Attachment 15 Expansion of the Elmendorf AFB Gravel Pit.pdf

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, ALASKA

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

EXPANSION OF THE ELMENDORF AFB GRAVEL PIT

3RD CIVIL ENGINEER SQUADRON

ENVIRONMENTAL FLIGHT

3 CES/CEVP

6326 ARCTIC WARRIOR DRIVE

ELMENDORF AFB, AK 99506

APRIL 2008

Cover Sheet

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE

ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE GRAVEL PIT

a. Responsible Agency: United States Air Force (Air Force)

b. Proposals and Actions: The Air Force proposes to expand the existing Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB) Gravel Pit to approximately 427 acres and to excavate approximately 3,000,000 cubic yards of material to support the Elmendorf AFB General Plan. Under the Proposed Action, the gravel pit would be expanded to the east by approximately 300 acres. Elmendorf AFB estimates that a sufficient quantity of useable gravel would be extracted under the Proposed Action to support the General Plan. Gravel pit expansion activities would include clearing and grubbing, construction and improvement of access routes, material extraction, gravel crushing, asphalt manufacture, and pit reclamation and re-vegetation.

The Proposed Action would provide gravel to support construction projects scheduled for Elmendorf AFB. These projects, a mixture of major military construction and routine maintenance and repair of the airfield and roads, are valued at an estimated $150 million annually.

The No Action Alternative would consist of Elmendorf AFB maintaining the present configuration of the gravel pit (127 acres). No further lateral expansion of the existing gravel pit would take place, and the existing pit would continue to be reclaimed. Taking no action could prevent implementation of the Elmendorf AFB General Plan and degrade the mission readiness of the base.

c. For Additional Information: 3rd Wing Public Affairs, Environmental Community Affairs Coordinator, 10480 22nd St., Ste. 118, Elmendorf AFB AK 99506. Telephone inquiries may be made to 907-552-5756.

d. Designation: Environmental Assessment

e. Abstract: This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Specific environmental resources associated with Elmendorf AFB with the potential for environmental consequences considered in this EA include noise, safety, air quality, physical resources, biological resources, cultural resources, land use and transportation, socioeconomics, and environmental justice.

Under the Proposed Action, there would be no change in noise contours or sound levels beyond those for currently scheduled aircraft. Mining operations would continue in the airfield accident potential zone, which is a permitted industrial action within this area. Combustion engine and fugitive dust emissions would produce localized, short-term elevated air pollutant concentrations but would remain within confines of construction and operating permits.

The expansion area does not contain wetlands or floodplains. Expansion would result in removal of trees and productive moose browse. Gravel pit reclamation would re-establish moose browse areas. Wildlife corridors along major roadways would be protected. The proposed expansion would not affect any environmental clean-up sites.

Nine archeological sites lie within the proposed expansion area. As specified in the Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan, State Historic Preservation Office consultation would be completed, and an archeological survey would be conducted of the proposed area. Future land uses would be affected since construction potential in the reclaimed area would be limited; however, the area is located within the accident potential zone, which places constraints upon land uses. There would be no effects on transportation. The proposal would not change long-term base employment or expenditures. In addition, the actions as proposed would not disproportionately impact minority and low-income populations or children.

The Proposed Action would have an irreversible and irretrievable effect upon the gravel resource. Irreversible effects would result from the use of the gravel, which cannot be replaced within a reasonable time frame. Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected resource that cannot be restored as a result of the action.

Under the No Action Alternative, Elmendorf AFB would not expand the existing gravel pit. The results of the No Action Alternative include: no gravel available for construction and repair; no ability to implement the Elmendorf AFB General Plan; increased cost of construction; and degradation to mission capabilities and readiness.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

NAME OF PROPOSED ACTION. Expansion of the Elmendorf Air Force Base Gravel Pit

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVES. The United States Air Force (Air Force) proposes to expand the existing Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB) Gravel Pit to approximately 427 acres and to excavate approximately 3,000,000 cubic yards of material to support the Elmendorf AFB General Plan. Under the Proposed Action, the gravel pit would be expanded to the east by approximately 300 acres. Elmendorf AFB estimates that a sufficient quantity of useable gravel would be extracted under the Proposed Action to support the General Plan. Gravel pit expansion activities would include clearing and grubbing, construction and improvement of access routes, material extraction, gravel crushing, asphalt manufacture, and pit reclamation and re-vegetation.

The Proposed Action would provide gravel to support construction projects scheduled for Elmendorf AFB. These projects, a mixture of major military construction and routine maintenance and repair of the airfield and roads, are valued at an estimated $150 million annually.

The No Action Alternative would consist of Elmendorf AFB maintaining the present configuration of the gravel pit (127 acres). No further lateral expansion of the existing gravel pit would take place, and the existing pit would continue to be reclaimed. Taking no action could prevent implementation of the Elmendorf AFB General Plan and degrade the mission readiness of the base.

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential environmental consequences from implementing the Proposed Action and includes the No Action Alternative. Through agency and public inputs, the following resource areas were identified for assessment of potential direct or indirect environmental consequences: noise, safety, air quality, physical resources, biological resources, cultural resources, land use and transportation, socioeconomics, and environmental justice.

Potential cumulative effects for each relevant resource are also presented.

The EA demonstrates that the proposed expansion of the Elmendorf AFB gravel pit would not result in significant environmental impacts to any environmental resource area. Potential environmental consequences may be summarized as follows. Under the Proposed Action, there would be no change in noise contours or sound levels beyond those for currently scheduled aircraft. Mining operations would continue in the airfield accident potential zone, which is a permitted industrial action within this area. Combustion engine and fugitive dust emissions would produce localized, short-term elevated air pollutant concentrations but would remain within confines of construction and operating permits. The expansion area does not contain wetlands or floodplains. Expansion would result in removal of trees and productive moose browse. Gravel pit reclamation would re-establish moose browse areas. Wildlife corridors along major roadways would be protected. The proposed expansion would not affect any environmental clean-up sites. Nine archeological sites lie within the proposed expansion area.

As specified in the Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan, State Historic Preservation Office consultation would be completed, and an archeological survey would be conducted of the zone, which places constraints upon land uses. There would be no effects on transportation.

The proposal would not change long-term base employment or expenditures. In addition, the actions as proposed would not disproportionately impact minority and low-income populations or children.

The Proposed Action would have an irreversible and irretrievable effect upon the gravel resource. Irreversible effects would result from the use of the gravel, which cannot be replaced within a reasonable time frame. Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected resource that cannot be restored as a result of the action.

Under the No Action Alternative, Elmendorf AFB would not expand the existing gravel pit.

The results of the No Action Alternative include: no gravel available for construction and repair; no ability to implement the Elmendorf AFB General Plan; increased cost of construction;

and degradation to mission capabilities and readiness.

Based on the findings of the EA conducted in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, and Air Force Instruction 32-7061, and after careful review of the potential impacts, I conclude the implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts to the quality of the human or the natural environment. For these reasons, a finding of no significant impact is warranted, and an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for this action.

RICHARD J. WALBERG Date Colonel, USAF 3rd Wing Commander Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska

18 Apr 08

WALBERG.

RICHARD.

J.1085497177

Digitally signed by WALBERG.

RICHARD.J.1085497177

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USAF, cn=WALBERG.RICHARD.

J.1085497177 Date: 2008.04.18 10:52:10 -08'00'

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

EXPANSION OF THE ELMENDORF AFB GRAVEL PIT

Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska

Public comments on this Draft EA are requested pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC 4321, et seq. All written comments received during the comment period will be made available to the pubic and considered during Final EA preparation. The provision of private address information with your comment is voluntary and will not be released for any other purpose unless required by law. However, this information is used to compile the project mailing list and failure to provide it will result in your name not being included on the mailing list.

April 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 __________________________________________________________________________________1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Purpose and Need

Chapter 2 __________________________________________________________________________________5

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1)

2.2 Commercial Procurement (Alternative 2)

2.3 No Action Alternative

2.4 Environmental Impact Analysis Process

2.5 Public and Agency Involvement

2.6 Regulatory Compliance

2.7 Environmental Comparison of the Proposed Action, Alternative Action and No Action

Alternative Chapter 3 Affected Environment_____________________________________________________________14

3.0 Affected Environment

3.1 Noise

Existing Conditions

3.2 Safety

Existing Conditions

3.3 Air Quality

Existing Conditions

3.4 Physical Resources

Existing Conditions

3.5 Biological Resources

Existing Conditions

3.6 Cultural Resources

Existing Conditions

3.7 Land Use and Transportation

Existing Conditions

3.8 Socioeconomics

Existing Conditions

3.9 Environmental Justice

Existing Conditions Chapter 4 _________________________________________________________________________________34

4.0 Environmental Consequences and Cumulative Effects

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Environmental Consequences and Cumulative Effects

4.1 Noise

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects

4.2 Safety

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects

4.3 Air Quality

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects

4.4 Physical Resources

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects

4.5 Biological Resources

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects

4.6 Cultural Resources

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects

4.7 Land Use and Transportation

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects

4.8 Socioeconomics

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects

4.9 Environmental Justice

Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects

4.10 Other Environmental Considerations

Chapter 5 _________________________________________________________________________________46

5.1 References

5.2 List of Persons Contacted

Appendix A. Photographs___________________________________________________________________50 Appendix B Agency Coordination ___________________________________________________________57

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

3 WG 3rd Wing 176 WG 176th Wing AATA Anchorage Alaska Terminal Area AFB Air Force Base AFI Air Force Instruction Air Force United States Air Force ADEC Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game

ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources

APZ Accident Potential Zone Army United States Army ARRC Alaska Railroad Corporation BASH Bird-Aircraft Strike Hazard BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon monoxide CZ Clear Zone dB decibel DoD Department of Defense EA Environmental Assessment EO Executive Order ERP Environmental Restoration Program ESA Endangered Species Act FY Fiscal Year GP3 General Permit 3 GP9 General Permit 9 HAZMART Hazardous Materials Pharmacy ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan IICEP Interagency and Intergovernmental

Coordination for Environmental Planning

INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

Ldn Day-Night Average Sound Level NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality

Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration National Marine Fisheries Service

NO2 nitrogen dioxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places O3 ozone P.L. Public Law PACAF Pacific Air Forces Pb lead PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter ppm parts per million PSD Prevention of Significant

Deterioration RCRA Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act ROI Region of Influence SBS Styrene Butadiene Styrene SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SO2 sulfur dioxide SOx sulfur oxides SPCC Spill Prevention Control and

Countermeasures Plan SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention

Plan TPY tons per year TSDF Treatment, Storage, and Disposal

Facility U.S. United States USACE United States Army Corps of

Engineers USC United States Code USEPA United States Environmental

Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife

Service μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter yd3 cubic yards

Chapter 1

1.0 Introduction

Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB) requires a cost-effective source of clean gravel to implement the Elmendorf AFB General Plan. The plan includes construction of new facilities, maintenance of existing facilities, and renovations (Air Force 2006b). The projects require various types of gravel for asphalt production, roads and parking lots, airfield paving, and general construction.

The Elmendorf AFB General Plan presents a picture of the character and structure of the installation and its present and future capability to support the Air Force mission. It is a comprehensive, long-range plan and decision tool for projecting land use, infrastructure development, and project siting. This General Plan, or 50-Year Plan, identifies opportunities for improving the mission capabilities, readiness, and environment of the base. Highlights include removing aircraft mission areas from the interior of the base and consolidating them to the north and east of the main runway; integrating new airframe beddowns, such as the C-17 and F-22A aircraft; siting industrial functions just south of the flightline; and, redeveloping the base interior as a contiguous community district. The General Plan will strengthen the land use relationships at Elmendorf AFB (Air Force 2006b).

This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the potential environmental consequences associated with expanding the gravel extraction activities to meet the needs of the General Plan according to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulation of 1978, and 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 989, titled the Environmental Impact Analysis Process. 32 CFR Part 989 addresses the implementation of NEPA and directs Air Force officials to consider the environmental consequences of any proposal as part of the decision-making process. As prescribed by 40 CFR 1502.20 and 1502.21, to cut down on bulk and eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues, this EA incorporates by reference the September 2007 EA, Relocation of the Air National Guard 176th Wing to Elmendorf AFB, Alaska.

1.1 Background

Elmendorf AFB, located to the north of the Municipality of Anchorage, is part of the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), which is headquartered at Hickam AFB, Hawaii.

Elmendorf AFB is the home of the Alaskan Command, 11th Air Force, Alaskan North American Air Defense region, 3rd Wing (3 WG), and the 176th Wing (176 WG). As depicted in Figure 1.1-1, Elmendorf AFB shares boundaries with Fort Richardson to the east, the Municipality of Anchorage to the south, and the Knik Arm of Cook Inlet to the west and north. Elmendorf AFB covers 13,455 acres, with the improved areas consisting of 3,713 acres.

Figure 1.1-1 Regional Location of Elmendorf AFB, Alaska

Elmendorf AFB is located in the maritime climate zone of south-central Alaska, with moderate temperatures in both winter and summer. Mean annual precipitation is approximately 16 inches, with snowfall averaging around 80 inches per year.

Summertime highs average in the low to mid-60s and wintertime lows average in the low to mid-single digits Fahrenheit. Prevailing winds in Anchorage are generally light and from the north to northeast during September through April and from the south to southwest from May to August.

The proposed expansion site as shown in Figure 1.1-2 would encompass approximately 300 additional acres of land within the Seward Meridian, Township 14 North, Range 3 West, Section 35, bringing the total acreage of the gravel pit area to approximately 427 acres. Of the approximately 127 existing acres, the pit itself occupies about 50 acres and the remaining 77 acres consist of roads, abandoned rail beds and cleared areas for storing sorted gravel. The additional 300 acres of the Proposed Action include two active rail beds, some one-lane trails, a fire training area, a remote-controlled aircraft recreation site, nine archeological sites, and a Marine Reserve facility, which would largely remain in their current conditions (Elmendorf AFB 2007).

Figure 1.1-2 Proposed Elmendorf AFB Gravel Pit

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages the vegetation and subsurface material within this tract. Per Executive Order (EO) 8102, land within BLM-managed boundaries is under a withdrawal for a military reservation. BLM’s role is to manage the vegetative and mineral resources if put to non-military uses.

1.2 Purpose and Need

The construction and maintenance projections of the General Plan will require more gravel than the existing gravel pit can produce. The expansion of the existing gravel pit would provide an estimated 3,000,000 cubic yard (yd3) of gravel for ongoing Elmendorf AFB construction and maintenance projects. With the present 30 percent rejection rate, approximately 1,980,000 yd3 of useable material would be excavated (Air Force 2005a).

To meet airfield paving requirements, Elmendorf AFB produces gravel with three fractured faces. A fractured face is defined as a face that exposes the interior of a gravel particle. A fractured or crushed fragment is defined as one having one or more fractured faces. Often pavement distress, such as rutting, stripping, surface pop-outs, and lack of adequate surface frictional resistance can be traced directly to improper aggregate selection and use (Kandal et al. 1997). Airfield aggregate gravel required for Elmendorf AFB projects is not readily available locally and typically requires special order. For the last 13 years, Elmendorf AFB has produced airfield and other grades of gravel at the existing gravel pit. The proposed use and expansion of the on-base gravel source would eliminate the need to purchase and haul gravel, reduce travel time between the source and the base, and eliminate in-processing time through the entry gate. These efficiencies would result in significant savings to the taxpayer. Because of its proximity to the projected construction projects, use of the expanded Elmendorf AFB gravel pit compared to purchase and delivery would also reduce community impacts, such as road wear and traffic congestion, as well as mobile-source air pollution in the Anchorage bowl.

Although other sources could modify their processes to supply gravel for Elmendorf AFB project needs, off-site gravel producers may not be able to produce the quantity of three fractured face gravel required at the time it is needed. Additionally, Elmendorf AFB gravel is relatively clean and uniform in size. This reduces the requirement for washing, to remove finer-grained materials, and screening, to remove large rocks that are not crushed. Some off-site sources would require the additional expense of washing, screening and handling.

Chapter 2

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Elmendorf AFB proposes to expand the existing Elmendorf Gravel Pit to approximately 427 acres and to excavate approximately 3,000,000 yd3 of material to support the 50-Year Plan. This chapter describes the Proposed Action and considers alternatives identified during proposal development.

In determining the feasibility of obtaining material for Elmendorf AFB, engineering specifications for material type and strength were considered, with the requirements for airfield material being the most stringent. Other aspects considered included the amount of fines and coarse material that would be rejected or washed out, the large quantities that would be required and the timeliness of availability, and the requirement for 90 percent double face fracture on material being produced for non-airfield uses.

Using these criteria, Elmendorf AFB has identified two action alternatives as potential options to be carried forward for analysis: 1) expansion of the existing gravel pit currently in use at Elmendorf AFB, and 2) commercial procurement. The Proposed Action is represented by Alternative 1 (expansion of the existing gravel pit). This preferred alternative was selected after reviewing Alternative 2 and the No Action Alternative.

2.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1)

Under this alternative, the gravel pit would be expanded to the east by approximately 300 acres. Pit expansion would begin in early 2008. Based on current extraction rates and soil borings drilled during construction of the Marine Reserve Facility, Elmendorf AFB estimates that a sufficient quantity of useable gravel would be extracted under the Proposed Action to support the 50-Year Plan. Gravel pit expansion activities would include clearing and grubbing, construction and improvement of access routes, material extraction, gravel crushing, asphalt manufacture, and pit reclamation and re-vegetation.

These activities are described briefly as follows:

Clearing and Grubbing. Hardwood and softwood trees, stumps, deadfall, shrubs, and the organic overburden layer to a depth of approximately two feet, would be removed. To the extent feasible, organic matter would be stockpiled on site and blended with reject material for use in later reclamation. A mechanical grinder would likely be used to reduce large timber debris. Timber management would be conducted under the direction of Elmendorf Forestry. Industry standard equipment, including brush cutters, D7 track-type tractors, excavators with appurtenances, loaders, and flat-bed trucks, would be used for all clearing and grubbing activities. Clearing and grubbing activities would be phased in accordance with construction sequencing, the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and considerations of habitat as required by state and federal law.

Construction and Improvement of Access Routes. Existing roadways and trails within the proposed expansion area would be improved. In some cases, access routes would be constructed. The gravel pit would be constructed in such a way that no storm water would be allowed to run off site. If required, storm water catch basins would be constructed to capture and divert excess storm water.

Material Extraction. Borrow pit operations would consist of extracting select materials for screening and crushing. Equipment would likely include front end loaders, excavators, tractor-mounted bulldozers, water distributors, pump systems with generators, flood lights, dump trucks, and scrapers. Typical pit operations would include 5-cubic yard excavators or loaders, 30-cubic yard scrapers, and D7 track-type tractors. The size of the equipment would be determined by the responsible selected operations contractors. These contractors would be responsible for proper mining of the material source according to the developed and approved mining plan. The contractors would be responsible for developing and implementing all sediment and erosion control measures necessary, including a SWPPP.

Gravel Crushing. Extracted material would be transported to the crusher by end loader, backhoe, conveyor belt or shovel and dumped into the hopper. The material would pass through screens to sort useable material from cobbles (material greater than 75 millimeter in diameter) and fines (material 2 to 5 millimeters in diameter). The cobbles and fines are rejected and used for pipe bedding, back fill, and ballast or mixed with organic material for reclamation. The feeder would move useable material into the crusher. The crusher would break the gravel. The crushed gravel would pass through another set of screens, which would allow proper-sized gravel to pass. Screens would be adjusted to produce particles of differing sizes. Some types of gravel would require a mixture of particle sizes, and the screens would be adjusted to sort the material and mix it in the crusher. The finished products would be stockpiled, ready for use (Pit & Quarry 2002).

Asphalt Manufacture. Elmendorf AFB uses 3 percent styrene butadiene styrene (SBS) rubberized asphalt for all airfield pavement and major road pavements. SBS polymer is a cost effective asphalt mixture that improves cracking performance and reduces construction costs since surfaces require fewer repairs and replacements. The benefits obtained by the modification of asphalt with polymers include increased cohesion, adhesion, elastic recovery and reduced temperature sensitivity. The significant characteristics of polymer modified asphalts are high stability, tensile strength, stiffness and extended fatigue life, making the material a superb choice for airfield paving (Jain et al. 1992). Regular asphalt paving, typical of local methods, is rubberized asphalt produced from a crumb rubber mix. Crumb rubber is produced by mixing ground used tires with an asphalt product. Crumb rubber asphalt is smoother and quieter, as well as more durable and skid-resistance, than conventional asphalt. It is an ideal surface for vehicular traffic but not as suitable as SBS rubberized asphalt for airfields.

Pit Reclamation and Re-vegetation. Stockpiled reject material and organic material mixed with rootstock would be spread throughout the post-mined site to contours detailed in the reclamation specifications. For aesthetics, erosion control, and wildlife habitat, vegetative cover would be re-established as shrub habitat as described in 3rd Wing Instruction 91-212 and approved by Elmendorf Natural Resources.

Reinvasions of natural species would be permitted. Water would be provided through the use of a water truck and sprayer hose during germination. The area would be monitored after germination to ensure no non-native noxious weed invasion occurs and to determine necessity for further reseeding. The actual species mixtures, re-vegetation processes, and monitoring programs would be defined in a reclamation plan reviewed and approved by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). The plan also would be coordinated with the Airfield Manager. An airfield safety height restriction in the area to the west of the gravel pit, which applies to construction, would also apply to vegetation. The area would be reclaimed in a manner to provide buffer strips along adjacent roads. These buffers would be of sufficient width to provide visual screening of gravel extraction operations, mitigation of fugitive dust emissions, and travel corridors to wildlife. The plan would ensure drainage throughout the year, especially during break-up when subsurface ice could create ponds, thereby attracting birds and creating a flight hazard.

The area under consideration would extend eastward to the boundary of Fort Richardson. As shown in Figure 1.1-2, the land covered in the proposal currently serves several uses. The fire training facility is located within the confines of the proposed expansion, and several roads, trails and railroad beds bisect the area. Additionally, a Marine Reserve facility is located on the eastern edge of the area. The proposed expansion site includes a 25-acre moose browse plot cleared and managed as a mitigation effort following the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) realignment project in 2000. The National Wetlands Inventory does not indicate any wetlands in the area of the proposal (USFWS 1995).

2.2 Commercial Procurement (Alternative 2)

Under Alternative 2, Elmendorf AFB would obtain clean gravel from off-base sources.

Potential commercial providers include known suppliers such as: AggPro; Central Paving Products; Denali Materials; Anchorage Sand and Gravel; and other independently owned and operated retail borrow sites. Non-commercial providers may include the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and various native landholdings under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. ADNR has provided a list of approved borrow sites within approximately 70 miles of the military base that have rail or road access.

Contract terms would specify that materials could be obtained only from appropriately permitted sources, must be contaminant free, and must meet minimum engineering specifications (APET 2006).

Alternative 2 activities would include gravel crushing, asphalt manufacturing, and pit reclamation and re-vegetation as described in Section 2.1. Additionally, this alternative would include gravel transport as described below.

Gravel Transport. Material from off-base sources would be transported by commercial rail or public road. The existing rail system passes through Elmendorf AFB.

A track spur could be constructed to receive gravel from distant sources. The train cars would be scheduled to meet existing train schedules in advance of Elmendorf AFB needs. For comparison purposes, one train car can carry approximately 100 tons of material. Each cubic yard of gravel weighs approximately 1.9 tons. Transporting the estimated 285,000 tons required for Elmendorf AFB projects would require 2,850 train cars. Road transport would require haul trucks to enter through Post Road Gate, either from the Post Road route or Whitney Road Route. A typical truck would carry about 25 tons. Approximately 11,400 round trips would be required to transport the required 285,000 tons. After reaching the Elmendorf AFB gravel pit, material would be off-loaded from the train cars or trucks and stored until needed for crushing.

2.3 No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would consist of Elmendorf AFB maintaining the present configuration of the gravel pit (127 acres). No further lateral expansion of the existing gravel pit would take place. The existing pit would continue to be reclaimed as described in Section 2.1 in the reclamation plan; reclamation would entail slope stabilization and re-vegetation of exposed surfaces. Taking no action could increase the cost of construction projects, prevent implementation of the Elmendorf AFB General Plan, and degrade the mission capabilities, readiness, and working environment of the base.

2.4 Environmental Impact Analysis Process

This EA has been prepared in accordance with NEPA (42 United States Code [USC] 4321-4347), CEQ Regulations (40 CFR § 1500-1508), and 32 CFR 989, et seq., Environmental Impact Analysis Process (Air Force Instruction [AFI] 32-7061). NEPA is the basic national requirement for identifying environmental consequences of federal decisions. NEPA ensures that environmental information is available to the public, agencies, and the decision-maker before decisions are made and before actions are taken.

The environmental analysis process, in compliance with NEPA guidance, includes public and agency review of the analysis of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. This EA provides a full and fair discussion of potential consequences to the natural and human environment.

The Proposed Action has the potential to affect certain environmental resources. These potentially affected resources have been identified through communications with state and federal agencies and Alaska Natives and review of past environmental documentation. Specific resources with the potential for environmental consequences considered in this EA include noise, safety, air quality, physical resources, biological resources, cultural resources, land use and transportation, socioeconomics, and environmental justice.

2.5 Public and Agency Involvement

The Air Force initiated early public and agency involvement in the environmental analysis of the proposed expansion. The Air Force distributed Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning (IICEP) letters on October 26, 2007. These letters solicited public and agency input on the project through November 26, 2007, but no responses were received.

2.6 Regulatory Compliance

This EA has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of NEPA (Public Law [P.L.] 91- 190, 42 USC 4321 et seq.) as amended in 1975 by P.L. 94-52 and P.L. 94-83. The intent of NEPA is to protect, restore, and enhance the environment through well-informed federal decisions. In addition, this document was prepared in accordance with Section 102 (2) of NEPA, regulations established by the CEQ (40 CFR 1500-1508), and AFI 32- 7061 (i.e., 32 CFR Part 989).

Compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires communication with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in cases where a federal action could affect listed threatened or endangered species, species proposed for listing, or candidates for listing. The primary focus of this consultation is to request a determination of whether any of these species occur in the proposal area. If any of these species is present, a determination is made of any potential adverse effects on the species. Should no species protected by the ESA be affected by the Proposed Action, no additional action is required. Letters were sent to the NMFS and USFWS as well as state agencies, informing them of the proposal and requesting data regarding applicable protected species. A review of USFWS data revealed that there are no federally listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat within the action area of the proposed project. A copy of the Draft EA was sent to USFWS for review and comment on the proposed project.

The preservation of historic properties and Alaska Native cultural resources is coordinated by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as mandated by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations. The Elmendorf AFB Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) indicates that nine archeological sites from the Cold-War era lie within the proposed expansion area.

They consist of trenches associated with artillery emplacements, bunkers, foxholes, and a railroad spur. A copy of the Draft EA was sent to SHPO for review to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Additionally, informational letters were sent to Alaska Native communities which potentially could be affected by the proposal.

Federal lands are excluded from coastal zone boundaries. However, all uses and activities that directly affect the coastal area must be consistent to the maximum extent practical with the Alaska Coastal Management Program, and they are subject to the consistency provisions of Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 USC 1451 et seq.). The coastal zone managed by Elmendorf AFB includes 150 acres of shoreline and the land within 200 feet from the center line on either side of Ship Creek. The Proposed Action location is not within this coastal zone.

Elmendorf AFB is in attainment for all criteria pollutants and therefore an Air Conformity Review under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments is not required as emissions for air pollutants are below the de minimis threshold. Currently, Elmendorf operates the gravel pit through contract. The contracting firm holds a general minor air permit (GP3 Permit) from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

(ADEC) to operate the asphalt plant at Elmendorf AFB. Additionally, the contractor holds a nonmetallic mineral processing plant permit (GP9 Permit) for the gravel crusher.

Elmendorf AFB holds a material site reclamation plan approved by the ADNR for the current mining operation. A new application requesting an amendment to the existing plan would be submitted with an updated reclamation plan to ADNR. Elmendorf AFB would prepare the reclamation plan in accordance with Mining Reclamation Guidelines (Alaska Statute 27.19 and 11 Alaska Administrative Code 97). Expansion into the new area would be contingent upon approval of the amendment.

Elmendorf AFB holds an approved SWPPP with USEPA and ADEC. The gravel contract requires compliance with the Elmendorf AFB SWPPP and requires an additional site-specific SWPPP.

2.7 Environmental Comparison of the Proposed Action, Alternative Action and No Action Alternative

This Elmendorf AFB Gravel Pit Expansion EA analyzed noise, safety, air quality, physical resources, biological resources, cultural resources, land use, transportation, socioeconomics, and environmental justice. According to the analysis, implementing the Proposed Action would affect physical resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and land use. Implementing the Alternative Action would affect noise, physical resources, biological resources, transportation, socioeconomics, and environmental justice. The “No-Action” Alternative would affect noise, air quality, physical resources, biological resources, socioeconomics, and environmental justice. A summary of the potential impacts by resource category for the Proposed Action and alternatives is presented in Table 2.7-1.

Table 2.7-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences (Page 1 of 4)

Proposed Action Alternative Action No Action Alternative Noise No impacts expected.

Continued on-site noise associated with equipment and operations. Similar noise has occurred from the use of the area as a material source for the last 13 years and was included in recent noise modeling.

No significant impacts expected. Decreases in noise from stopping gravel extraction could be expected to be offset by gains in noise from increased transport trucks or trains. Changes in noise would not be expected to change noise contours.

No significant impacts expected. Decreases in noise from stopping gravel extraction would not be expected to change noise contours.

Safety No impacts expected.

Industrial actions are permitted within the airfield accident potential zone (APZ). Mining operations would

No impacts expected.

Industrial actions are permitted within the airfield accident potential zone. Mining operations would continue to

No impacts expected.

Industrial actions are permitted within the airfield accident potential zone. Reclamation and re-vegetation would

Table 2.7-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences (Page 2 of 4)

Proposed Action Alternative Action No Action Alternative continue to operate under existing Site Safety Procedures.

operate under existing Site Safety Procedures.

continue to operate under existing Site Safety Procedures.

Air Quality No impacts expected.

Combustion engine and fugitive dust emissions would produce localized, short-term elevated air pollutant concentrations, which would not result in any long-term impacts on the air quality. All appropriate construction and operation permits would be obtained. No pollutants expected to exceed thresholds.

Similar emissions have occurred from the use of the area as a material source for the last 13 years.

No impacts expected.

Combustion engine and fugitive dust emissions would produce localized, short-term elevated air pollutant concentrations, which would not result in any long-term impacts on the air quality. All appropriate construction and operation permits would be obtained. No pollutants expected to exceed thresholds.

Similar emissions have occurred from the use of the area as a material source for the last 13 years.

No significant impacts expected. Combustion engine and fugitive dust emissions may be reduced and may decrease localized, short-term elevated air pollutant concentrations.

Physical Resources (including hazardous materials and waste management)

No significant impacts expected. Not sited in wetlands or floodplains.

Existing site-specific SWPPP would be amended as necessary.

Generation of waste consistent with normal base activity. No environmental cleanup sites within proposed area. Would result in irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the gravel resource.

No significant impacts expected. Not sited in wetlands or floodplains.

Existing site-specific SWPPP would be amended as necessary.

Generation of waste consistent with normal base activity. No environmental cleanup sites within proposed area.

No significant impacts expected. Not sited in wetlands or floodplains.

Existing site-specific SWPPP would be amended as necessary.

Generation of waste consistent with normal base activity. No environmental cleanup sites within proposed area.

Biological Resources No significant impact expected. Expansion would result in removal of productive, sustainable moose browse. Some previously undisturbed habitats would be affected. Temporary

No significant impact expected. Reclamation of existing gravel pit would continue.

Existing moose browse would decrease through natural forest succession unless maintained; new areas

No significant impact expected. Reclamation of existing gravel pit would continue.

Existing moose browse would decrease through natural forest succession unless maintained; new areas

(Page 3 of 4)

Proposed Action Alternative Action No Action Alternative (less than ten years) reduction in vegetative cover would occur in any given area during active operations. Wildlife corridors would be preserved and moose browse areas would increase through mining reclamation efforts;

potential long-term (more than 20 years) positive impact to biological resources expected.

of moose browse would be developed through reclamation; potential long-term (within 10 years) positive impact to biological resources expected.

of moose browse would be developed through reclamation; potential long-term (within 10 years) positive impact to biological resources expected.

Cultural Resources No significant impact expected. Known archeological sites exist within the proposed expansion area, and unknown subsurface archaeological resources may exist. As specified in the ICRMP, compliance with Section 106 of NRHP has been initiated and will be completed. ICRMP guidelines would be followed.

No impacts expected;

cultural resources remain the same.

No impacts expected;

cultural resources remain the same.

Land Use and Transportation

No significant impacts expected. Compatible with base planning and existing land uses.

No significant impacts expected. Some temporary gravel transport-related traffic congestion entering Post Road Gate or increases in trains would occur during construction season. Some improvements to roads and rail may be required to accommodate traffic increases.

No impacts expected. No change to land use.

(Page 4 of 4)

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

No impacts expected. No long-term change in base employment or expenditures. Continued construction related to C- 17, F-22, and 176th Wing beddowns and general base operations. No disproportionate impact to minority and low-income populations. No noticeable impact to children.

No significant impacts expected. No long-term change in base employment or expenditures. Some temporary increase in gravel hauling would occur during construction. Some construction projects may be eliminated to offset cost of purchasing and hauling gravel, resulting in fewer construction jobs. Disproportionate impact to minority and low-income populations through loss of blue-collar construction employment may be partially offset by increased hauling jobs.

No noticeable impact to children.

No significant impacts expected. Long-term change in base employment or expenditures may occur.

Disproportionate impact to minority and low-income populations would occur through loss of blue-collar employment. No data available to substantiate any impact to children.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

3.0 Affected Environment

This chapter discusses the existing conditions of the affected environment under the Proposed Action. NEPA requires that the analysis address those areas and the components of the environment with the potential to be affected; locations and resources with no potential to be affected need not be analyzed. Each resource is described with a short definition, and the existing conditions are examined. The expected geographic scope of any potential consequences upon the resource is identified as the Region of Influence (ROI).

3.1 Noise

Noise is considered to be unwanted sound that interferes with normal activities or otherwise diminishes the quality of the environment. The noise may be intermittent or continuous, steady or impulsive, stationary or transient. Stationary sources are normally related to specific land uses, such as housing tracts or industrial plants.

Transient noise sources move through the environment, either along predictable established paths, like highways or railroads, or randomly, like flying aircraft. The physical characteristics of noise include its intensity, frequency, and duration.

Existing Conditions At an airfield, aircraft are the greatest contributors to noise, and baseline noise levels are modeled based on aircraft types, runway use patterns, engine power settings, altitude profiles, flight track locations, airspeed, and other factors. The most recent noise modeling conducted for Elmendorf AFB followed introduction of the F-22A and C-17 aircraft and the 176 WG from Kulis Air National Guard Base. This analysis most accurately represents baseline conditions projected for Elmendorf AFB and includes other non-aircraft noise, such as that associated with gravel extraction (Air Force 2007b).

The measure, or metric, that best describes noise from aircraft operations during a given period is the Day-Night Average Sound Levels (Ldn) metric. A Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise published guidelines relating Ldn to compatible land uses (FICUN 1980). In general, residential land uses normally are not compatible with outdoor Ldn above 65 decibels (dB), and, therefore, 65 dB is used as the acceptable benchmark noise level (Air Force 2007b). The ROI for noise consists of the area immediately surrounding Elmendorf AFB, as identified by the 65 dB Ldn contour, as shown in Figure 3.1-1.

3.2 Safety

This section addresses airfield zones, wildlife strike hazards, and ground safety as they relate to the existing gravel extraction. The ROI for this resource is defined as land within the Seward Meridian, Township 14 North, Range 3 West, Section 35.

Figure 3.1-1. Baseline Noise Contours

Existing Conditions

Airfield zones are established around airfields to minimize the results of a potential accident involving aircraft operations. The Elmendorf AFB Clear Zones (CZs) and Accident Potential Zones (APZs), from the 2006 Base General Plan, are shown in Figure 3.2-1

The CZ is an area 3,000 feet wide by 3,000 feet long located at the immediate end of the runway. The accident potential in this area is so high that no building is allowed (U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] 2001). The existing Elmendorf AFB gravel pit lies immediately to the east of a Clear Zone.

APZ I is less critical than the CZ but still poses significant potential for accidents. This 3,000-foot wide by 5,000 foot-long area, located just beyond the CZ, has land use compatibility guidelines that allow a variety of industrial, manufacturing, transportation, communication, utilities, wholesale trade, open space and agricultural uses. An acceptable industrial activity, the existing Elmendorf AFB gravel pit, lies within APZ I.

APZ II is less critical than APZ I but still poses potential for accidents. APZ II is 3,000 feet wide and extends 7,000 feet beyond APZ I. The closest APZ II is northeast of the existing Elmendorf AFB gravel pit

Wildlife strike hazards constitute a safety concern because they can result in damage to aircraft or…