841842 (Maintenance Shop)(a) 1,600 19591843 (Carpenter Shop) 2,227 19451844 (Storage Shed)(a) 2,375 19621845 (Vehicle Maintenance Shop)(a) 6,720 19591847 (School)(a) 16,700 19861850 (Maintenance Shop) 6,625 19871851 (Gymnasium) 14,225 1966


Table 2-2. Facilities to be Conveyed Page 2 of 2

Facility ID (Building Name) Square Footage Year Constructed 1852 (Guard Shack) 140 19881854 (Headquarters Building) 12,000 19861857 (Medical Aid Station) 3,289 19661858 (Cold Storage) 3,600 19831859 (Dining Facility) 10,662 19561872 (Dormitory)(a) 42,522 19791873 (Composite Club)(a) 6,531 19821874 (Dormitory) 58,494 19871875 (Communications Transmitter) 5,000 19911876 (Dormitory) 32,774 19891879 (Liquid Fuel Pump Station) 720 19961881 (Vehicle Fueling Station) 200 19962000 (Storm Drain Pump Station)(b) 355 19743000 (Precision Approach Radar [PAR]) 227 19823005 (Electric Power Station) 600 19823200 (Approach Surveillance Radar [ASR]) 240 19823205 (Electric Power Station) 600 1982Notes: (a) Facility currently used by non-Air Force entities.

(b) Facility to be retained for airport use. 2.3.2 No-Action Alternative Under the No-Action Alternative, the Air Force would retain their lease with the State of Alaska DOT & PF and maintain the Air Force facilities in caretaker status. The Air Force would continue to be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the water, sewer, steam heating, and electrical systems and associated fuel storage tanks. No demolition activities would occur. It is likely that the structures currently in use by non-Air Force entities such as the City of Galena, Alaska State Troopers, BLM, Department of Fish and Game, and USFWS would continue to be used by those entities. This alternative is not viable due to the BRAC Commission decision to close the FOL at Galena. However, in accordance with NEPA, this alternative will be evaluated as it provides a baseline for EA analysis.

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION Other than the Proposed Action, Conveyance Alternative, and the No-Action Alternative, no other alternatives were considered.


2.5 OTHER FUTURE ACTIONS IN THE REGION Cumulative impacts result from “the incremental impact of actions when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (Council on Environmental Quality, 1978). Other future actions in the region were evaluated to determine whether cumulative environmental impacts could result due to the implementation of Air Force property disposal actions in conjunction with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. Other actions that would occur in the region include the Air Force’s continued remediation/monitoring of ERP sites at Galena Airport and the potential expansion of the Campion AFS landfill to dispose of debris from demolition of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. Two options have been identified for the disposal of debris from the demolition of structures at Galena Airport:

1. Dispose of the debris in the existing City of Galena landfill. 2. Construct an inert waste landfill at Campion AFS. The proposed landfill

at Campion AFS would be less than a half mile from the existing Galena Landfill and immediately adjacent to existing landfills at Campion AFS. The proposed landfill area would be approximately 4 miles from the City of Galena and is outside the region of influence (ROI) of the proposed demolition activity at Galena Airport.

An EA is being prepared that analyzes both landfill options; a description of these actions and the Solid Waste Management Plan for the Campion Landfill are included as Appendix A.

2.6 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Table 2-3 presents a comparative analysis of the Proposed Action and alternatives for each resource (i.e., socioeconomics, environmental justice, land use, hazardous materials management, hazardous waste management, ERP sites, storage tanks, PCBs, ACM, lead-based paint, geology and soils, water resources, air quality, biological resources, and cultural resources) evaluated in this EA. A detailed discussion of potential effects is presented in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Consequences. Neither the Proposed Action nor the alternatives are anticipated to have a significant impact on the environment.


Table 2-3. Summary of Influencing Factors and Environmental Impacts Page 1 of 4

Resource Proposed Action Conveyance Alternative No-Action Alternative Influencing Factors Socioeconomics • Air Force caretaker employee positions would be

eliminated • Population within the region is not expected to

change significantly

• Potential impacts would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action

• No change to population or employment

Environmental Justice • No significant environmental impacts were identified on or off site; therefore, impacts to low-income, minority, or children populations are not expected

• Potential impacts would be the same as those described under the Proposed Action


Utilities

• On-site utility systems would be demolished • Regional utility usage is not expected to change.

Impacts to water, wastewater, electricity, and natural gas are not expected

• Demolition of Air Force facilities would create approximately 150,000 cubic yards of solid waste that would be disposed in the Campion AFS landfill or City of Galena landfill

• On-site utility systems would continue operations under the management of a non-Air Force entity

• No demolition activities would occur

• No increase in utility usage or solid waste generation is anticipated

• No change in utility usage or solid waste generation is expected

Land Use • Air Force would terminate lease with State of Alaska DOT & PF

• Air Force facilities would be demolished • Facilities currently occupied by non-Air Force tenants

or retained for airport use would remain; no land use changes would occur at these sites

• Newly vacant land would be reseeded with grasses and left as open space

• No future development is proposed

• Air Force would terminate lease with State of Alaska DOT & PF

• Air Force facilities would be conveyed to federal, state, and local agencies or groups

• Facilities would be maintained by new owner/occupant


• No change in land uses is anticipated

• No changes in land use

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste Management

• Hazardous materials and hazardous waste would continue to be stored, used, and disposed in accordance with applicable regulations


• Hazardous materials and waste would continue to be stored, used, and generated in accordance with applicable regulations



Resource Proposed Action Conveyance Alternative No-Action Alternative Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management (continued) Environmental Restoration Program Sites

• Ten ERP sites are situated within the Air Force property at Galena

• The Air Force will retain the right of access for any remediation activities

• The Air Force may, where appropriate, place limits on property use



Storage Tanks

• ASTs associated with the Air Force property would be removed

• The Air Force will retain the right of access for any remediation activities at removed USTs situated within the Air Force property at Galena

• ASTs associated with the Air Force property would be conveyed to the property recipient

• Proper management of these ASTs would minimize the potential for impacts

• The Air Force will retain the right of access for any remediation activities at removed USTs situated within the Air Force property at Galena

• Management of the ASTs and USTs associated with the Air Force property would remain the responsibility of the Air Force

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

• Light ballasts of older light fixtures containing PCBs may be present in the facilities

• The demolition contractor would be notified of the potential presence of PCBs in the light ballasts and would be responsible for managing any items containing PCBs in accordance with applicable regulations

• The property recipient would be notified of the potential presence of PCBs in the light ballasts and would be responsible for managing any items containing PCBs in accordance with applicable regulations

• No change in PCB status



Resource Proposed Action Conveyance Alternative No-Action Alternative Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management (continued) Asbestos-Containing Material

• ACM would likely be encountered during demolition activities

• Demolition activities would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulations to minimize the potential risk to human health and the environment

• The development contractor would be advised, to the extent known, of the type, condition, and amount of ACM present within housing units conveyed

• New owners would be notified of the presence of ACM in facilities being conveyed

• The Air Force would continue to be responsible for management of ACM, and would continue to manage ACM in accordance with Air Force policy and applicable regulations

Lead-Based Paint

• Lead-based paint would likely be encountered during demolition activities

• Demolition activities would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulations to minimize the potential risk to human health and the environment

• The development contractor would be advised, to the extent known, of the type, condition, and amount of lead-based paint present within housing units conveyed

• New owners would be notified of the possible presence of lead-based paint in facilities being conveyed

• The Air Force would continue to be responsible for management of lead-based paint, and would continue to manage lead-based paint in accordance with its own policy and applicable regulations

Natural Environment Geology and Soils

• Short-term impacts would occur as a result of ground disturbance associated with demolition activities

• Implementation of best management practices (BMPs) defined in a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) prepared for demolition activities would minimize potential erosion effects

• No ground-disturbing activities would occur


Water Resources

• Temporary impacts in surface water drainage patterns may occur during grading activities

• Effects of increased runoff to surface water would be reduced through implementation of BMPs described in the SWPPP

• No ground-disturbing activities would occur; therefore, no impacts to surface water or groundwater




Resource Proposed Action Alternative 1 No-Action Alternative Natural Environment (continued) Air Quality

• Demolition activities would result in short-term air quality impacts

• Watering of the construction areas and haul roads, dust suppressants, and monitored speeds on unpaved roads would be used to reduce emissions of dust and particulate matter

• Emissions associated with demolition activities would not hinder maintenance of the NAAQS



Biological Resources • Demolition activities would create a short-term impact to wildlife; displacement of common wildlife is not considered significant due to their abundance and their ability to seek similar habitat in the surrounding area

• No federal or state listed plant or animal species are known to inhabit the area

• No wetlands would be directly affected as a result of proposed demolition activities

• Demolition activities would not occur

• Potential impacts would be similar to existing conditions


Cultural Resources • There are no prehistoric or historic archaeological properties, or traditional cultural resources at Galena Airport

• Twenty buildings have been determined eligible for listing on the National Register based on their association with the World War II and Cold War eras. Eight of these buildings have been removed or demolished in accordance with the signed MOA. Twelve buildings identified as National Register eligible properties still remain

• Appropriate measures as agreed to with the Alaska SHPO regarding treatment of historic structures would be implemented prior to conducting demolition activities



• Appropriate measures as agreed to with the Alaska SHPO would be implemented prior to implementing conveyance activities





3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the existing environmental conditions at Galena Airport. It provides information to serve as a baseline from which to identify and evaluate environmental changes associated with the disposal of Air Force property at Galena Airport. The environmental components addressed include relevant natural or human environments likely to be affected by the Proposed Action and alternatives. Based upon the nature of the activities that would occur under the Proposed Action and alternatives, it was determined that the potential exists for the following resources to be affected or to create environmental effects: socioeconomics, environmental justice, land use, utilities, hazardous materials management, hazardous waste management, ERP sites, storage tanks, PCBs, ACM, lead-based paint, geology and soils, water resources, air quality, biological resources, and cultural resources. The ROI to be studied will be defined for each resource area affected by the proposed project. The ROI determines the geographical area to be addressed as the Affected Environment. Although the Air Force cantonment at Galena Airport may constitute the ROI limit for some resources, potential impacts associated with certain issues (e.g., air quality) transcend these limits.

3.2 COMMUNITY SETTING Galena is situated in central Alaska within the Unorganized Borough. Air Force property consists of approximately 50 facilities on 73 acres of leased land located adjacent to the Galena Airport and the City of Galena. The site is approximately 270 miles west of Fairbanks and 350 miles northwest of Anchorage (see Figure 1-1). Galena was established in 1918 as a shipping point on the Yukon River for lead mined from 1918 to 1922 in the Kaiyuh Mountain, 18 miles to the south. Galena was incorporated as a fourth class city in 1971, and as a first class city in 1973. Galena AFS was constructed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority in late 1941. In December 1945, the installation began operation as an airport and was transferred to the State of Alaska following statehood. Air Force-controlled property at Galena Airport was placed in caretaker status in August 1993. The airport is now owned and operated by the State of Alaska. In place of the active duty force, approximately 40 civilian caretakers maintain the Air Force facilities at Galena Airport.


3.2.1 Socoieconomics The ROI for employment and population effects as a result of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activities is the City of Galena. Population. The population of Galena was 675 in 2000. The median age is 28.5 years and Alaska Natives comprise approximately 63 percent of the population. Total housing units in Galena numbered 259 in 2000 (U.S Bureau of the Census, 2000a). Approximately 70 percent of the 40 Air Force employees live on the Air Force installation. The remaining employees live in the City of Galena. Approximately 110 students attend school and live at a Galena School District boarding school on the Air Force installation. There are approximately 40 teachers, administrators, and residential staff at the school. Employment. A total of 334 residents were employed in 2000 and the unemployment rate was 6.5 percent (U.S Bureau of the Census, 2000a). Galena serves as the transportation, government, and commercial center for the western interior region of the state. Federal, state, city, school, and village government jobs dominate the employment sector; however, other sources of employment in Galena include air transportation and retail businesses. A total of 31 residents hold commercial fishing permits. Other seasonal activities, such as construction and BLM fire fighting, also provide employment (Alaska Department for Commerce, Community and Economic Development, 2005). Subsistence foods, especially moose meat and fish, are an important part of the local lifestyle. Using this form of subsistence requires cash to purchase, operate and maintain snow machines, boats, guns, and fishing gear. Both full-time and part-time employed residents rely on subsistence foods. Approximately 65 percent of the town of Galena’s civilian residents are actively involved in subsistence activities and consumption. Subsistence food sources include salmon, whitefish, moose, and berries 3.2.2 Environmental Justice Executive Order (EO) 12898, Environmental Justice, was issued by the President on February 11, 1994. Objectives of the EO, as it pertains to this EA, include development of federal agency implementation strategies, identification of low-income and minority populations potentially affected because of proposed federal actions. Accompanying EO 12898 was a Presidential Transmittal Memorandum referencing existing federal statutes and regulations to be used in conjunction with EO 12898. One of the items in this memorandum was the use of the policies and procedures of NEPA. Specifically, the memorandum indicates that,

“Each Federal agency shall analyze the environmental effects, including human health, economic and social effects, of federal actions, including effects on minority communities


and low-income communities, when such analysis is required by the NEPA 42 U.S.C. section 4321 et. seq.”

Although an environmental justice analysis is not mandated by NEPA, DOD has directed that NEPA will be used as the primary mechanism to implement the provision of the EO. The demographic analysis provides information on the approximate locations of low-income and minority populations in the area potentially affected by the demolition of the Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. The Air Force cantonment at Galena Airport is situated on the outskirts of the City of Galena. The City of Galena is located in the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area. Demographic information from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing was used to extract data on minority and low-income populations within the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area. The census reports ethnicity and poverty status. Minority populations include Black or African American; American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut; Asian or Pacific Islander; Hispanic; or other. Poverty status (used in this EA to define low-income status) is reported as the number of families with income below poverty level ($33,832 for a family of four, within the Yukon- Koyukuk Census Area in 1999, as reported in the 2000 Census of Population and Housing). Based upon the 2000 Census of Population and Housing, the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area had a population of 6,551 persons. Of this total, 5,039 persons, or 76.9 percent, were minority (non-white), and 1,554 persons, or 23.8 percent, were below poverty level, and therefore considered low income (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000b). Based upon the 2000 Census of Population and Housing, the City of Galena had a population of 675 persons. Of this total, 480 persons, or 71.1 percent, were minority (non- white), and 69 persons, or 10.2 percent, were low-income (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000a). In addition to environmental justice issues are concerns pursuant to EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This EO directs federal agencies to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. The 2000 Census indicates that 2,294 persons, or 35 percent of the population of the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area were under 18 years old. In the City of Galena, 253 persons, or 37.5 percent, were under 18 years old (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000a, 2000b). 3.2.3 Land Use The federal government transferred the airport to the State of Alaska in 1966 in compliance with provisions of the 1958 Statehood Act which conveyed all federal lands to the State, and the Ominbus Deed (1966) which reserved parcels of land for continued use by the federal government. The federal government retained


control (through lease and easement right-of-way) of the land at Galena Airport on which military facilities are situated. Most of the facilities at Galena Airport are owned by the Air Force, other federal agencies (e.g., BLM), and state agencies (e.g., DOT & PF); some Air Force facilities are leased to other federal, state, and local agencies (e.g., USFWS, State Troopers, and Galena Schools). The ROI for land use includes both Air Force and non-Air Force facilities within the cantonment at Galena Airport and adjacent areas. Primary uses of Air Force facilities (if not vacant) include the power plant/steam heating plant, lodging, supply, offices, school, dining facilities, building and grounds maintenance, fuels maintenance and storage, and vehicle maintenance. Several of the structures within the cantonment are currently in use by non-Air Force entities such as the City of Galena (education and dormitory), Alaska State Troopers (administrative, storage), BLM (lodging, administrative, storage), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (storage/administrative), Department of Fish and Game (storage), and USFWS (administrative, storage). Land use in areas adjacent to the cantonment include undeveloped forested areas to the northeast and northwest, and the Galena Airport airfield and associated facilities to the south. 3.2.4 Utilities Utility systems discussed in this section include electricity, water, wastewater, steam heating, and solid waste. The ROI for utilities includes the service area for each provider that serves Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. Electricity. The Galena Electric Utility (GEU) delivers power to Galena Airport and other non-DOD users (e.g., BLM and civil air carriers). The 4.5 megawatt power plant provides base load to the City and the airport. Galena’s distribution system consists of two feeders, one at 4,160 volts (V) to serve the City and the other at 24,940 V to serve the airport. Diesel No. 2 is used as the primary fuel, and it is stored adjacent to and inside the power plant building. Fuel is delivered via barge service. The Air Force maintains a power plant that is used to generate electricity when the GEU is anticipated to have a shut down or fails to operate. The power plant contains three 600-kilowatt (kW) Caterpillar generators, a 650-kW Emerson diesel generator, and a 300-kW White Superior generator. Because the Air Force purchases electricity from the GEU, the Air Force power plant is on standby status (U.S. Air Force, 1996c). Water. Water is drawn from one well that is able to produce approximately 150 gallons per minute (gpm), with an additional well available for fire fighting or backup potable water. There are two additional water wells that were used for non-potable water requirements at Facilities 1428 and 1812. Facility 1428 was the alert hangar and water was likely available for fire suppression needs. Facility 1812 was the CE Maintenance Shop and water was likely available to support process operations in the shop as well as fire suppression. Supply capacity is 150 gpm; however, the system is currently pulling water at a rate of


approximately 90 gpm. The treatment plant has the capacity to treat between 65,000 and 120,000 gallons of water per day, and water quality is tested on a daily basis. The current water demand is about 35,000 gallons per day. Water is pumped through 6-inch mains to the Air Force water treatment plant, where it is treated for domestic use and stored in a 100,000-gallon storage tank located inside the treatment building. The existing treatment process consists of an aerator tower, pressure filtration, three water-softening units, a potassium permanganate chemical feed system to oxidize iron and recharge filters, an air stripper, and a hypochlorinator disinfecting system. The water distribution system at Galena AFS consists of steel, copper, and cast iron lines ranging from 4 to 8 inches in internal diameter. These lines radiate away from the treatment plant and are carried in wooden aboveground utilidors, concrete below ground utilidors, or direct-bury insulated “Arctic Pipe.” This system serves the entire cantonment area, including the Alert Hangar, apron area, fire station, control tower, 25 fire hydrants, USFWS offices, FAA, State Troopers, and BLM housing and headquarters. The water distribution system receives water from the treatment plant in two loops through two 175 gpm transfer pumps. These pumps draw water from the 100,000 gallon tank and pressurize it for distribution. A 3,000-gallon hydropnuematic tank maintains the system at 40-75 pounds per square inch (psi). The existing system is adequate for domestic needs. The City of Galena has a separate water distribution system. Wastewater. The Air Force operates a sanitary sewer system serving the cantonment. The system does not serve any of the facilities utilized by the civil air carriers. The Air Force sewer system has the capacity to serve up to 400 persons. The collection system consists of gravity sewer, force mains, grinder pumps, and lift stations that convey sewage to a treatment lagoon through an assortment of piping dating back to the early 1950s. The sewer lines include a diverse assemblage of materials including wood, copper, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), steel, ductile iron, and asbestos cement, both directly buried and in utilidors. Sewage is pumped from the terminal lift station into a lined, aerated treatment lagoon. The lagoon holds approximately 1.5 million gallons and is divided with baffles into primary and secondary cells. The effluent passes by gravity through the lagoon to the disinfection building, where it is chlorinated. The treated effluent is then pumped 600 feet west of the dike, where it is discharged to percolate into the soil. Seasonally, the wastewater treatment lagoon does not meet permit discharge requirements. The lagoon was constructed in 1973 to replace an Imhoff tank treatment facility and was relined in 2006. The tank, constructed in the 1940s, is still available for use in emergencies, although sludge must be withdrawn, dried, and disposed. The control tower (Facility 1404) and munitions storage building (Facility 1488) former guard shack are/were connected to septic tanks. The tank at the control


tower is used as a holding tank and pumped by the City of Galena for treatment at their sewage treatment lagoon. The former weather station used a wood crib cesspool for sewage disposal (U.S. Air Force, 1996c). Homes and businesses in the City of Galena use septic systems for wastewater treatment. Steam Heating. Most Air Force facilities at Galena Airport are heated using steam. Three steam heating boilers situated in Facility 1499 generate the steam to heat the facilities. There are approximately 18,700 linear feet of steam heating mains that were installed in 1956. Steam heating mains are routed through utilidors, which aid in keeping water and sewer lines from freezing during winter months. Solid Waste. Nonhazardous solid waste from Air Force facilities at Galena Airport is disposed of in the City of Galena Landfill near former Campion AFS, situated approximately 6 miles east of Galena.

3.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT Hazardous materials and hazardous waste management activities at Air Force facilities at Galena Airport are governed by specific environmental regulations. For the purposes of analysis, the term “hazardous materials” will refer to those substances defined as hazardous by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et seq., as amended, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 6901-6992, as amended. In general, these include substances that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may present substantial danger to public health, welfare, or the environment when released into the environment. The ROI for hazardous materials and hazardous waste encompasses those areas that could potentially be exposed to a release during demolition and construction activities within Air Force leased areas at Galena Airport. 3.3.1 Hazardous Materials Management Management of hazardous material at Air Force facilities at Galena Airport is conducted in accordance with applicable Air Force requirements, including Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7086, Hazardous Materials Management; U.S. EPA requirements for spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plans; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Air Force facilities at Galena Airport receive and store small quantities of hazardous materials, including a variety of janitorial supplies, paints, adhesives, solvents, antifreeze, deicing fluid, refrigerant, and batteries. Most of these materials are stored in small quantities, generally less than 5 gallons or


10 pounds. Supplies either arrive by barge during the summer months or by aircraft year round. The Air Force maintains an Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan (ODPCP) for associated Air Force operations at Galena Airport in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The ODPCP addresses operational and environmental issues pertaining to Air Force facilities at Galena Airport relating to the prevention and control of oil discharges that may result from operations at these facilities (U.S. Air Force, 2004a). Air Force facilities at Galena Airport receive and store a variety of petroleum substances, including fuels, engine oils, and lubricating oils. Jet propulsion fuel, grade 8 (JP-8) arrives by barge and is transferred by pipeline for storage in bulk storage tanks since it is used in large quantities. Diesel fuel, grade 8 (DF-8), which is downgraded JP-8 used as diesel fuel, is transferred from storage tanks to the heating plant by pipeline. Unleaded gasoline is obtained locally and transferred to tanks by a tank truck (U.S. Air Force 2004a). Most other petroleum substances are used in smaller quantities and typically arrive in 55-gallon drums or smaller containers via aircraft. 3.3.2 Hazardous Waste Management The federal government issued regulations for hazardous waste management in RCRA in 1976. In general, hazardous waste includes substances that, because of their quantity; concentration; or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may present substantial danger to public health or the environment when released to the environment. Activities at Air Force facilities at Galena Airport comply with current federal and state requirements due to implementation of a hazardous waste management plan. Waste typically generated at Air Force facilities include fuels, used oil, antifreeze, hydraulic fluid, fluorescent tubes, light ballasts, vapor lights, waste paint, and batteries. Satellite accumulation points are located in Facilities 1499, 1573, 1769, 1837, 1843, and 1850. A material accumulation point for collecting waste products for shipment is located in Facility 1769 (Chugach Support Services, 2006b). 3.3.3 Environmental Restoration Program Sites The ERP was established to identify, characterize, and remediate CERCLA-related contamination on Air Force installations. The program is designed to evaluate past disposal sites, control the migration of contaminants, and control potential hazards to human health and the environment. The ERP at Galena has been established as the mechanism for the CERCLA (42 U.S.C. Section 9601) process, incorporating applicable RCRA and state regulations, as well as meeting requirements of the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300). To ensure compliance with CERCLA regulations, the ERP was implemented to identify potentially contaminated sites, investigate those sites, and evaluate and select remedial actions. A Retention Advisory Board has been established at Galena


that conducts regular public meetings to resolve technical issues, update status of cleanup efforts, and reach consensus on decisions with state and federal agencies. There have been several investigations of the environmental condition of Air Force property at Galena Airport. ERP sites identified at Galena Airport that are on areas currently leased by the Air Force are listed below and are shown on Figure 3-1:

• Birchwood Hangar (AOC1) • Million Gallon Hill (CG001) • Missile Storage Area (CG002) Contaminated Sediments/

DDT Soils (CS001) • Wilderness Hall (SS005) • TCE Area (SS006) • Road Oiling (SS009) • Petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POL) Tank Farm (ST005) • JP-4 Fillstands (ST009) • Power Plant Tank 49 (TU001).

Sites AOC1, CS001, SS009, and TU001 require no further action. Required response actions for all the remaining sites include long-term groundwater monitoring and land use controls with the addition of bioventing at several sites. Table 3-1 provides individual site descriptions and summarizes the status of the sites. The closure of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport will not affect the ongoing ERP activity. ERP activities will continue in accordance with federal and state regulations to protect human health and the environment, regardless of the disposal decision. 3.3.4 Storage Tanks The U.S. EPA has issued federal regulations related to underground storage tanks (USTs) in 40 CFR Parts 280 and 112. Aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. Sections 1251-1578) and the Oil Pollution Act (specifically, 40 CFR Part 112). The operation and construction of ASTs is subject to National Fire Protection Association fire codes and the Uniform Fire Code. Thirty-seven ASTs assorted with Air Force facilities at Galena Airport are used for the storage of JP-8, aviation gasoline (AVGAS), diesel fuel, motor gasoline (MOGAS), used oil, ethylene glycol, deicing fluid, and water (Table 3-2). Currently, 28 ASTs are active and 9 are inactive. The ASTs associated with Facility 1880 (five inactive) were situated within the POL yard, which is being investigated under the ERP as Site ST005 (POL Tank Farm) and SS005 (Wilderness Hall). USTs are no longer utilized at Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. All USTs have been removed with the exception of two USTs at Facility 1713. These USTs were closed in place. Facility 1713 has been demolished and was situated


��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !�� ""�� !��#

$��

��%�� "��&

��

��!�� !'�

�((��!��

�(()

�(*+

��

��*

��

�(��

��*

�(*�

�*��

�**�

�**�

�*)�

�*)�

�*��(

��

��

��*

��(�

�(*�

��

��(�

��(*

��+

��(�

��(��*)

��*�

��(�

��(�

��(

��

��

��

��+�

��

�(*�

��*�

��(*�

�((�

��

��*�

��*(��+)

��+* ��++

��+�

��

,� ��-�� ,��

�()�

�()�

��).,-� ��/

-��.0�� 1�/

,��.2�%� ��/- ��.-��'�� '��33, ��/

�4-�.5�� 1�6�/

��(.7�� 1/

,��(.�48 ,�9 ��'/

-��.0�� 6� ��/

,:��.�� ,�9 ��/


Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Restoration Program Sites Page 1 of 3

Site ID Site Name Site Description Site Status

AOC1 Birchwood Hangar AOC1 is the site of the former Birchwood Hangar, which housed aircraft maintenance facilities between 1945 and 1957. Solvents and fuels may have contaminated the concrete floor and subsurface. The building was dismantled in 2001.

Site investigation in 2004 indicated low levels of total volatile hydrocarbons, benzene, and chlorinated compounds in the soil. The results indicated that no further investigation or cleanup activities are necessary. No Action technical memorandum was submitted in April 2004.

CG001 Million Gallon Hill (MGH) ERP Site CG001 is located on the westernmost edge of the main airport runway. MGH is a bulk fuel-storage area that has been occupied by numerous petroleum storage tanks. The contaminants, based on historical usage are GRO, DRO, BTEX, and lead.

Free product recovery and bioventing have been implemented. The preferred remedial action alternative includes bioventing, long-term groundwater monitoring, and LUCs.

CG002 Missile Storage Area (MSA) ERP Site CG002 is located in the southwestern corner of the Air Force cantonment at Building 1488. Contamination detected around the MSA appears to be the result of releases from MGH storage tanks.

Free product recovery and bioventing have been implemented. The preferred remedial action alternative includes bioventing, long-term groundwater monitoring, and LUCs.

CS001 Contaminated Sediments/DDT Soils

ERP Site CS001 consists of soil contaminated with POL and pesticides that were excavated during construction of the vehicle maintenance facility in 1993. The soils were originally stockpiled near the construction site and were moved to Tank No. 37 at MGH in 1997. Pesticides at the location of the removed stockpile were below ADEC soil standards.

Stockpiled soil in Tank No. 37 will be addressed as part of CG001.



Site ID Site Name Site Description Site Status

SS005 Wilderness Hall ERP Site SS005 is situated in the vicinity of Building 1872 near the northwest corner of the POL Tank Farm. The potential source of contamination was from a fuel valve rack (near Facility 1836, just south of Wilderness Hall) and abandoned fuel tanks and fill stands (near Facility 1872). In 2002, the POL Tank Farm area was administratively split into two sites (Wilderness Hall [SS005] and POL Tank Farm [ST005]). The soil and groundwater contaminates of concern include GRO, DRO, and BTEX.

Bioventing has been implemented. The preferred remedial action alternative includes LUC and long-term groundwater monitoring.

SS006 TCE Area ERP Site SS006 is situated near Building 1845, a former vehicle maintenance facility. It was suspected as the location of degreasing solvent usage, but subsequent investigation revealed that other facilities were the likely point of origin of chlorinated solvent releases.

The preferred remedial action alternative is long-term groundwater monitoring and LUCs.

SS009 Road Oiling ERP Site SS009 includes roads where liquid wastes were reportedly applied to control dust resulting in contamination with PCBs and PAHs.

Investigation of the site determined that contamination is not likely to pose a risk to human health or the environment. Draft NFRAP submitted in October 2005.

ST005 POL Tank Farm ERP Site ST005 is situated in the eastern portion of the main airport “triangle” immediately north of the main road to the civilian airport facilities. Originally 33 tanks containing JP-8, JP-4, gasoline, diesel fuel, and de-icing agents were located on the site. In 1992, all but eight tanks were removed; presently they are all out of service. In 2002, the POL tank farm site was administratively separated into two sites (Wilderness Hall [SS005] and POL Tank Farm [ST005]).

Remedial strategies evaluated have included tests of soil vapor extraction, air sparging, steam injection, bioventing, and free product recovery. The preferred remedial action alternative includes bioventing, natural attenuation, long-term groundwater monitoring and LUC.



Site ID Site Name Site Description Site Status ST009 JP-4 Fillstands ERP Site ST009 is situated in the

south-central part of the western portion of the main airport “triangle,” to the north of one of the east-west roadways within the airport. The site included diesel and JP-4 fillstands, a waste fuel UST, and POL pipelines to MGH. In 1994 a new vehicle maintenance facility (Facility 1573) was constructed at the site.

Remedial efforts conducted included UST removal and soil excavation. The preferred remedial action alternative includes bioventing, natural attenuation, long-term groundwater monitoring, and LUCs.

TU001 Power Plant Tank 49 ERP Site TU001 includes the power plant and UST No 49. UST 49 was a 25,000-gallon diesel fuel tank. Sludge and water fuel mixture from the UST were periodically disposed on the ground and the UST may have leaked.

UST 49 and contaminated soils were removed in 1997. Investigation of the site determined that contamination is not likely to pose a risk to human health or the environment.

ADEC = Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation AOC = Area of Concern BTEX = benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DRO = diesel range organics ERP = Environmental Restoration Program GRO = gasoline range organics IRP = Installation Restoration Program JP-4 = jet propulsion fuel, grade 4 JP-8 = jet propulsion fuel, grade 8 LUC = land use control MGH = Million Gallon Hill NFRAP = No Further Response Action Planned PAH = polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl POL = petroleum, oil, and lubricants RI/FS = Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study UST = underground storage tank Sources: U.S. Air Force, 2003a, 2003b, 2004e, 2004f, 2005c.

on the western side of the installation in the area known as Million Gallon Hill. There is also a suspected UST at Facility 1428 that is listed as inactive. Only one oil-water separator (OWS) is in operation at Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. Floor drains within Facility 1573 direct waste water to sediment traps, which in turn discharge to the OWS. The contents of the OWS are pumped from the sump pit into collection drums for disposal. An inactive OWS has also been identified at Facility 1833, Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Storage. 3.3.5 Asbestos-Containing Material ACM and ACM abatement are regulated by the U.S. EPA and OSHA. Asbestos fiber emissions into the ambient air are regulated in accordance with Section 112


Table 3-2. Aboveground Storage Tanks Facility ID Facility Name Contents Capacity (gallons) Status 1404 Control Tower DF-8 500 Active 1404 Control Tower DF-8 25 Active 1428 Alert Hangar DF-8 275 Active 1428 Alert Hangar DF-8 25 Active 1499 Power Plant DF-8 300 Active 1499 Power Plant DF-8 300 Active 1499 Power Plant Ethylene Glycol 500 Active 1499 Power Plant DF-8 30,000 Active 1499 Power Plant DF-8 30,000 Active 1552 Utility Vault DF-8 1,000 Active 1569 Electric Power Station DF-8 275 Active 1572 Liquid Fuel Pump Station JP-8 300 Active 1573 Vehicle Maintenance Shop DF-8 400 Active 1573 Vehicle Maintenance Shop DF-8 8,000 Active 1578 Water Treatment Plant DF-8 500 Active 1578 Water Treatment Plant Water 100,000 Active 1719 Liquid Fuel Pump Station JP-8 420,000 Active 1719 Liquid Fuel Pump Station JP-8 756,000 Inactive 1769 Supply Warehouse Used Oil 15,000 Inactive 1850 Maintenance Shop Used Oil 1,100 Active 1850 Maintenance Shop Used Oil 1,000 Inactive 1850 Maintenance Shop Used Oil 1,000 Inactive 1854 Headquarters Building DF-8 1,000 Active 1854 Headquarters Building DF-8 275 Active 1859 Dining Facility DF-8 3,000 Active 1859 Dining Facility DF-8 100 Active 1875 Communications Transmitter DF-8 275 Active 1878 Tank 44 JP-8 1,800,000 Active 1880 Service Station MOGAS 25,000 Inactive 1880 Service Station AVGAS 25,000 Inactive 1880 Service Station AVGAS 25,000 Inactive 1880 Service Station AVGAS 25,000 Inactive 1881 Vehicle Fueling Station Diesel 15,000 Active 1881 Vehicle Fueling Station MOGAS 30,000 Active 77506 Deicing Storage Deicing Fluid 50,000 Active 77506 Deicing Storage Deicing Fluid 50,000 Active - = no AST ID available AST = aboveground storage tank AVGAS = aviation gasoline DF-8 = diesel fuel, grade 8 JP-8 = jet propulsion fuel, grade 8 MOGAS = motor gasoline

Sources: U.S. Air Force, 1996c, 1996e, 2003a, and 2006c.


of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which established the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Under NESHAP, the owner of a structure must, prior to demolition or renovation of buildings with ACM, provide notice to the regulator with CAA authority (either the U.S. EPA or its state counterpart). The NESHAP regulations (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M) address the demolition or renovation of buildings with ACM. OSHA 1910-1001 addresses protection of workers working around asbestos; OSHA 1910-1101 addresses workers that actively remove ACM. The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), P.L. 99-519 and P.L. 101-637, addresses work practices in schools. The current Air Force practice is to manage or abate ACM in active facilities and abate ACM per regulatory requirements prior to facility demolition. Abatement of ACM occurs when there is a potential for asbestos fiber releases that would affect the environment or human health. There are two primary categories that describe ACM. Friable ACM is defined as any material containing more than 1 percent asbestos that when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure (e.g., pipe or boiler insulation and acoustic ceilings). Non-friable ACM is material that contains more than 1 percent asbestos but does not meet the criteria for friable asbestos (e.g., floor tile) and will not become friable by any force acting upon the material. A comprehensive asbestos survey for Air Force facilities at Galena Airport was completed in 1993 and 2006. The results are provided in Table 3-3. ACM was identified at 23 Air Force facilities. No ACM was identified in the remainder of the facilities surveyed. Renovation or demolition of buildings with ACM can release asbestos fibers into the air. The current Air Force practice is to manage or abate ACM in active facilities and abate any ACM that has been identified as a hazard to human health, following regulatory requirements and prior to facility demolition or renovation. Removal of ACM occurs when there is a potential for asbestos fiber release that would affect human health or the environment. 3.3.6 Lead-Based Paint Human exposure to lead has been determined to pose an adverse health risk by agencies such as OSHA and the U.S. EPA. Sources of exposure to lead are dust, soils, and paint. In 1973, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) established a maximum lead content in paint of 0.5 percent by weight in a dry film of newly applied paint. The use of lead-based paint declined after 1978 when the CPSC lowered the allowable lead content in paint to 0.06 percent by weight from its 1973 level of 0.5 percent by weight in a dry film of newly applied paint. This change was made under the Consumer Safety Act of 1977, P.L. 101-608, as implemented by 16 CFR Part 1303. DOD implemented a ban of lead-based paint use in 1978; however, it is possible that facilities painted prior to or during 1978 may contain lead-based paint. The Air Force does not actively pursue removal of lead-based paint. Instead, it is managed in place and removed by the Air Force, as necessary.


Table 3-3. Facilities Surveyed for Asbestos Facility

ID Facility Name Asbestos-Containing Material Present 1404 Control Tower No ACM identified 1427 Liquid Oxygen Storage No ACM identified 1428 Alert Hangar Cement asbestos board, floor tile mastic 1429 Guard Shack Roofing material 1488 Munitions Storage Insulation (pipe, fittings, ducting), wallboard, transite, joint compound 1495 Power Plant Storage Shed No ACM identified 1497 Service Treatment Plant Insulation (fittings) 1498 Power Plant Cooling Shed No ACM identified 1499 Power Plant Mastic, insulation (boiler pipe), floor tile, wall joint compound, boiler stacks 1500 Sewage Treatment Plant No ACM identified 1552 Utility Vault Insulation (fittings), wallboard joints 1556 Fire Station Insulation (pipe, fittings), roofing felts, floor tile, mastic, ceiling tile, wall joint

compound 1568 RAPCON Building Floor tile mastic, floor tile 1569 Electric Power Station Muffler and exhaust 1570 Maintenance Shop No ACM identified 1572 Liquid Fuel Pump Station Wallboard 1578 Water Treatment Plant Wallboard, mastic, wall joint compound, transite floorings, insulation (fittings, pipe,

tank) 1700 Refueling Vehicle

Maintenance Shop Wallboard, transit, insulation (fittings, pipe) flooring, mastic

1719 Liquid Fuel Pump Station No ACM identified 1768 Hazardous Storage No ACM identified 1769 Supply Warehouse Tile, mastic, insulation (pipe, fittings), wallboard, roofing 1771 Radar Tower Sealant 1772 Electric Power Station No ACM identified 1812 CE Composite Shop Floor tile, mastic, cement asbestos board 1833 MWR Storage Wallboard, cement asbestos board shingles 1836 Liquid Fuel Pump Station Wallboard, felt, gaskets, grout, transite shingles 1837 Petroleum Operations

Facility No ACM identified

1842 Maintenance Shop Floor tile, mastic, drywall, insulation (fittings, pipe), joint compound 1843 Carpenter Shop ACM Removed 1844 Storage Shed No ACM identified 1845 Vehicle Maintenance Shop Thermal system insulation, acoustic tile, floor tile and mastic, joint compound,

wallboard 1847 School No ACM identified 1850 Maintenance Shop No ACM identified 1851 Gymnasium Insulation (fittings), wall joint compound, flooring, mastic 1852 Guard Shack No ACM identified 1854 Headquarters Building Insulation (fittings, pipe), flooring, mastic, joint compound 1857 Medical Aid Station Wall joint compound, mastic 1858 Cold Storage No ACM identified 1859 Dining Facility Insulation (pipe, fittings), wallboard, floor tile, mastic, joint compound 1872 Dormitory Insulation (pipe, fittings), mastic, ceiling texture, sheet vinyl, joint compound 1873 Composite Club Wallboard, flooring, mastic, transite shingles 1874 Dormitory No ACM identified 1875 Communications

Transmitter Flooring, mastic

1876 Dormitory No ACM identified Note: There are two primary categories that describe ACM. Friable ACM is defined as any material containing more than 1 percent asbestos

that when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure (e.g., pipe or boiler insulation and acoustic ceilings). Non-friable ACM is material that contains more than 1 percent asbestos but does not meet the criteria for friable asbestos (e.g., floor tile). ACM = asbestos containing material CE = civil engineering

Sources: U.S. Air Force 1993, 1998c, 2006g.


A lead-based paint survey of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport was completed in 2006. Table 3-4 presents the findings of the lead-based paint survey. 3.3.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls The disposal of PCBs is regulated under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. Section 2601, et seq., as implemented by 40 CFR Part 761), which banned the manufacture and distribution of PCBs, with the exception of PCBs used in enclosed systems. By federal definition, PCB equipment contains 500 parts per million (ppm) PCBs or more, whereas PCB-contaminated equipment contains PCB concentrations equal to or greater than 50 ppm, but less than 500 ppm, and PCB items contain from 5 to 49 ppm PCBs. TSCA regulates and the U.S. EPA enforces the removal and disposal of all sources of PCBs containing 50 ppm or more; the regulations are more stringent for PCB equipment than for PCB-contaminated equipment. There are a total of 66 pole-mounted transformers and 48 pad-mounted transformers at the installation. An inventory of pad-mounted transformers on the installation conducted in 2003 did not identify any transformers with PCB concentrations exceeding 1 ppm. An inventory of pole-mounted transformers on the installation conducted in 2004 identified 7 transformers with PCB concentrations ranging from 1.02 to 12.0 ppm (U.S. Air Force, 2004c, 2004d). No PCB spills have been identified. In addition, PCBs may be present in ballast units of older fluorescent light fixtures. While not defined as PCB equipment or PCB-contaminated equipment, these ballasts could leak or spill and result in a release of PCBs.

3.4 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Aspects of the natural environment discussed in this EA include geology and soils, water resources, air quality, biological resources, and cultural resources. 3.4.1 Geology and Soils The ROI for geology and soils includes the regional setting surrounding Galena Airport. 3.4.1.1 Geology. The topography at Galena Airport is low and flat near the banks and along the flood plain of the Yukon River, with a ground elevation between 100 and 150 feet above mean sea level. Galena is situated within the Koyukuk Flats physiographic province. The valleys of the Yukon-Koyukuk Basin occupy an extensive structural trough formed by subsidence during the Cenozoic period. The province is an extensive lowland, with thaw lakes, meander belts near the rivers, broad rolling silt plains with thaw sinks, and bedrock hills. The entire Yukon valley area is characterized by a ridges-and-trough topography reflecting the constant readjustment of the Yukon River system to seasonal flooding. The


Table 3-4. Facilities Surveyed for Lead-Based Paint Page 1 of 2

Facility ID Lead-Based Paint Material 1404 Generator 1427 Not sampled 1428 All structural steel and floor stripping 1429 Soffit 1430 None detected 1488 Doors, walls 1495 None detected 1497 Footer 1498 None detected 1499 Floor stripes, ladders, pipes generator, eaves under metal 1500 Cover (pipe cap) 1551 Foundation painted areas 1552 Door, door trim 1556 Door frame, window frame, floor strip, steel posts (bullards) 1568 None detected 1569 None detected 1570 None detected 1572 None detected 1573 None detected 1578 Wall, ladder, tank 1579 None detected 1700 Not sampled 1719 None detected 1768 None detected 1769 Ladder, concrete floor, doors, door frames, steel 1771 2nd and 3rd floor, steel columns, stairs and handrails 1772 None detected 1812 Room 1, Room 5, Room 7, Room 11, floor stripes, lead-

contaminated soil (presumed) 1813 No suspect coatings 1832 All structural steel 1833 Exterior trim 1836 Exterior trim, pipe, door, filter, pump base 1837 Post, stripes, sink 1842 Not sampled 1843 Floor stripes, floor, utility sink 1844 Beams 1845 Walls, ceilings, floor stripes, doors/trim, bullards 1847 Ceramic tile glaze 1850 None detected 1851 Ceramic tile glaze 1852 None detected 1854 Utility sink 1857 Sinks, steel columns 1858 None detected 1859 None detected


Table 3-4. Facilities Surveyed for Lead-Based Paint Page 2 of 2

Facility ID Lead-Based Paint Material 1872 Drapery weights 1873 Wainscoting 1874 None detected 1875 None detected 1876 None detected 1879 None detected 1881 None detected 2000 Engine, pump Tank 41 None detected Tank 42 Pipe striping Tank 44 None detected Unused Tanks Pipe, Tank 1, Tank 2, Tank 3, Tank 4, Tank 5, lead-

contaminated soil (presumed) Sources: U.S. Air Force, 2006g.

recent alluvial fans, terraces, and floodplains of the Yukon River and its tributaries are underlain by Quaternary alluvium and lacustrine silt and silty sand of the late Tertiary period. At Galena, these sediments have been deposited by the Yukon River to a depth of more than 200 feet below grade. The shallow alluvial sediments consist of unconsolidated stratified layers of silt and sand, underlain by gravel, sandy gravel, silty sand, and sand (U.S. Air Force, 1996a). 3.4.1.2 Soils. Soils in the Galena Airport area fall within the loamy histic pergelic cryaquepts-typic cryofluvents association. This soil association covers over 7 million acres in Alaska, or about 2 percent of the total land area. Permafrost is generally present on the poorly drained soils in the lower parts of the flood plains, but deep or absent on slightly higher, well-drained portions. Permafrost may also be absent along main river channels. Permafrost usually extends in undisturbed and vegetated terrain from within 10 feet of the ground surface to a depth that depends on the porosity and permeability of the alluvium. Permafrost at Galena Airport has been encountered either as near-surface isolated lenses or as continuous layers beginning 20 feet or more below grade. However, the distribution of permafrost beneath the Galena Airport is increasingly sporadic closer to the thaw zone created by the Yukon River and its recently abandoned meander loops (U.S. Air Force, 1996a). Much of Galena Airport has been filled with silty gravel to stabilize the soils for construction, with thickness ranging from 4 to 20 feet. Heavy structures have been built on pilings, both to minimize settlement and to reduce permafrost thawing (U.S. Air Force, 1996a).


3.4.2 Water Resources Water resources include both surface water features, such as lakes and rivers, and groundwater. The ROI for water resources includes the Galena Airport area. 3.4.2.1 Surface Water. The Yukon River, which drains a large proportion of Alaska, is the dominant regional surface water feature. Other surface water features include smaller streams and rivers, thaw lakes, oxbow lakes, and river-flooded basins. Streams and rivers are characterized by low-gradients, meandering courses, and spring flooding. Surface water drainage also occurs by overland flow into sloughs discharging to the Yukon River. The suspended sediment content is high in spring and summer. Many streams in the Yukon Region are classified as high quality for drinking water purposes. However, some streams in the central subregion, principally those that drain lowlands, are stained red-brown from natural concentrations of iron and manganese. The community is susceptible to flooding, caused either by high runoff due to snow melt or by spring breakup of ice jams on the Yukon River. Flooding usually takes place in the spring (U.S. Air Force, 1996a). The U.S. EPA has granted the Air Force facility at Galena Airport exclusion from permitting under the terms and conditions imposed by the EPA’s Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP). The No Exposure Certification for the Air Force facility at Galena began in February 2006 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). 3.4.2.2 Groundwater. Groundwater is perennial at Galena AFS beneath the zone of potential permafrost. Groundwater depth fluctuates from 5 feet in spring to more than 25 feet below grade in winter. River stage, spring thaw, and seasonal frost and permafrost have dramatic effects on groundwater levels and flow patterns. In winter and spring, shallow groundwater freezes, forming frost layers and lenses that redirect groundwater. The thin layer of supra-permafrost groundwater forms a seasonal unconfined water table above the permafrost in the summer and fall months. With the onset of winter, aquifer recharge sources freeze, and water levels drop or the water eventually re-freezes in to the permafrost wedge. Permafrost can form a confining layer impeding vertical movement between the shallow supra-permafrost and the sub-permafrost aquifers (U.S. Air Force, 1996a). During the 9 to 10 months that the Yukon River is a gaining river, groundwater flows to the southwest. A short-term reversal in groundwater flow to the north occurs during spring breakup (May to June). This reversal is attributed to the abrupt rate at which the Yukon River rises in elevation to flood stage during breakup, causing the water table to slope away from the river. After the Yukon River reaches peak stage and resumes gaining river conditions, the direction of groundwater flow returns to the south/southwest.


Previous spills and operational practices have led to contamination of the groundwater with petroleum-based products. Fuel is also known to have leaked from fuel storage tanks and during fuel transfers. Investigations conducted under the ERP identified groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons in a number of places around Galena Airport (see Figure 3-1). 3.4.3 Air Quality Air quality in a given location is defined by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere. The ROI for air quality includes the Galena area. The federal CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q), amended in November 1990, stipulates that emissions sources must comply with the air quality standards and regulations that have been established by federal, state, and county regulatory agencies. These standards and regulations focus on (1) the maximum allowable ambient pollutant concentrations and (2) the maximum allowable emissions from individual sources. The U.S. EPA established the federal standards for the permissible levels of certain pollutants in the atmosphere. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for seven criteria pollutants: ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Ozone is a secondary pollutant formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions of previously emitted pollutants, or precursors. The ozone precursors are nitrogen oxide (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The NAAQS are outlined in Table 3-5. The U.S. EPA designates all areas of the United States as having air quality better than (attainment) or worse than (nonattainment) the NAAQS. Pollutants in an area may be designated as unclassified when there are insufficient ambient air quality data for the U.S. EPA to form a basis for an attainment status. The nonattainment classifications for CO and PM10 are further divided into moderate and serious categories. Ozone nonattainment is divided into marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme categories. Galena is within an area classified as attainment for all NAAQS. Air pollutants in the Galena area include those from natural sources, such as wind-blown silt and smoke from forest fires, and anthropogenic sources including hydrocarbon vapors from storage tanks, emissions from internal combustion engines, including vehicles, power plant operations, and aircraft, and dust from unpaved roads. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has granted the 611th Air Support Group an owner-requested limit (ORL) to restrict the potential to emit from Air Force facilities at Galena Airport to avoid the requirement for an operating permit under 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 50.325(b)(1)-(b)(2),


Table 3-5. National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Standards(a)

Pollutant Averaging Time Primary(b,c) Secondary(b,d) Ozone 1-hour 0.12 ppm

(235 µg/m3) Same as primary standard

0.08 ppm (157 µg/m3)

Same as primary standard

8-hour Carbon monoxide 8-hour 9 ppm

(10 mg/m3) --

1-hour 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)

--

Nitrogen dioxide Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3)

Same as primary standard

1-hour -- -- Sulfur dioxide Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.03 ppm

(80 µg/m3) --

24-hour 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3)

--

3-hour -- 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m3)

1-hour -- -- PM10 Annual Arithmetic Mean 50 µg/m3 Same as primary standard 24-hour 150 µg/m3 Same as primary standard PM2.5 Annual Arithmetic Mean 15 µg/m3 Same as primary standard 24-hour 65 µg/m3 Same as primary standard Lead 30-day -- -- Quarterly 1.5 µg/m3 Same as primary standard Sulfates 24-hour -- -- Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour -- -- Vinyl chloride 24-hour -- -- Visibility reducing particles

8-hour (10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Pacific Standard Time)

-- --

Notes: (a) National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when 99 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal policies.

(b) Concentrations are expressed first in units in which they were promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 millimeters (mm) of mercury. All measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar); ppm in this table refers to parts per million by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

(c) National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.

(d) National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of pollutant.

µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter PM2.5 = particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 = particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter ppm = parts per million


and to ensure protection of ambient air quality standards and increments established in 18 AAC 50.010. The potential to emit for the sources listed in the ORL for any one regulated air contaminant is less than 100 tons per year by limiting the diesel and gasoline fuel consumed in the stationary sources (150,000 gallons of diesel fuel and 12,000 gallons of gasoline in any 12-month period), and limiting the sulfur content of the fuel to no greater than 0.30 percent by weight. In accordance with18 AAC 50.210, the capacity of the facility to emit an air contaminant is verifiable through the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting specified in the ORL. By limiting the potential to emit of the sources listed in the ORL, the 611th Air Support Group avoids the requirement to obtain an operating permit for a facility that is classified under Alaska Statute (AS) 46.14.130 (b) and 18 AAC 50.325(b)(1) (State of Alaska, no date). The Air Force is responsible for operating a Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) System and a Subsurface Depressurization System (SSDS) at the Galena Aviation Vocational Training Technical Center (GAVTC) building. The Air Force does not own this facility. The system is in place to prevent contaminants from accumulating within the building to allow occupation of the structure. Approximately 33,000 pounds of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) is emitted annually from the operation of the systems. 3.4.4 Biological Resources Biological resources include both native and non-native species of plants and animals in the project area. For discussion purposes, these are divided into vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and sensitive habitats. Data sources for biological resources include published literature, and information provided by the USFWS and Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The ROI for biological resources includes the Air Force leased areas and adjacent habitats that may be affected by the proposed activities. 3.4.4.1 Vegetation. The vegetative cover of the Galena area is characteristic of interior taiga forest, consisting primarily of floodplain thickets, bottomland birch/spruce forest, and upland white and black spruce forest (U.S. Air Force, 1999). The Air Force cantonment at Galena Airport is completely developed and devoid of natural vegetation. The ground between buildings is mostly bare silt with sparse grass and moss growth. Several small areas have been landscaped with lawns, small birch trees, and shrubs (U.S. Air Force, 1999). 3.4.4.2 Wildlife. Two large National Wildlife Refuges, Koyukuk and Innoko, are situated to the north and south of Galena, respectively. Studies conducted within these two refuges identified 147 species of birds, 32 mammalian species, and 19 fish


species occurring or potentially occurring on lands in the vicinity of Galena (U.S. Air Force, 1999). Some of the more common mammals that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of Galena include: shrew (Sorex sp.), brown bear (Ursus arctos), black bear (Ursus americanus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), weasel (Mustela sp.), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), vole (Microtus sp.), beaver (Castor canadensis), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), and moose (Alces alces). Common bird species include American widgeon (Anas americana), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), loon (Gavia sp.), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), common snipe (Gallinago gallinago), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica petechia), and white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leuophrys) (U.S. Air Force, 1999). Cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) nest at the Galena Airport, and are present on Air Force property. The exterior of facilities, under the cover of the eaves, is attractive nesting substrate for this species. This species and the other common bird species discussed above are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 3.4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game and USFWS websites and the installation’s Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) prepared for the Galena Airport (U.S. Air Force, 1999) as well as personal communications with USFWS personnel were all used to provide information concerning federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species that have the potential to occur on or adjacent to Galena Airport. The 1999 INRMP indicated that the Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri), Federally listed as threatened and a state species of special concern, had a rare potential of occurring in the Galena area (U.S. Air Force, 1999). However, the potential of the Steller’s eider presence would more appropriately be accidental due to the fact that the Galena Airport is too inland for the birds migration pattern and the lack of suitable habitat found in the Galena area (Swem, 2006). Steller's eider are diving ducks that spend most of the year in shallow, near-shore marine waters. Molting and wintering flocks congregate in protected lagoons and bays, as well as along rocky headlands and islets. In summer, they nest on coastal tundra adjacent to small ponds or within drained lake basins. During the breeding season they can be observed on the coastline of the northern Atlantic feeding on aquatic insects and plants in freshwater ponds and streams (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006b). The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) was removed from the Endangered Species list (delisted) on 25 August 1999 (Federal Register 64(164:46542-46558)). It remains protected under the MBTA. The USFWS has identified the Yukon River as having known occurrences of the American peregrine falcon and possible occurrences of the arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius) (U.S. Air Force, 1999).


3.4.4.4 Sensitive Habitat. Sensitive habitats present in the vicinity of Galena Airport include wetlands. Wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). Wetlands are regulated under Section 404 of the CWA and EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). The land surrounding Galena Airport is a lake-dotted lowland that is forested on well-drained higher elevations and marshy in the poorly drained lowlands. According to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Galena area, there are no permanent bodies of water within the Air Force cantonment area that would meet the conditions to be considered jurisdictional wetlands. There are temporarily flooded, palustrine, emergent areas that surround the cantonment area. These sites can generally be described as having persistent vegetation that remains standing until the beginning of the new growing season and surface water is present for brief periods during the growing season, but the water table usually lies well below the soil surface. 3.4.5 Cultural Resources Federal laws and regulations, such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) require federal agencies to consider the effects of a Proposed Action on cultural resources. These laws and regulations stipulate a process for compliance, define the responsibilities of the federal agency proposing the action, and prescribe the relationships among other involved agencies (e.g., the State Historic Preservation Officer [SHPO], the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [Council]). The primary law governing the treatment of cultural resources is the NHPA, which requires a federal agency to consider potential impacts on historic properties from any proposed undertaking. The NHPA defines a historic property as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe that meet National Register criteria. ARPA defines archaeological resource as any material remains of past human life or activities that are of archaeological interest and are at least 100 years of age. Essentially, cultural resources are the physical remains of human activity that are considered to be important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. For ease of discussion, cultural resources are divided into prehistoric and historic archaeological resources, historic buildings and structures, and traditional cultural resources (e.g., sacred or ceremonial sites).


Background Native Americans, particularly the Athabaskan Koyukuk, have been a strong presence in the vicinity of Galena for probably thousands of years. Koyukuk, at the mouth of the Koyukuk River, and Louden, a native winter village 13 miles upstream on the Yukon, were established and in contact with Europeans before Galena was built. Galena was established in 1918 as a shipping point on the Yukon River for lead mined from 1918 to 1922 in the Kaiyuh Mountain, 18 miles to the south. A roadhouse that was part of the dog team mail carrying system was moved to Galena in response to the mine opening, and after 1920 residents of Louden moved to Galena and Louden was eventually abandoned. A Catholic church was built and a school was opened in 1928, and a post office was established in 1932. Galena was incorporated as a fourth class city in 1971, and as a first class city in 1973. The United States Army selected Galena in 1940 as a site on the Alaska-Siberia route for ferrying lend-lease aircraft to the Soviet Union, and Galena AFS was constructed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority in late 1941. After 1943 it served as a refueling stop for aircraft to the Soviet Union under the Lend-lease program. In December 1945, it began operation as an airport. It was transferred to the state of Alaska following statehood. Galena was frequently subject to flooding during the spring breakup of the Yukon River. An earth dike built across the western end of the field in 1943 was washed out in 1945. A dike mostly encircling the airport was subsequently constructed. Nonetheless, the airport and nearby villages have been evacuated on several occasions. The 11th Air Force was designated the Alaskan Air Command (AAC) on 18 December 1945, and its headquarters were moved to Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage shortly thereafter. Its mission was providing “Top Cover for America,” defending against the Soviet bomber threat. The key to Alaskan defense was perceived as preventing bombing attacks against the main military complexes at Fort Richardson and Elmendorf Field, both adjacent to Anchorage, and at Ladd Field near Fairbanks, using radar and interceptors. The AAC negotiated an agreement with the Civil Aeronautic Authority in early 1951 for joint use of Galena Airport, and a construction program was begun to upgrade the facilities to base a squadron of fighter interceptors there. These plans were later dropped, but AAC proceeded to use the airfield as a forward operating base. Four F-94s were assigned to Galena AFS in March 1951 to train combat crews in intercepts and cold weather operations. The facility was upgraded in 1954 to accommodate F-89s, including improving the runway lighting system, and lengthening the runway from 6,500 to 7,250 feet. The ACC converted from the F-89 to the F-102 during the last half of 1957, the F-102 and F-106 was replaced by the F 4E Phantom ll in June 1970. By October 1982, the F-4Es were replaced with the F-15A Eagle, and two Boeing E-3 Sentry airborne warning and control aircraft were assigned in 1986 also. Galena was made the site of the regional long-range radar for aircraft control and warning, as part of the conversion to minimally attended radar, in 1984. The F-15s stayed on alert at Galena AFS until the drawdown in 1993. The ACC was replaced and


absorbed by the 11th Air Force with the Pacific Air Force (PACAF) as the Major Command (MAJCOM) (U.S. Air Force, 1996c, 1998b). The airport is now owned and operated by the State of Alaska. In place of the active duty force, approximately 40 civilian caretakers maintain the Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. Only those cultural resources determined to be significant under cultural resources legislation are subject to protection or consideration by a federal agency. Significant cultural resources, whether they be prehistoric, historic, or traditional in nature, are referred to as “historic properties.” For the purposes of this analysis, the term ROI is synonymous with the “area of potential effect” as defined under cultural resources legislation. The ROI for the analysis of cultural resources within this EA includes any areas where ground disturbance or demolition may occur. Cultural resources at Air Force facilities at Galena Airport are the responsibility of the 611th Civil Engineer Squadron (611 CES). In 1998, the 611 CES completed an inventory and evaluation of all buildings, structures, and archaeological remains at Galena AFS (U.S. Air Force, 1998a, 1998b). 3.4.5.1 Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Resources. Galena AFS is located in a remote area along the banks of the Yukon River in the interior of Alaska. Very little archaeological work has been conducted in the immediate area. There have been a few archaeological surveys outside of the installation for townsites in Galena and several Native Alaskan allotment surveys roughly eight miles to the southeast of the installation. The surveys close to the installation failed to find any cultural resources. The surveys 8 miles to the southeast recorded two sites; one was a storage pit and another was a former Athabaskan settlement. A cultural resources survey was conducted across 100 percent of Galena AFS in May 1988. (U.S. Air Force, 1998b). Due to a deposit of fill material across the entire base, reported to be 20 feet thick in places, no prehistoric archaeological resources were discovered. In addition, the potential for subsurface prehistoric cultural resources was deemed very low because of the alluvial sediments underlying the fill layer. The Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) for Galena AFS states there are no areas of concern with respect to prehistoric cultural resources (U.S. Air Force, 2000). 3.4.5.2 Historic Buildings and Structures. The historical period of interior Alaska begins roughly in the 1830s but it wasn’t until 1918 that the town of Galena was established to support local mining efforts of lead ore. The town was previously an Athapaskan fish camp of 40 or so people. In 1941, a runway was constructed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority at Galena to support other interior settlements in western Alaska. It was this runway that was later transferred to the United States military and expanded to


serve as an auxiliary field along the Alaska-Siberia route. Although the military constructed numerous buildings during World War II, very few survived to the present day. Throughout the ensuing Cold War era, Galena proved a strategic base for fighter-intercept aircraft. The base underwent several episodes of construction until it was finally drawn down in 1993. The CRMP for Galena AFS (U.S. Air Force, 2000) states that there are no historic cultural resources of the period preceding World War II at Galena AFS. The pedestrian survey of 1998 noted only the Air Force buildings in its inventory of cultural resources. The 1998 historic building inventory and evaluation at Galena AFS (U.S. Air Force, 1998b) identified 20 buildings that were determined eligible for listing on the National Register based on their association with World War II (1 building) and Cold War eras (19 buildings). Due to a flood in 1945, only three buildings built during the World War II era remained; two maintenance buildings and the Birchwood Hangar (Building 1551). The latter building was found eligible for listing on the National Register (U.S. Air Force, 1998b), but it was subsequently demolished for safety reasons. The demolition of the hangar was guided by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by the United States Air Force (611th Air Support Group), the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the ACHP in 1998. Galena AFS has two remaining buildings dating to World War II; neither of them meet National Register requirements. The remaining 19 buildings deemed eligible for the National Register date to the Cold War era. Eight of these have been removed or demolished per the MOA signed in 1998. The demolished buildings include: Building 1551, 1572, 1713, 1856, 1860, 1873, and 1891. Building 1853, the base chapel, was moved off-site. The remaining 12 buildings identified as National Register eligible properties still exist within the Air Force cantonment at Galena Airport (Table 3-6). 3.4.5.3 Traditional Cultural Resources. The 1999 Department of Defense American Indian and Alaska Native Policy recognizes the “importance of increasing understanding and addressing tribal concerns, past, present, and future” and states that “these concerns should be addressed prior to reaching decisions on matters that may have the potential to significantly affect protected tribal resources, tribal rights, or Indian lands.” Based on this policy, DOD must consult with tribes when its proposed actions may have the potential to significantly affect Indian lands, treaty rights, or other tribal interests protected by statute, regulation, or executive order. There are no Indian lands or treaty rights that could be affected by actions at Galena Airport. In particular, as noted above, the installation has no potential for archaeological resources that could be protected under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. Formal consultation is necessary to determine if there are other tribal interests in the undertaking. It is unlikely that the base includes any sacred sites to which access is protected under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and EO 13007. During an informal meeting, Galena AFS airport’s environmental manager indicated that he


Table 3-6. Facilities Potentially Eligible for listing on the National Register Facility Number Facility Name Year Constructed

1551(a) Birchwood Hangar 1944 1859 Dining Hall 1956 1428 Combat Alert Cell Hangar 1957 1488 Missile Maintenance Facility 1957 1572(a) Liquid Fuels Pump Station 1957 1713(a) Liquid Fuels Pump Station 1957 1856(a) Northern Lights Inn 1957 1891(a) The Q: Eagles Retreat Dorm 1957 1853(a) Base Chapel 1958 1429 Combat Alert Cell Traffic House 1963 1857 Dispensary 1966 1860(a) Dormitory 1969 1556 Fire Station 1973 1872 Airmen’s Dorm 1979 1873(b) Consolidated Open Mess 1982 1837 Petroleum Operations Building 1984 1404 Control Tower 1986 1847 Mall and Base Theater 1986 1854 Headquarters Building 1986 1852 Main Gate 1988 Notes: Consultation with the Alaska SHPO was initiated prior to implementing demolition and transfer actions. (a) Facility has been demolished or removed from the site. (b) Facility has been transferred to the City of Galena for use as school dining facility.

Sources: U.S. Air Force 1998b, 2000.

had no knowledge of Native American interest in the airport property, with the partial exception of a modern sculpture along the airport’s access road, representing several giant arrows, which has been consecrated by Native American representatives during the inauguration ceremonies. The proposed activities at Air Force facilities at Galena Airport has no potential to affect the sculpture. Therefore, formal consultation is not required. NHPA Compliance. Responsibility for management of cultural resources at Galena AFS lies with the 611 CES. The Cultural Resources Manager at the 611 CES performs the function of the Base Historic Preservation Officer and is responsible for compliance with applicable federal historic preservation laws and regulations. Consultation with the Alaska SHPO is required in the cases of unexpected discoveries of archaeological remains or undertakings other than demolition of the historic buildings (U.S. Air Force, 2000). There are 12 buildings remaining that require long-term management, including mitigation for adverse effects, for compliance with the NHPA. The treatment of these buildings is the subject of the MOA signed in 1998. It prescribes the mitigation measures necessary before demolition can be undertaken. These measures include architectural, photographic, and written historical documentation. All of the buildings were photographed in 1999 and architectural forms were prepared. The MOA does not cover any other Air Force action than demolition. If the 12 buildings are repaired, transferred, or leased, the Air Force must initiate new Section 106 consultation with the Alaska SHPO, the ACHP, and other interested parties.


4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the results of the analysis of potential environmental effects associated with the Air Force termination of their land lease with the DOT & PF and the demolition or removal for reuse of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. The Proposed Action, Conveyance Alternative, and the No-Action Alternative are analyzed. Changes to the natural and human environments that may result from the Proposed Action and alternatives were evaluated relative to the existing environment as described in Chapter 3.0. The potential for significant environmental consequences was evaluated utilizing the context and intensity considerations as defined in CEQ regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Part 1508.27).

4.2 COMMUNITY SETTING 4.2.1 Socioeconomics 4.2.1.1 Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action the 40 Air Force caretaker employee positions would be eliminated. This would represent an approximately 11 percent decrease in the year 2000 employment level of 344 persons for the City of Galena. It is assumed that most of these employees would relocate from the Galena area and so would not contribute to a significant increase in the unemployment rate of Galena. The anticipated reduction in on-site employment would not result in effects to the natural or physical environment; therefore, no significant environmental impacts are anticipated from socioeconomic impacts. Air Force facilities currently used by non-Air Force tenants would continue to be used by the current tenants; therefore, there should be no impact to employment associated with current tenant organizations, including the Galena Interior Learning Academy (GILA). Work associated with building demolition activities would result in a temporary increase in local employment. 4.2.1.2 Conveyance Alternative. Potential socioeconomic impacts under the Conveyance Alternative would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action, except that no temporary increase in employment associated with building demolition would occur. There would be no change in student and staffing numbers at GILA. Reuse of Air Force buildings would likely result in an increase in employment; however, because the future use of these buildings is not known, the potential types and numbers of associated jobs are also not known.


4.2.1.3 No-Action Alternative. Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change from current employment associated with Air Force caretaker activities and tenant agencies utilizing Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. There would be no change in student and staffing numbers at GILA. No temporary increase in employment associated with building demolition would occur. No significant impacts to socioeconomics are anticipated under the No-Action Alternative. 4.2.2 Environmental Justice 4.2.2.1 Proposed Action. Environmental justice impacts could occur if minority and/or low-income communities are subjected to disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts. Based on the analysis conducted for this EA, it was determined that activities associated with the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on any of the resources analyzed in this EA. In addition, impacts to resources analyzed in this EA, with the exception of air quality, would generally be confined to the project site and would not result in an adverse impact to adjacent communities. Potential impact to air quality would occur throughout the area; therefore, high and adverse impacts air quality impacts to minority and low-income populations would not be expected. In addition, no significant impact to any resources that could present an environmental health or safety risk to children living in the adjacent City of Galena or to the approximately 110 students living at the GILA boarding school were identified. Therefore, there are no environmental health and safety risks that would disproportionately affect children. 4.2.2.2 Conveyance Alternative. Based on the analysis conducted for this EA, it was determined that activities associated with the Conveyance Alternative would not have a significant impact on any of the resources analyzed in this EA. Therefore, no high and adverse impacts to low-income, minority, or children populations would be expected. 4.2.2.3 No-Action Alternative. Because there would be no change from current conditions, no high and adverse impacts to low-income, minority, or children populations would be expected. 4.2.3 Land Use 4.2.3.1 Proposed Action. Demolition of Air Force facilities, including their foundations, and seeding of the former building sites would result in a change of land use to open space. Air Force facilities currently occupied by non-Air Force tenants or retained for airport use would remain and there would be no land use change at these sites. The


Proposed Action would result in an increase in open space among the remaining facilities at Galena Airport. No significant impacts to land use are anticipated. 4.2.3.2 Conveyance Alternative. Under the Conveyance Alternative, Air Force facilities would not be demolished and would be available for reuse. The use of these buildings would change from Air Force use, but their future use is unknown. Current non-Air Force tenants use their facilities primarily for administrative and storage usage. Future building recipients would utilize the existing buildings and may utilize them for activities similar to those of current non-Air Force tenants. Air Force facilities currently support a range of various uses such as lodging, supply, offices, dining facilities, building and grounds maintenance, fuels maintenance and storage, and vehicle maintenance. While the use of individual buildings may change, future uses would likely be similar to current uses, and the range of future uses would likely not be significantly more diverse than current conditions. Significant changes to land use would not be expected. Air Force facilities currently occupied by non-Air Force tenants or retained for airport use would remain and there would be no land use change at these sites. No significant impacts to land use are anticipated. 4.2.3.3 No-Action Alternative. Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change from current land use. The Air Force would maintain its facilities in caretaker status and tenant agencies would continue utilizing Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. No changes in existing land use would occur. No significant impacts to land use are anticipated under the No-Action Alternative. 4.2.4 Utilities 4.2.4.1 Proposed Action Electricity. Electricity would no longer be used for caretaker activities at Air Force facilities. The Air Force power plant is currently used only as a backup source for Air Force facilities. Under the Proposed Action, the power plant would be removed; however, the electrical distribution system would remain in place to allow the GEU to continue to provide service to the facilities within the Air Force cantonment. Water. The Air Force would remove its water treatment plant and associated distribution system. Facilities currently connected to the water system that are currently utilized by non-Air Force tenants and that would be retained, would need to develop water storage systems to support their needs. Wastewater. Under the Proposed Action, the sanitary sewer system including the treatment plant, sewer lines, and wastewater lagoon would be removed. Facilities currently connected to the sewer system that are currently utilized by non-Air Force tenants and that would be retained, would need to install septic systems for treatment of sanitary wastewater.


Steam Heating. Under the Proposed Action, the steam heating plant and associated steam distribution lines would be remove. Facilities currently connected to the steam heating system that are currently utilized by non-Air Force tenants and that would be retained, would need to install heating systems. This may involve the installation of heating oil tanks at each of the facilities or possibly the use of electric heating systems. Solid Waste. Under the Proposed Action, there would be a decrease in the population and activities at Air Force facilities at Galena Airport, and a resultant decrease in solid waste generation after completion of the Air Force termination of their lease with the State of Alaska DOT & PF and the demolition or removal for reuse of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. However, building demolition activities would generate solid waste, including wood, drywall, cardboard, metals, concrete, and roofing material. Concrete would be separated, ground up, and stockpiled for future use as road material or possibly bank stabilization material along the river. Some building materials would likely be recycled/reused by local residents. Demolition debris that is not recycled would be disposed in an Air Force landfill at former Campion AFS. Demolition of the 50 Air Force facilities is estimated to create approximately 150,000 cubic yards of solid waste requiring disposal. A new Air Force landfill with capacity to receive the demolition debris is in the planning stages. In addition, the existing city of Galena landfill (situated at former Campion AFS) has the capacity and is available to receive the demolition debris as well. Because a landfill at former Campion AFS will be constructed and/or the city of Galena landfill will be available for the disposal of demolition debris, no significant impact to solid waste generation is anticipated. Buildings with the potential to contain ACM and/or lead-based paint would be sampled prior to demolition activities to ensure proper disposal and abatement of these materials. The demolition contractor would be required to dispose of ACM and lead-based paint debris in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. No significant impacts are anticipated. 4.2.4.2 Conveyance Alternative Electricity. Under the Conveyance Alternative, the Air Force’s electrical power plant and distribution system would be conveyed. It is likely that the electrical power generating system would remain as a backup power source since the GEU has adequate capacity to service the area. The electrical distribution system would remain in place to allow the GEU to continue to provide service to the facilities within the Air Force cantonment. Water. Under the Conveyance Alternative, the Air Force’s water treatment plant and distribution system would be conveyed. Facilities currently connected to the water system would continue to utilize the water system. Wastewater. Under the Conveyance Alternative, the Air Force’s wastewater treatment plant and sanitary sewer system would be conveyed. Facilities currently connected to the sewer system would continue to utilize the sewer system.


Steam Heating. Under the Conveyance Alternative, the Air Force’s steam heating plant and associated steam distribution system would be conveyed. Facilities currently connected to the steam heating system would continue to utilize the steam heating system. Solid Waste. Because no demolition of buildings would occur, there would be no building debris requiring disposal in the former Campion landfill. No expansion of the landfill would be required. 4.2.4.3 No-Action Alternative. No changes to utilities usage or solid waste generation are expected under the No-Action Alternative; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.

4.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT 4.3.1 Hazardous Materials Management 4.3.1.1 Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, hazardous material use associated with Air Force caretaker activities would end. Facility demolition activities may require use of some hazardous materials. Types of hazardous materials likely to be utilized include those required for operation of demolition equipment including motor fuels, solvents, and petroleum, oil, and lubricants. Storage, handling, and transportation of hazardous materials would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations and established procedures. Any spills or releases of hazardous materials would be cleaned up by the demolition contractor. Hazardous material usage by non-Air Force tenants would not change. Hazardous materials utilized at Galena Airport would continue to be stored and used in accordance with applicable regulations. Because the types and quantities of hazardous materials utilized at Galena Airport are not expected to change significantly and hazardous materials would be managed in accordance with applicable regulations, no significant impacts are anticipated. 4.3.1.2 Conveyance Alternative. Management of hazardous materials would be similar to that described under the Proposed Action, except that there would be no hazardous material usage associated with demolition activities. Future uses of conveyed Air Force facilities may require storage and use of hazardous materials. Types and quantities would likely be similar to that used by current non-Air Force tenants and would be managed in accordance with applicable regulations. Because the types and quantities of hazardous materials utilized at Galena Airport are not expected to change significantly and hazardous materials would be managed in accordance with applicable regulations, no significant impacts are anticipated.


4.3.1.3 No-Action Alternative. Under the No-Action Alternative, hazardous materials would continue to be stored and utilized by the Air Force for caretaker activities and by non-Air Force tenants. Management of hazardous materials would continue in accordance with applicable regulations. No significant impacts are anticipated. 4.3.2 Hazardous Waste Management 4.3.2.1 Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, hazardous waste generated by Air Force caretaker activities would cease. Small quantities of hazardous waste may be generated during demolition activities. The demolition contractor would be responsible for following applicable regulations for management of any hazardous waste generated. Any spills or releases of fuel or oil from demolition equipment would be cleaned up by the contractor. The contractor would be responsible for the off-site disposal of any hazardous waste (including demolition debris) generated on the property in accordance with applicable regulations. Hazardous waste generation by non-Air Force tenants would not change. Hazardous waste would be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Because hazardous waste would be managed in accordance with applicable regulations, no significant impacts are anticipated. 4.3.2.2 Conveyance Alternative. Management of hazardous waste would be similar to that described under the Proposed Action, except that there would be no hazardous waste generated by demolition activities. Future uses of conveyed Air Force facilities may generate hazardous wastes. Types and quantities would likely be similar to that generated by current non-Air Force tenants. Because hazardous wastes would be managed in accordance with applicable regulations, no significant impacts are anticipated. 4.3.2.3 No-Action Alternative. Under the No-Action Alternative, hazardous wastes would continue to be generated by the Air Force for caretaker activities and by non-Air Force tenants. Management of hazardous wastes would continue in accordance with applicable regulations. No significant impacts are anticipated. 4.3.3 Environmental Restoration Program Sites 4.3.3.1 Proposed Action. Ten ERP Sites are present at Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. These sites include: Birchwood Hangar (AOC1), Million Gallon Hill (CG001), Missile Storage Area (CG002), Contaminated Sediments/DDT Soils (CS001), Wilderness Hall (SS005), TCE Area (SS006), Road Oiling (SS009), POL Tank Farm (ST005), JP-4 Fillstands (ST009), Power Plant Tank 49 (TU001).


Disposal and or use of some Galena properties may be delayed or limited by the extent and type of contamination at ERP sites and by current and future ERP remediation activities. Based on the results of ERP investigations, the Air Force may, where appropriate, place limits on property use. These sites will remain the responsibility of the Air Force until regulator concurrence on no further action decisions have been obtained. The Air Force would retain rights-of-access to the sites to inspect monitoring wells or conduct other remedial activities, as necessary. The Air Force will comply with the provisions of CERCLA Section 120 (h) prior to transfer of the property. No impacts are anticipated to ERP sites as a result of demolition activities. 4.3.3.2 Conveyance Alternative. Potential impacts from ongoing investigations and remedial actions at ERP sites would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action. No significant impacts are anticipated. 4.3.3.3 No-Action Alternative. Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change in Air Force activities at Galena Airport. The Air Force would continue ERP activities as currently planned. No significant impacts are anticipated. 4.3.4 Storage Tanks 4.3.4.1 Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, any ASTs, USTs, and OWSs associated with Air Force facilities at Galena Airport would be removed. Any investigations or remedial actions at these tank locations would remain the responsibility of the Air Force. Underground fuel lines from the barge unloading area would be closed in place. No significant impact to storage tanks is anticipated from implementation of the Proposed Action. 4.3.4.2 Conveyance Alternative. Management of storage tanks would be transferred to future owners/operators of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. Any ongoing investigations or remedial actions at these tank locations would remain the responsibility of the Air Force. Proper management of these tanks would minimize the potential for impacts. No significant impacts are anticipated. 4.3.4.3 No-Action Alternative. Under the No-Action Alternative, ASTs and USTs, and OWSs associated with Air Force facilities at Galena Airport would continue to be the responsibility of the Air Force. Proper management of these tanks would minimize the potential for


impacts. Any investigations or remedial actions at these tank locations would remain the responsibility of the Air Force. No significant impacts are anticipated. 4.3.5 Asbestos-Containing Material 4.3.5.1 Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, ACM would likely be encountered during demolition activities. Demolition activities would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulations to minimize the potential risk to human health and the environment. ACM waste generated as a result of demolition activities would be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Management of ACM and ACM waste in accordance with applicable regulations would preclude any significant impacts. The demolition contractor would be responsible for ensuring the proper management of asbestos and maintaining continued regulatory compliance. Additionally, the demolition contractor would be advised, to the extent known, of the type, condition, and amount of ACM present within Air Force facilities to be demolished. No significant impacts are anticipated. 4.3.5.2 Conveyance Alternative. The Air Force would inform the new owner of the presence of ACM in facilities being transferred. The new owner would be required to manage any ACM in accordance with applicable regulations precluding any significant impacts. 4.3.5.3 No-Action Alternative. Under the No-Action Alternative, the Air Force would continue to be responsible for the management of ACM in its facilities at Galena Airport. The Air Force would continue to manage ACM in accordance with current Air Force policy and applicable regulations. Management of ACM and ACM waste in accordance with applicable regulations would preclude any significant impacts. 4.3.6 Lead-Based Paint 4.3.6.1 Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, lead-based paint would likely be encountered during demolition activities. Demolition activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations to minimize potential risks to human health and the environment. Waste is defined as hazardous under 40 CFR Part 261 if it contains levels of lead exceeding a maximum concentration of 5.0 milligrams per liter (mg/l), as determined using the U.S. EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The demolition contractor would be required to perform a TCLP scan on the demolition debris prior to disposal to ensure it is not hazardous. If a waste is classified as hazardous, disposal must take place in accordance with U.S. EPA and state hazardous waste rules. Management of lead-based paint and lead-based paint waste in accordance with applicable regulations would preclude any significant impacts. The demolition contractor would be responsible for ensuring the proper management of lead-


based paint and maintaining continued regulatory compliance. No significant impacts are anticipated. 4.3.6.2 Conveyance Alternative. The Air Force would inform the new owner of the potential presence of lead-based paint in facilities being transferred. The new owner would be responsible for managing any lead-based paint in accordance with applicable regulations precluding any significant impacts. 4.3.6.3 No-Action Alternative. Under the No-Action Alternative, the Air Force would continue to be responsible for the management of lead-based paint in its facilities at Galena Airport. The Air Force would continue to manage lead-based paint in accordance with current Air Force policy and applicable regulations. Appropriate management of lead-based paint and lead-based paint waste in accordance with applicable regulations would preclude any significant impacts. 4.3.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls 4.3.7.1 Proposed Action. Transformers containing oil with concentrations of PCBs less than 50 ppm and light ballasts of older light fixtures containing PCBs may be present at Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. A copy of the PCB inventory will be provided to the demolition contractor. Demolition activities could result in the removal and disposal of PCB-containing light ballasts. The demolition contractor would be notified of the presence of PCBs in transformers and the possible presence of PCBs in light ballasts and would be responsible for managing any items containing PCBs, including maintenance, removal, and disposal, in accordance with applicable regulations. Management of PCBs in accordance with applicable regulations would preclude any significant impacts. 4.3.7.2 Conveyance Alternative. Potential impacts from PCBs would be similar to that discussed under the Proposed Action. No significant impacts are anticipated. 4.3.7.3 No-Action Alternative. Under the No-Action Alternative, the Air Force would continue to be responsible for the management of PCBs. The Air Force would continue to manage PCBs in accordance with current Air Force policy and applicable regulations. Appropriate management of PCBs in accordance with applicable regulations would preclude any significant impacts.


4.4 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 4.4.1 Geology and Soils 4.4.1.1 Proposed Action Geology. Demolition of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport would not affect the geology of area. No sedimentation patterns would be significantly altered, and no structural movements or changes in seismicity would result. No significant impacts are anticipated. Soils. Impacts to soils within the Air Force cantonment at Galena Airport from the Proposed Action would be minimal and would result primarily from ground disturbance associated with the demolition of existing structures. These activities could alter soil profiles and local topography, as grading is required for demolition activities. Under the Proposed Action, demolition activities would disturb approximately 73 acres within the Air Force cantonment at Galena. Short-term erosion impacts could occur during ground-disturbing activities, such as demolition of existing facilities, removal of vegetative cover, or grading. As required under federal regulations (CWA) and state regulations (18 AAC 70), potential impacts would be minimized by implementing best management practices (BMPs) defined in a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that would be prepared for demolition activities. Standard construction BMPs would be implemented to minimize soil erosion. These could include:

• Using protective cover, such as mulch, straw, plastic netting, or a combination of these protective coverings

• Implementing storm water diversions to reduce water flow through

exposed sites

• Limiting the area disturbed as well as the period of time that barren ground is left exposed

• Retaining as many trees and shrubs as possible adjacent to exposed

ground areas for use as natural windbreaks. Upon completion of demolition activities, a grass cover would be established on the disturbed areas, significantly reducing the potential for soil erosion. Because BMPs required by the SWPPP would be implemented during demolition activities, no significant impacts to soils are anticipated.


4.4.1.2 Conveyance Alternative. Under the Conveyance Alternative there would be no ground disturbance from facility demolition and site restoration activities. No significant impacts to geology and soils are anticipated. 4.4.1.3 No-Action Alternative. Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change from current conditions. No ground disturbance from facility demolition and site restoration activities would occur. No significant impacts to geology and soils are anticipated. 4.4.2 Water Resources 4.4.2.1 Proposed Action Surface Water. Demolition of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport would significantly decrease the amount of impervious surfaces allowing an increase in infiltration of surface water and result in a decrease in storm water runoff. Ground disturbing activities during demolition activities could result in short-term impacts to surface water due to sediment in storm water runoff eroded from unprotected soil surfaces or unconsolidated rubble piles. A SWPPP would be prepared for demolition activities, as described in Section 4.4.1, Geology and Soils. Compliance with the SWPPP would minimize potential impacts to surface water quality. No significant impacts to surface water are anticipated. Groundwater. Under the Proposed Action, there is no potential for direct contamination of groundwater. Activities associated with the demolition of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport would not introduce any contaminants with the potential to affect groundwater. No significant impacts to groundwater are anticipated. 4.4.2.2 Conveyance Alternative. Under the Conveyance Alternative no demolition activities are proposed; therefore, no ground disturbing activities would occur. No significant impacts to surface water or groundwater are anticipated. 4.4.2.3 No-Action Alternative. Under the No-Action Alternative there would be no change from current conditions. No demolition activities would occur at Galena Airport. No significant impacts to surface water or groundwater are anticipated.


4.4.3 Air Quality 4.4.3.1 Proposed Action. Proposed demolition activities associated with the Proposed Action would not result in significant air quality impacts. Demolition activities associated with the Proposed Action would result in short-term impacts to air quality from emissions generated during demolition of approximately 50 Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. Impacts are expected to be primarily from fugitive dust associated with building demolition, clearing and grading of the land, and demolition vehicles traveling on unpaved surfaces at the site. Emissions of PM10 generated by building demolition, and grading were calculated using emission factors and methodology from the U.S. EPA’s AP-42 document (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995) and the URBEMIS model (URBEMIS7G for Windows, Version 5.1.0, 2000), which uses emission factors listed in the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook. For mobile demolition equipment, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Air Quality Thresholds of Significance (1994) was used to calculate emissions of CO, NOx, and VOCs. Emissions of CO, NOx, and VOCs would be produced in exhaust from both on-site demolition equipment. In order to calculate the potential annual air emissions from the Proposed Action, a schedule for demolition was developed. This schedule, presented in Table 4-1, was developed for purposes of analysis only and does not represent an actual demolition timetable. Table 4-2 presents the total demolition emissions calculated for each year of the Proposed Action.

Table 4-1. Demolition Schedule Year(s) Facilities Demolished per Year Acres Disturbed 2007 25 36 2008 25 37 Total 50 73

Table 4-2. Proposed Action Demolition Emissions for Criteria Pollutants (tons per year)

Year PM10 CO NOx VOC SO2 2007 67.0 neg. 6.6 1.0 neg. 2008 68.9 neg. 6.7 1.1 neg. Notes: (a) PM10 emissions include combustion and fugitive emissions. CO = carbon monoxide neg. = negligible NOx = nitrogen oxides PM10 = particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter SO2 = sulfur dioxide VOC = volatile organic compound


The emissions for the Proposed Action shown in Table 4-2 assume use of BMP, such as watering exposed surfaces twice per day or frequently enough to keep the surface moist at all times, and watering haul roads three times per day to reduce dust and particulate emissions. According to the CEQA Handbook, regular watering of demolition areas decreases PM10 emissions by up to 75 percent. Proper vehicle maintenance is also assumed, which would reduce emissions of NOx, PM10, and VOCs by 5 percent. Demolition emissions would cause an elevated, short-term increase in emissions at receptors close to the demolition areas. The emissions associated with the Proposed Action would not hinder maintenance of the NAAQS within the ROI. Based on these findings, no significant impacts to air quality would occur from demolition activities associated with the Proposed Action. 4.4.3.2 Conveyance Alternative. Under the Conveyance Alternative, no air emissions from demolition activities would occur. No significant impacts to air quality are anticipated. 4.4.3.3 No-Action Alternative. Under the No-Action Alternative there would be no change form current conditions. No air emissions from demolition activities would occur. No significant impacts to air quality are anticipated. 4.4.4 Biological Resources 4.4.4.1 Proposed Action Vegetation. Non-native vegetation within the Air Force cantonment at Galena Airport would be disturbed during demolition activities. Impacts associated with the Proposed Action to such highly disturbed, human-created habitats are considered to be insignificant. After the demolition activities have ceased, the former facility sites will be contoured for proper runoff, and disturbed areas will be reseeded. The general goals for revegetation of disturbed areas as identified within the Galena AFS INRMP include: erosion control, dust reduction, and recovery of taiga habitats. A Revegetation Guide for Conservation Use in Alaska (University of Alaska, 1991) would be used as a guide to determine seed mixtures, seeding rates, and site preparation to ensure optimal results. Long-term impacts to vegetation would not be significant. Wildlife. Increased human activity and noise levels in the immediate vicinity of demolition activities could adversely affect resident or migratory wildlife. Displacement amongst common wildlife is not considered significant due to their abundance and their ability to seek similar habitat in the surrounding area. The wildlife species previously displaced would most likely return to the area and establish population levels similar to pre-construction levels.


The MTBA-protected cliff swallows nesting on Air Force facilities at Galena Airport may be temporarily affected by the demolition activities. The exterior of buildings, under eaves, is attractive nesting substrate to this species. Following the Galena AFS Cliff Swallow Management Plan would lessen the impacts to this species by protecting against injury, death, and/or harassment of breeding individuals. The practice of using bird repellent to detract cliff swallows from building nests on facilities slated for demolition during breeding season should be continued until project activities cease. In addition, the removal of unfinished nests, prior to egg laying, could be used, although this practice would require state and federal permits. If a facility slated for demolition has nesting swallows, the demolition date should be adjusted until after the chicks have fledged (approximately July 1). Another option would be to conduct all demolition activities outside the swallow breeding season (August-February) (U.S. Air Force, 1999). After deactivation activities are completed, the ambient noise levels would be less than before demolition activities. Because Air Force activities would cease, fewer wildlife disturbances would occur. Long-term impacts to wildlife would not be significant. Threatened and Endangered Species. There are no federal or state listed plant or animal species known to inhabit the project study area. The area around Galena Airport is not designated as critical habitat for any federal or state species of special concern. Demolition activities associated with the Proposed Action would occur on previously disturbed land. Protected birds that may migrate through the area, such as the delisted peregrine falcon may be temporarily startled by the demolition noise, but no significant impacts are expected as a result of noise. There are no known occurrences of nesting peregrine falcon on Air Force property at Galena Airport. The Steller’s eider, if observed at the Galena AFS during project activities, would be an accidental sighting. The Galena Airport is too far inland and does not contain suitable habitat for this species; therefore, the eider is unlikely to be present and no impacts to this species as a result of project activities is expected (Johnson, 1006 and Swem, 2006) . Sensitive Habitats. No wetlands would be directly affected as a result of the Proposed Action. Ground disturbance during demolition of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport could increase soil erosion from water runoff, resulting in a short term adverse impact on aquatic resources where open waters are nearby. Increased erosion would increase siltation, which may damage plants and alter water quality. However, demolition activities would be conducted in accordance with an SWPPP. BMPs specified in the SWPPP would be implemented during demolition activities and would reduce soil erosion from water runoff. The potential for siltation in wetlands adjacent to the Air Force cantonment is low, and the potential would be even more reduced by using sedimentation control measures. Impacts from indirect disturbance of wetlands caused by runoff are insignificant.


4.4.4.2 Conveyance Alternative Vegetation. For the Conveyance Alternative, impacts would be similar to current conditions. The facilities would remain and another entity would occupy the facilities slated for demolition under the Proposed Action. No impacts to vegetation are anticipated from implementation of the Conveyance Alternative. There would be no significant impact to biological resources. Wildlife. For the Conveyance Alternative, impacts would be similar to current conditions. The facilities would remain and another entity would occupy the facilities slated for demolition under the Proposed Action. No wildlife habitat would be affected by the Conveyance Alternative. There would be no significant impact to biological resources. Threatened and Endangered Species. For the Conveyance Alternative, impacts would be similar to current conditions. The facilities would remain and another entity would occupy the facilities slated for demolition under the Proposed Action. No threatened or endangered species would be affected by the Conveyance Alternative. There would be no significant impact to biological resources. Sensitive Habitats. For the Conveyance Alternative, impacts would be similar to current conditions. The facilities would remain and another entity would occupy the facilities slated for demolition under the Proposed Action. No critical habitat would be affected by the Conveyance Alternative. There would be no significant impact to biological resources. 4.4.4.3 No-Action Alternative. For the No Action Alternative, current conditions at Galena Airport would continue and no significant impacts to vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, or wetlands would occur. 4.4.5 Cultural Resources 4.4.5.1 Proposed Action Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Resources. The cultural resources survey conducted at Galena AFS in 1998 reported no archaeological resources. In addition, the survey and Galena Cultural Resources Management Plan indicate that there are no areas of concern with respect to prehistoric cultural resources. The Proposed Action involves the Air Force termination of their lease with the State of Alaska DOT & PF and the demolition or removal for reuse of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. It is not expected that ground-disturbing activities would impact subsurface archaeological resources because the entire installation is built on 4 to 20 feet of imported fill.


In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are encountered during demolition, the contractor would suspend work in the immediate area, protect the site in place, and report the discovery to the installation cultural resources manager. The installation cultural resources manager would then notify the Alaska SHPO to determine if additional investigation is required. In the event further investigation is required, any data recovery would be performed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation (48 FR 44734-37) and take into account the Council's publication, Treatment of Archaeological Properties. No impacts to prehistoric or historic cultural resources are expected. Historic Buildings and Structures. The 1998 historic building inventory and evaluation of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport identified 20 buildings that were determined eligible for listing on the National Register based on their association with the World War II and Cold War eras. Eight of these buildings have been removed or demolished per the MOA signed by the United States Air Force, the Alaska SHPO, and the Council in 1998. Twelve buildings identified as National Register eligible properties still remain. The Proposed Action involves the demolition of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. This includes the 12 buildings that require long-term management, including mitigation for adverse effects, for compliance with the NHPA. The treatment of buildings was the subject of the MOA signed in 1998. It prescribes the mitigation measures necessary before demolition can be undertaken. These measures include architectural, photographic, and written historical documentation. All of the buildings were photographed in 1999 and architectural forms were prepared. Because the MOA signed in 1998 was not prepared to address BRAC activities, pursuant to the NHPA, as directed by the Section 106 review process, consultation has been initiated with the Alaska SHPO regarding potential adverse effects of demolishing Air Force facilities at Galena Airport that have been determined eligible for listing on the National Register. Appropriate measures as agreed to with the Alaska SHPO would be implemented prior to conducting demolition activities; therefore, no impacts are expected to occur under the Proposed Action. Traditional Cultural Resources. The DOD must consult with Alaskan Native tribes when its proposed actions may have the potential to significantly affect Indian lands, treaty rights, or other tribal interests protected by statute, regulation, or executive order. There are no Indian lands, treaty rights, or other tribal interests that could be affected by proposed actions at Galena Airport; therefore, no impacts to traditional resources are anticipated. 4.4.5.2 Conveyance Alternative Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Resources. No areas of concern with respect to prehistoric cultural resources have been identified within the Air Force cantonment at Galena Airport. The Conveyance Alternative involves the Air Force termination of their lease with the State of Alaska DOT & PF and the transfer of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. No ground-disturbing activities


are proposed; therefore, no potential impacts to prehistoric and historic cultural resources is expected. Historic Buildings and Structures. Under the Conveyance Alternative, the Air Force would terminate their lease and convey the Air Force facilities to interested parties. The 1998 MOA specifically deals with the demolition of the Air Force buildings at Galena Airport and not their conveyance to other parties. Because the MOA signed in 1998 was not prepared to address BRAC activities, pursuant to the NHPA, as directed by the Section 106 review process, consultation has been initiated with the Alaska SHPO regarding potential adverse effects of transferring Air Force facilities at Galena Airport that have been determined eligible for listing on the National Register. Appropriate measures as agreed to with the Alaska SHPO would be implemented prior to initiating transfer activities; therefore, no impacts are expected to occur under the Conveyance Alternative. Traditional Cultural Resources. The DOD must consult with Alaskan Native tribes when its proposed actions may have the potential to significantly affect Indian lands, treaty rights, or other tribal interests protected by statute, regulation, or executive order. There are no Indian lands, treaty rights, or other tribal interests that could be affected by the actions proposed under the Conveyance Alternative at Galena Airport; therefore, no impacts to traditional resources are anticipated. 4.4.5.3 No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative would involve the Air Force retaining their lease with the State of Alaska DOT & PF and maintaining the Air Force facilities in caretaker status. Under this alternative, no impacts to cultural resources are expected to occur

4.5 COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION WITH OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES

The Proposed Action and alternatives promote the Air Force’s intention to terminate their lease with the State of Alaska DOT & PF and the demolition or removal for reuse of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. The Proposed Action and alternatives would not adversely affect federal, state, regional, or local land use plans and policies. Several Air Force facilities would not be demolished because they are considered vital to continued operation of the Galena Airport. These facilities would be conveyed to the operators of the airport and include the fire station (Facility 1556), runway lighting vault (Facility 1552), vehicle maintenance shop (Facility 1573), and the levee pump station (Facility 2000).

4.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The Proposed Action and alternatives would not affect the long-term productivity of the environment because no significant environmental impacts are anticipated,


provided BMPs identified in this EA are implemented, and natural resources would not be depleted.

4.7 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The Proposed Action would result in a net decrease of approximately 50 Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. The only other irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources would be for labor, fuel, and demolished materials. Several Air Force facilities would not be demolished because they are considered vital to continued operation of the Galena Airport. These facilities would be conveyed to the operators of the airport and include the fire station (Facility 1556), runway lighting vault (Facility 1552), vehicle maintenance shop (Facility 1573), and the levee pump station (Facility 2000).

4.8 CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Cumulative impacts result from “the incremental impact of actions when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (Council on Environmental Quality, 1978). Other future actions in the region were evaluated to determine whether cumulative environmental impacts could result due to the implementation of Air Force property disposal actions in conjunction with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. Other actions that would occur in the region include the Air Force’s continued remediation/monitoring of ERP sites at Galena Airport and the potential expansion of the Campion AFS landfill, to hold an additional 150,000 cubic yards of debris disposed from demolition of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. Neither of these activities are anticipated to result in cumulative impacts when added to potential impacts of proposed Air Force disposal activities.


5.0 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONTACTED The following individuals were contacted during the preparation of this EA. Mr. Gene Augustne 611 CES/CEVQN Mr. Wayne Benson 611 CES/CECOF Mr. James Frank 3 WG/HO Mr. David Hertzog 611 CES/CEVR Mr. James Hostman 611 CES/CEVQP Mr. Steve Hunt 611 CES/CEVQ Mr. Walter Johnson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mr. William Kiechle Jr. 611 CES/CECP Ms. Karlene Leeper 611 CES/CEVQ Mr. David Ossakow Chugach Support Services, Inc. Mr. Norman Sere 611 CES/RR Mr. John Smith 611 CES/CERR Mr. Ted Swem U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Fairbanks)




6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS Derrick Coleman, Senior Water Resources Manager, Earth Tech B.A., 1975, Physical Geography, University of California, Berkeley PhD, 1982, Geomorphology, Johns Hopkins University Years of Experience: 22 Christopher Doolittle, Senior Cultural Resource Manager, Earth Tech B.A., 1987, Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley M.A., 1992, Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson Years of Experience: 17 Meredith Herndon, Staff Environmental Scientist, Earth Tech B.S., 2004, Environmental Science, Humboldt State University, Arcata Years of Experience: 1 David Jury, Senior Environmental Professional, Earth Tech B.A., 1988, Geography, California State University, Long Beach Years of Experience: 18 Matthew Malle, Project Biologist, Earth Tech B.S., 1999, Environmental Biology, Humboldt State University, Arcata Years of Experience: 6 Carl Rykaczewski, Senior Environmental Professional, Earth Tech B.S., 1983, Environmental Science, Pennsylvania State University Years of Experience: 18




7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, 2005. Community Database

Online, Galena. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 2003a. ADEC Galena Public Water System Data

Base File Report, August. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 2003b. Oil and Hazardous Material Incident Report,

North side of Warbelow's Air Service Building, April. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 2005. Asbestos Testing Waiver for Drinking Water,

July. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 2006. Personal communication with Mr. Colin

Craven, Contaminated Sites Program, regarding the status of USTs at Galena Airport. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2006a. Public Safety Permit (Bash Permit), February. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2006b. http:www.adfg.state.ak.us/. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 2004. Map of Galena Airport, Land

Occupancy, May. Chugach Support Services, 2006a. Campion Asbestos Landfill Inspection Report, 2nd Quarter CY 2006,

July. Chugach Support Services, 2006b. Galena Hazardous Waste Management Plan, August. Chugach Support Services, 2006c. Galena Pesticide Management Plan, April. Chugach Support Services, 2006d. Galena Pollution Prevention Management Plan, April. Chugach Support Services, 2006e. Galena Solid Waste/Refuse Management Plan, April. Chugach Support Services, 2006f. Galena Storm Water Management Plan, April. Chugach Support Services, 2006g. Galena Hazardous Material Inventory – 2nd Quarter CY 2006. Council on Environmental Quality, 1978. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act. Department of the Army, 2002. Emergency Bank Stabilization Letter Report, Galena, Alaska, July. Department of the Army, 2005. Water System Performance Evaluation, Galena Air Station, Alaska,

December. Department of Defense, 1995. BRAC Cleanup Plan (BCP): Implementing President Clinton's Decision to

Promote Early Reuse of Closing Bases by Expediting Environmental Cleanup. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999a. Map of National Wetlands Inventory, Galena

Airport West, Alaska.


Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999b. Map of National Wetlands Inventory, Galena Airport East, Alaska.

Johnson, 2006. Personal communication with Walter (Biddy) Johnson, USFWS Tetlin NWR, regarding

the potential of the Steller’s eider to occur at the Galena Airport, December. Peaks to Prairies, 2002. Building Related C&D Waste Characteristics, Calculate your Construction Waste

Reduction Potential, website: http://www.peakstoprairies.org, March. State of Alaska, no date. Air Operating Permit Program, Owner Report Limit, Galena Airport. Swem, 2006. Personal communication with Ted Swem, USFWS Fairbanks Office, regarding the potential

of the Steller’s eider to occur at the Galena Airport, December. University of Alaska, 1991. A Revegetation Guide for Conservation Use in Alaska. U.S. Air Force, 1987. Memo regarding State of Alaska Radon Monitoring, July. U.S. Air Force, 1988. Memo regarding Results of State of Alaska Radon Sampling, April. U.S. Air Force, 1993. Galena Facility Asbestos Survey, Facility Quick Reference Guide, October. U.S. Air Force, 1996a. Final Environmental Assessment, Property Disposition at Galena Air Force

Station, Alaska, August. U.S. Air Force, 1996b. Finding of No Significant Impact for Property Disposition at Galena Air Station,

Alaska, October. U.S. Air Force, 1996c. Final Installation-Wide Environmental Baseline Survey, Galena, Alaska, June. U.S. Air Force, 1996d. Comprehensive Plan Tab Map D-1, Existing Land Use, April. U.S. Air Force, 1996e. Comprehensive Plan, Tab Map G-8, Liquid Fuel, April. U.S. Air Force, 1996f. Comprehensive Plan, Tab Map C-1, Base Layout, April. U.S. Air Force, 1996g. Comprehensive Plan, Tab Map G-5, Central Heating, April. U.S. Air Force, 1996h. Comprehensive Plan, Tab Map G-1, Water Supply, April. U.S. Air Force, 1996i. Comprehensive Plan, Tab Map G-4, Electrical Distribution, April. U.S. Air Force, 1998a. Archaeological Survey of Ten Installations of the 611th Air Support Group,

Alaska, Phase I, Summer 1998. U.S. Air Force, 1998b. Historic Building Inventory and Evaluation, Galena Air Force Station, Alaska,

October. U.S. Air Force, 1998c. Asbestos/Lead Survey, Building 1845, Galena AS, Alaska, December. U.S. Air Force, 1998d. Asbestos/Lead Survey, Building 1860, Galena AS, Alaska. U.S. Air Force, 1999. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 1999-2003, Galena Airport,

Galena, Alaska.


U.S. Air Force, 2000. Cultural Resources Management Plan for Galena Airport, Alaska, June. U.S. Air Force, 2001. History of Alaska’s Forward Operating Bases: The Soviet Bomber Threat and

North American Air Defenses During the Cold War, April. U.S. Air Force, 2003a. Draft Site Review, Power Plant Tank #49 (IRP Site TU001), Galena Airport,

Alaska, December. U.S. Air Force, 2003b. Draft Site Review, Contaminated Sediments/DDT Soils (IRP Site CS001), Galena

Airport, Alaska, December. U.S. Air Force, 2004a. Galena Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan, March. U.S. Air Force, 2004b. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) 313 Form R

Galena AFS. U.S. Air Force, 2004c. Transformer on Pads Inventory, August. U.S. Air Force, 2004d. Transformers on Poles Inventory, August. U.S. Air Force, 2004e. Proposed Plan for No Further Action(s) at IRP Sites at Galena Airport. U.S. Air Force, 2004f. Draft Site Review, Birchwood Hangar (IRP Site AOC1), Galena Airport, Alaska,

January. U.S. Air Force, 2005a. Map, Worst Case Spill Tank 44 Evacuation, Containment, and Recovery,

February. U.S. Air Force, 2005b. Map, Site Layout Surface Water Drainage and Pipeline Location, February. U.S. Air Force, 2005c. Draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report for United States Air Force

Sites at Galena Airport and Campion Air Station, Alaska, December. U.S. Air Force, 2006a. Galena AFS Real Property Accountable Record, July. U.S. Air Force, 2006b. Galena AFS Grants, July. U.S. Air Force, 2006c. Aboveground Storage Tanks at Galena Airport, August. U.S. Air Force, 2006d. Underground Storage Tanks and Oil/Water Separators at Galena Airport, August. U.S. Air Force, 2006e. Ozone Depleting Compound Inventory, January. U.S. Air Force, 2006f. Galena Organizational Tanks, August. U.S. Air Force, 2006g. Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Sample Results, November. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000a. American Fact Finder, Galena City, Alaska. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000b. American Fact Finder, Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area, Alaska. U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, 2003. Storage Tank and Oil/Water

Separator Evaluation, U.S. Air Force Radar Sites and Forward Operating Locations, Alaska, 5 August – 26 September 2002, March.


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Galena No Exposure Certification for exclusion from NPDES permitting.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, no date. Reply regarding Air Force’s request for clarification of

the determination of no regulatory requirement/need for Galena to obtain/maintain an EPA NPDES permit for Storm Water Discharge associated with Industrial activities (General permit).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006a. Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit, April. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006b. Steller’s eider Factsheet website

http://alaska.FWS.gov/media/StellEider_FactSheet.htm. Yarborough, Michael R., 2001. Archaeological Survey of Ten Installations of the 611th Air Support

Group, Alaska, Summer 2000, March.


8.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST Federal Agencies U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Director, Office of Federal Activities 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chief, Project Planning Branch Fairbanks USFWS Field office 101 12th Avenue, Room 110 Fairbanks, AK 99701 State Agencies Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Northern Regional Office Solid Waste Disposal 610 University Avenue Fairbanks, AK 99709-3643 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Office of History and Archeology 3601 C Street, Suite 1278 Anchorage, AK 99503 Governors Office State of Alaska P.O. Box 110001 Juneau, AK 99811-0001 Department of Defense HQ AFCEE/IWP-AK 10471 20th Street, Suite 315 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-2200 611 CES/CEVR 10471 20th Street, Suite 302 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-2200 611 CES/CEVQP 10471 20th Street, Suite 302 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-2200


Local Agencies Mayor, City of Galena P.O. Box 149 Galena, AK 99741 Galena Restoration Advisory Board P.O. Box 149 Galena, AK 99741 Galena City Manager P.O. Box 149 Galena, AK 99741 Louden Tribal Council P.O. Box 244 Galena, AK 97741 Refuge Manager Koyukukuk/Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge 101 Front Street P.O. Box 287 MS 525 Galena, AK 99741-0287 Galena School District Superintendent P.O. Box 299 Galena, AK 99741 Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Leasing and Property Management 2301 Peger Road Fairbanks, AK 99709-5399 Libraries Galena City School Attn: Librarian P.O. Box 299 Galena, AK 99741

APPENDIX A

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PROPOSED CAMPION LANDFILL AND

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES FOR PROPOSED CAMPION LANDFILL

Final Solid Waste Management Plan Galena Airport February 2007

i of i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT................................................................................................. 1

3.0 LANDFILL......................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Available Space....................................................................................................... 2

3.2 Useful Life and Life Cycle Cost ............................................................................. 3

4.0 DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................... 3

5.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 4

6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 4


1 of 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Galena Airport (formerly Galena Air Station) is located in Galena, Alaska, near the Yukon River, 350 miles northwest of Anchorage. The town of Galena was founded as a supply point for the lead ore (Galena) prospects located south of the Yukon River. Galena Airport was constructed in 1941 by the Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA) (now the Federal Aviation Administration) as part of an overall airport construction program in Alaska. The U.S. Army acquired use of the airport in 1943 and used it as an active refueling stop for aircraft bound for the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease program. After World War II, the Army relinquished control of Galena Airport to the CAA, which operated the site as a civilian airport. Presently, the airport is used for private charter and commercial airline traffic and is the property of the State of Alaska, jointly operated by the United States Air Force (USAF) and the State (WCC 1991).

As part of the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) Base Realignment and Closure program, the structures associated with the Galena Airport will be demolished or relinquished to the city of Galena. This solid waste management plan discusses the waste that will be generated from demolition and its disposal locations or end points. Submittal of a solid waste management plan is the first step required by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in the landfill application process. It is the intent of the USAF to apply for an inert waste landfill to dispose of the construction debris generated from demolition. The proposed landfill will be located at the Campion Air Station.

2.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT

A total of 56 structures, associated with the Galena Airport, remain at the site. Of these, 6 are in use by non-Air Force entities such as the city of Galena and 4 will be relinquished for airport use, leaving a total of 46 structures that will be demolished and managed according to this solid waste management plan. All structures have been investigated for the presence of hazardous materials as part of the Galena Airport Installation Restoration Program. The building material meets the definition of “inert waste” as specified in 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 60.990, with the exception of asbestos-containing material (ACM), and no treatment is required prior to disposal.

Structures will be demolished with standard construction equipment and the debris will be loaded onto haul trucks and transported to the proposed landfill, a haul distance of approximately 5 miles. Debris will be off loaded into the landfill and compacted. ACM will be loaded into separate haul trucks and transported to Waste Accumulation Area No. 1 in accordance with 18 AAC 60.450. Waste Accumulation Area No. 1 is located at the Campion Air Station as shown on the attached figure. The landfill is listed in the DEC database as active under permit 9931-BA006.

The total estimated volume of construction debris to be generated from the structure demolition is 150,000 cubic yards (cy). The debris will be generated and disposed in six, 25,000 cy phases. The debris will be placed in landfill cells that are 3-feet (ft) deep and 10-ft above ground surface.


2 of 4

The landfill dimensions are preliminary estimates only and will be finalized in an engineering analysis as the design proceeds.

3.0 LANDFILL

As discussed, the USAF is submitting this solid waste management plan prior to submitting an inert waste landfill permit application. The proposed landfill will be located at the Campion Air Station as shown on the attached figure.

3.1 Available Space

The proposed landfill location is approximately 500 ft by 800 ft or 9.2 acres in area. Prior to landfilling, the disposal area will be excavated to a depth of 3 ft, which will result in a space volume of 44,444 cy. The landfill will be built 10 ft above ground surface with 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3:1) sideslopes. The space volume of the landfill above ground is calculated as follows:

• The footprint of the landfill is 500 by 800 ft.

• At 3:1 sideslopes and 10 ft high, the slope horizontal length is 30 ft.

• The length of the crown is the total length minus the length of the slopes (800 ft – 2[30 ft] = 740 ft).

• The width of the crown is the total width minus the length of the slopes (500 ft – 2[30 ft] = 440 ft).

• The volume beneath the crown of the landfill is the length times the width times the height (740 ft x 440 ft x 10 ft = 3,256,000 cubic ft (cf) or 120,592 cy based on 27 cf per cy).

• The volume under the sideslopes is the volume formed by the triangular sideslopes (1/2[base x height] x [length of the sideslope]) or:

- Long side: 1/2(30 ft x 10 ft)(740 ft) = 111,000 cf or 4,111 cy (note: the length is not 800 feet since this volume is included in the short side calculation below).

- Short side: 1/2(30 ft x 10 ft)(500 ft) = 75,000 cf or 2,778 cy (note: this is a slight overestimate since the triangle is carried the entire 500 feet when there is actually a grade break at the corner).

• Total space available is the volume from the excavation plus the volume beneath the crown plus the sideslope volumes (44,444 cy + 120,592 cy + 2[4,111 cy] + 2[2,778 cy] = 178,814 cy).

The total available space, 178,814 cy, is sufficient to dispose of the 150,000 cy of construction debris plus any daily cover that is required to control windborne debris. The soil generated from the excavation will be used to cover the landfill in accordance with 18 AAC 60.460, which states that a 24- inch cover is required for an inert waste landfill.


3 of 4

3.2 Useful Life and Life Cycle Cost

The proposed landfill will only accept construction debris from the Galena Airport demolition project and will be in operation while demolition is occurring. Following building demolition and debris placement, the cap will be constructed. Therefore, the useful life of the landfill is the project duration, which is estimated to occur over a 2-year period.

Life cycle costs are based on excavation of the landfill, debris placement, compaction, and capping. The life cycle cost was calculated using Remedial Action Cost Engineering and Requirements (RACER) software. RACER is a parametric, integrated cost-estimating software system that was developed specifically for estimating costs associated with environmental investigation and cleanup projects. Cost factors for labor, equipment, and materials are used for the Galena area to develop accurate costs. RACER provides an effective method to compare costs though actual costs may vary once more project specifics are known. The estimated life cycle cost for excavation, placement, compaction, and capping is $800,000 (cost does not include building demolition). RACER cost reports are available upon request.

4.0 DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives to disposal at the proposed landfill include disposal at the Galena Landfill and a combination of reuse/recycle and disposal. The Galena Landfill (Permit Number 0131-BA007) is a Class 3 municipal solid waste landfill located at the Campion Air Station near the proposed landfill site (see attached figure). For the Galena Landfill option, tipping fees would have to be arranged with the city of Galena.

Waste source reduction can be accomplished by reusing material from the buildings. Usable items for the community include light fixtures, windows, doors, and other household items. In addition, concrete can be stockpiled for later use as riprap-type material. Reuse options will be addressed in the public education program discussed in Section 5.0.

Certain materials generated from structure demolition can also be recycled. These materials would be loaded onto a barge and shipped to Nenana or Anchorage, Alaska. Materials that can be recycled from the structures include metal and aluminum.

Associated costs for the alternatives were developed with RACER software and are included in the following table. RACER cost reports are attached.


4 of 4

Option Description Cost Proposed Landfill Disposal at proposed landfill. Cost includes hauling

debris, excavation of the landfill, and capping of the landfill.

$1,527,000

Galena Landfill Disposal at the Galena Landfill assuming a $20/cy tipping fee.

$4,560,000

Proposed Landfill/Recycle

Disposal of 10,000 cy reuse/recycle and 140,000 cy to the proposed landfill. Cost includes hauling debris, excavation of the landfill, and capping of the landfill.

$1,440,000

Galena Landfill/ Recycle

Disposal of 10,000 cy reuse/recycle and 140,000 cy to the Galena Landfill assuming a $20/cy tipping fee.

$4,295,000

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

This solid waste management plan is being submitted as the first step to obtain an inert waste landfill permit for the USAF to dispose of construction debris generated from demolition of the Galena Airport. The debris is nonhazardous, and approximately 10,000 cy can be reused/recycled. Recycling is economically feasible since there are no transportation costs to the USAF (based on previous Galena projects) except for the haul cost to the barge or rail. However, there are transportation costs to the recycling contractor that may or may not be recovered. Disposal at the Galena Landfill is a viable option to disposal at the proposed landfill but the USAF is concerned with the long-term legacy and risk issues associated with disposing their construction debris at a city-owned and -operated landfill. In addition, the estimated cost for disposal is greater at the Galena Landfill.

As recommended by the DEC, a public education program will be used to help the public understand the most cost effective way to use a solid waste management system. At Galena, a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) exists and has been active since 1996. The RAB brings together people who reflect the diverse interests of the local community, enabling the early and continued flow of information between the community, DoD, and environmental oversight agencies. The DoD created RABs to ensure that all stakeholders have a voice and can actively participate in the review of documents. RAB community members provide advice as individuals to the decision-makers on restoration issues. It is a forum to be used for the expression and careful consideration of diverse points of view.

The RAB is co-chaired by both a military representative and a community representative.

6.0 REFERENCES

Woodward Clyde Corporation (WCC), 1991. Installation Restoration Program Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Stage 2. April.

YUKON RIVER

To Galena

Abandoned Landing Field

Waste AccumulationArea No. 2(SS003)

POL Area(ST007)

White Alice Site(OT006)

Waste AccumulationArea No. 1(SS002)

Barge LandingArea

(SS008)

07-MW-0107-MW-02

07-MW-0407-MW-07

07-MW-09

07-MW-0307-MW-010

07-MW-0807-MW-05

07-MW-06

Landfill No. 2(LF005)USAF BOUNDARY

USA

F B

OU

ND

A RY

PROPOSEDLANDFILL

GALENALANDFILL

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES FOR PROPOSED

CAMPION LANDFILL

APPENDIX B

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

March 2007 Response to Review Comments Page 1 of 1 Document Title:

Draft Environmental Assessment, Disposal of Air Force Property at Galena Airport, Alaska, January 2007

Comment No.

Section/ Page No.

Comment

Response

Lewis Johnson, Dated February 26, 2006 1. Page 1-4,

Transportation I think there are potential impacts to local transportation with heavy trucks running on the same roads as normal traffic and at a minimum should require some form of ongoing dust control in dry weather and in wet weather potential help with road maintenance.

This issue has been addressed in Section 4.4.3, Air Quality. Best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented such as watering exposed surfaces twice per day or frequent enough to keep the surface moist at all times, and watering haul roads three times per day to reduce dust and particulate emissions. Text will be added to Section 1 to clarify the roads will be monitored for damage and repair requirements.

2. 3.2.4, Electricity

I don't see big blue mentioned the 1,000kw generator? The discussion of the electrical system reflects the information provided by the Air Force and interviews with on-site personnel. The 1,000kW generator mentioned is a backup power generation source and is powered-up on a regular basis to ensure operational status. The intermittent operation of this generator would not affect the analysis of activities addressed in the EA.

3. 3.2.4, Water I think the capacity of that fire well in the back of 1812 is more like 400gpm and further believe it is required to be a part of the overall system to meet the DEC standards for water availability when your storage tank is only 100,000 gallons and there are 25 hydrants on the system.

The discussion of the water system reflects the information provided by the Air Force and interviews with on-site personnel. The additional information provided does not affect the analysis of activities addressed in the EA.

4. 3.2.4, Wastewater

Was surprised to see that the wastewater system seasonally does not meet permit discharge requirements? Is there a plan to fix this problem?

Because the installation has drawn down, seasonal permit discharge problems are not occurring. Also in 2005 the wastewater system was upgraded to meet all current wastewater regulations.

5. 4.2.1, Socioeconomics

PROPOSED ACTION: I think the assumption that the life long Galena residents that work for CSSI will relocate is incorrect.

The text indicates that most of the Air Force caretaker employees would likely relocate to find work. Some long-time Galena residents could remain rather than relocate.

6. 4.4.5, Cultural Resources

HISTORIC BUILDINGS and STRUCTURES: Seems like the GEDC (because of BRAC) should be involved with the consultations going on with SHPO. As pointed out many of these structures are 50+ years old and soon there won't be any of them left standing anywhere in the world. If Galena does develop a tourism component in its reuse plan these historic structures would be very important in the history of Galena.

Because the Air Force owns the structures at Galena, the Air Force is initiating Section 106 consultation for potential effects to structures that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Air Force is evaluating the demolition of Galena facilities and consulting with the SHPO regarding appropriate recordation of the structures consistent with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT DISPOSAL OF AIR FORCE PROPERTY

GALENA AIRPORT, ALASKA

The attached envirdnmental assessment (EA) analyzes the potential for impacts to the environment as a result of the disposal of Air Force property at Galena Airport, Alaska. The EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1 580, and Air Force policy and procedures (32 CFR Part 989).

This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) summarizes the Proposed Action and alternatives and the results of the evaluation of the demolition of Air Force facilities at Galena airport.

Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

The Proposed Action would include the demolition of more than 50 Air Force structures at Galena Airport over a 2-year period. Some Air Force facilities would not be demolished because they are considered vital to continued operation of the Galena Airport. These facilities would be turned over to the operators of the airport. The Air Force leased property at Galena Airport is approximately 73 acres in size; most of this area would be disturbed during demolition activities. After demolition activities are complete, the area would be reseeded with grasses. All demolition activities would be completed in 2008.

Under the Conveyance Alternative, the Air Force would terminate their lease with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT & PF) and convey the Air Force facilities to interested Federal, State, and local agencies and groups.

Under the No-Action Alternative the Air Force would retain their lease with the State of Alaska DOT & PF and maintain the Air Force facilities in caretaker status.

Summary of Environmental Consequences

Initial analyses indicated that the Proposed Action or alternatives would not result in either short- or long- term impacts to the following resources: transportation, aesthetics, pesticide usage, radon, medicallbiohazardous waste, ordnance, radioactive materials, and noise.

The resources analyzed in more detail are socioeconomics, environmental justice, land use, utilities, hazardous materials management, hazardous waste management, Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) sites, storage tanks, asbestos-containing material (ACM), lead-based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), geology and soils, water resources, air quality, biological resources, and cultural resources.

Closure of the installation would result in approximately 40 Air Force caretaker employee positions being eliminated. It is assumed that most of these employees would relocate from the Galena area and would not contribute to a significant increase in the unemployment rate of Galena. The anticipated reduction in on-site employment would not result in effects to the natural or physical environment.

Activities associated with the disposal of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport would not have a significant impact on any of the resources analyzed in the attached EA. As a result, no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority, low-income, or child populations would be expected.

Demolition of Air Force facilities would result in an increase in open space among the facilities that are retained for airport use.

The power plant would be removed; however, the electrical distribution system would remain in place to allow continued electrical service to retained facilities. Other utility infrastructure (i.e., water, sewer, and steam heating) would be demolished. Because these systems would be demolished, the facilities that would be retained would be required to install appropriate heating systems, make arrangements for water service, and treatment of sewage (i.e., installation of septic tanks and leach fields).

Building demolition activities would generate approximately 150,000 cubic yards of solid waste, including wood, drywall, cardboard, metals, concrete, and roofing material. Some building materials would likely be recycledlreused by local residents. Demolition debris that'is not recycled would be disposed in an expanded Air Force landfill at former Campion Air Force Station (AFS) or the city of Galena landfill. Buildings with the potential to contain ACM and/or lead-based paint would be sampled prior to demolition activities to ensure proper disposal and abatement of these materials.

Storage, handling, and transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations and established procedures. Minimal quantities of hazardous materials and waste would be stored or generated by the demolition contractor. Any spills or releases of hazardous materialslwaste would be cleaned up by the demolition contractor.

Disposal and or use of some Galena properties may be delayed or limited by the extent and type of contamination at ERP sites and by current and future ERP remediation activities. Based on the results of ERP investigations, the Air Force may, where appropriate, place limits on property use. These sites will remain the responsibility of the Air Force until regulator concurrence on no further action decisions have been obtained. The Air Force would retain rights-of-access to the sites to inspect monitoring wells or conduct other remedial activities, as necessary.

Storage tanks and oillwater separators associated with Air Force facilities at Galena Airport would be removed. Any investigations or remedial actions at these tank locations would remain the responsibility of the Air Force. Underground fuel lines from the barge unloading area would be closed in place.

ACM and lead-based paint would likely be encountered during demolition activities. Demolition activities would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulations to minimize the potential risk to human health and the environment. ACM and lead-based paint waste generated as a result of demolition activities would be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.

Transformers containing oil with concentrations of PCBs les than 50 parts per million and light ballasts of older light fixtures containing PCBs may be present at Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. The demolition contractor would be notified of the potential presence of PCBs in transformers and light ballasts and would be responsible for managing any items containing PCBs, including maintenance, removal, and disposal, in accordance with applicable regulations.

Short-term erosion impacts could occur to soils and water resources as a result of ground disturbance associated with demolition activities. Potential impacts would be minimized by implementing standard construction best management practices (BMPs) such as using protective cover, implementing storm water diversions, and limiting the area and period of time that barren ground is left exposed.

Air emissions from demolition activities would not adversely affect the regional air quality. BMPs would be implemented such as watering exposed surfaces to keep them moist at all times and watering haul roads to reduce dust and particulate emissions.

Non-native vegetation would be disturbed during demolition activities. Impacts to such highly disturbed, human-created habitats are considered to be insignificant. Most of the species known to inhabit the area are common and/or disturbance tolerant. Potential impacts to wildlife include displacement of individuals to adjacent areas and direct mortality to burrowing species (e.g., mice and rats) or individuals that are less mobile. These impacts to common wildlife species are not expected to be significant. If nesting swallows are present, the demolition date should be adjusted until after the chicks have fledged. There are no federal- or state-listed plant or animal species known to inhabit the project study area. The area

around Galena Airport is not designated as critical habitat for any federal or state species of special concern.

It is not expected that ground-disturbing activities would impact subsurface archaeological resources because the entire installation is built on 4 to 20 feet of imported fill. In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are encountered during demolition, the contractor would suspend work in the immediate area and report the discovery to the installation cultural resources manager. The installation cultural resources manager would then notify the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to determine if additional investigation is required.

Twelve buildings identified as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) properties are present at Galena Airport. Consultation has been initiated with the Alaska SHPO regarding potential adverse effects of demolishing or conveying Air Force facilities at Galena Airport that have been determined eligible for listing on the National Register. Appropriate measures as agreed to with the Alaska SHPO would be implemented prior to conducting demolition activities or conveying the facilities.

Cumulative Impacts

Other future actions in the region were evaluated to determine whether cumulative environmental impacts could result due to the implementation of Air Force property disposal actions in conjunction with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. Other actions that would occur in the region include the Air Force's continued remediationlmonitoring of ERP sites at Galena Airport and the potential expansion of the Campion AFS landfill, to hold an additional 150,000 cubic yards of debris from demolition of Air Force facilities at Galena Airport. Neither of these activities are anticipated to result in cumulative impacts when added to potential impacts of proposed Air Force disposal activities.

Mitigations

The Air Force may, where appropriate, place limits on property use where ERP investigations/remediation is ongoing. The Air Force would retain rights-of-access to ERP sites to inspect monitoring wells or conduct other remedial activities, as necessary. Appropriate construction BMPs would be implemented to avoid potential impacts associated with erosion and air quality. Appropriate measures as agreed to with the Alaska SHPO would be implemented prior to demolishing facilities that are eligible for listing on the National Register.

Decision

As a result of the analysis of impacts in the EA, it was concluded that, with the incorporation of appropriate construction practices identified in the EA and referenced in this FONSI, the proposed activities would not have a significant effect on human health or the natural environment; therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.

llAkm- Date

~niironmental Flight Commander, 61 1 CESICEV

Attch: Environmental Assessment

Date post:	11-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

APPENDIX D: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF GALENA …forces. Because the FOL at Galena was on the...

Documents