Skip to main content

Full text of "DTIC ADA281257: Environmental Impact Statement. Disposal and Reuse of George Air Force Base, California. Volume 1"

See other formats



? < I i J { ? 5 

I : < S J « M 

i ■ i i ! i i 


i i M n ; 

njiiiji 

iHlIili 


AD-A281 257 




1 ? i 5 ^ i M 

n M P H 

lllllllll 

1111 i I f n 

ill inn 

ii! ill ! 


I n n n i 

lllllllli 

i I i I n I M 

n i 11 h h 

; I I H j H I 

i i M i h H 

i ! i H S ; M 


34-20819 


FINAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
March 1992 

-DTIC 

VOLUME I A ELECT^ 

^JUL 0819941 


r 


George AFB 

• J 


DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF 

GEORGE AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA 


4piiMfr»d fae poha* m\»m m /.] 

PlatribBtian lhiBzafle4 1 


vne QUALITY mSPECTSD 8 


04 






























DISCIAINEI NOTICE 



THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST 
QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY 
FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED 
A SIGNFICANT NUMBER OF 
COLOR PAGES WHICH DO NOT 
REPRODUCE LEGIBLY ON BLACK 
AND WHITE MICROFICHE. 






FINAL 


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 


DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF 
GEORGE AIR FORCE BASE, 
CALIFORNIA 


Volume I 


March 1992 






COVER SHEET 


FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF GEORGE AIR FORCE BASE, CAUFORNIA 


Responsible Agency. U.S. Air Force 
Cooperating Agency Federal Aviation Administration 

Proposed Action: Disposal and Reuse of George Air Force Base (AFB), San BemardirK) County. 
California 


Written comments and inquiries on this document should be directed to: LL Col. Thomas J. Bartol, 
Director of Environmental Division, AFCEE/ESE, Norton Air Force Base, Califomia, 92409-6448, 
(714)382-4891. 


Designation: Rnal Environmental Impact Statement (FBS). 


Abstract: On January S, 1989, the Secretary of Defense announced the closure of George AFB. 
Califomia. pursuant to the Base Closure artd Realignment Act Previous environmental 
documentation culminated In the filing of a Final Environment Impact Statement for the Closure of 
GeorgeAFBon May4,1990. A Recorcf of Oec/s/on (ROD) for the action was signed June 20,1990. 
The base Is scheduled for closure December 15,1992. This EIS has been prepared in accordance 
with the National Environmental Policy Act to analyze the potential environmental consequences of 
the disposal and reasonable alternatives for reuse of the base. The document includes analyses of 
the potential Impacts each alternative may have on the local community, including land use and 
aesthetics, transportation, utlities, hazardous materiaisfwastes, geology and sols, water resources, 
air quality, noise, biological resources and cultural resources. Potential environmental impacts are 
increased aircraft-related noise levels, increased traffic, reduced wildlife habitat, alteration of 
topography, alteration of water flow and drainage patterns, and temporary effects of elevated 
concentrations of particulate matter during construction. Traffic mitigations include contributions to 
area roadway improvements. If avoidance of biological resources is not adequate or possible, 
mitigation in the form of replacement, restoration, or enhancement is possible. Because the Air 
Force is disposing of the property, some of the mitigation measures are beyoTKl the control of the Air 
Force. Remediation of Installation Restoration Program sites is and will continue to be the 
responsiblity of the Air Force. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


Aooesslon For 


HTIS GRAJbl 
OTIC tab 
Unaanoanced 
Jeatif 


o 

o 



By 

Dl 






1-1 but .ton/. A 


ivuUablllty Ccdoa 
lAvr 11 and/esj ! 


blst 

. A 


Special 

I 




SUMMARY 








SUMMARY 


PURPOSE AND NEED 

On May 3.1988. the Secretary of Oafense established the Commission on Base 
Recriigrunent and Ctosure to examine the Issue of mlitary InstaHation 
realignments and closures. On October 24,1988. the Congress and the 
President endorsed the Commission arxl its charter by passing the Defense 
Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realigrvnent Act (BCRA) 
(Public Law 100-526). 

The Commission submitted its report to the Secretary of Defense on 
December 29.1988. George Air Force Base (AFB). Califomia. was one of the 
bases recommended by the Commission for closure. The Secretary of Defense 
approved the Commission’s recommendations on January 5.1989 and 
anrKxmced that the Departmera of Defense would implement them. 

BCRA also requires the Secretary of Defense to comply with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the implementation of base closures and 
realignments. The Secretary of Defense, through the Air Force, is preparing the 
required NEPA documents for the base closures. On ^tay 4,1990, tfie Air Force 
released the Final EnvironmanOJ Impact Statement for the Closure of George 
AF8, which addressed environmental impacts associated with base closure. 

The Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on June 20.1990. 

The Air Force must now make a series of interrelated decisions concerning the 
disposition of the base property. In support of these decisions, this EIS has 
been prepared to provide irrformation on the potential environmental impacts 
resulting from several alternatives for reuse of the base property after disposal. 
After completion and consideration of this EIS, the Air Force will prepare 
decision documents stating the terms and conditions under which the 
dispositions wll be made, irtciuding the mitigation measures, if any, that may be 
taken by the Air Force or be required of the recipients. These decisions may 
affect the environment by influencing the nature of the future use of the 
property. Further environmental analysis and documentation may be required 
to address other actions that may be proposed in the future. 

The Air Force selected as the Proposed Action reuse of George AFB as a 
civlian airport for the purpose of evaluating possible environmental impacts 
resulting from the incident reuse of the installatioa This plan was developed by 
the Victor Valley Economic Development Authority (WEDA) and centers around 
a regional commercial and general aviation airport for reuse of the base 
property. This proposal would ental the acquisition of approximately 
2,352 acres off base of which 2,217 acres would be added to the existing airfield 
for incorporation into the airport development area. Non-aviation land uses 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


S-1 






proposed for property within the mistktg base boundary indude commerdd. 
industrial, and recreationA/acarM iaixf. 

The following alternatives to the Proposed Action are also being considered: 

• Redevelopment of the base as an international airport Theprfanary 
differences from the Proposed Action are (1) the larger airport 
development district pro|X)sed for the International Airport (2) the greater 
area of off-base property identified for acquisitloa arxl (3) the substantial 
irv^rease in the projected number of aivajal flight operations. 

• Redevelopment of the base as a commercial airport. This plan is very 
simlar to the Proposed Action except for the addition of a large residential 
land use In the existing base housing area, and the restriction of the 
proposed airfield arxf aviation support area within the current base 
boundaries. 

• Redevelopment of approximately 50 percent of the base as a general 
aviation center with a limited number of aircraft maintenance operations. 
The remainder of base property would remain inactive. 

• Redevelopment of the base with non-aviation land uses such as irxfustrial, 
educational, medical. recraatloiwJ, and residential. 

• Integration of various proposed federal agency property transfers and 
irKleperxlent land use coiicepts with the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

• The No-Action Alternative, which entails the base remaining under federal 
control and being placed in caretaker status. 


SCOPE OF STUDY 


The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the disposal and reuse of George AFB 
was published in the Federal Register on September 28,1990. Issues related to 
the disposal and reuse of George AFB were identified in the closure scoping 
meeting held on March 14.1989 at the Holiday Inn at Victorville, California. The 
scoping period for the disposal arxf reuse of George AFB was from 
September 28,1990 to November 30,1990. A public scoping meeting was held 
on October 29,1990 at the Holiday Inn at Victorville. Califomia. The comments 
and concerns expressed at these meetings were used to determine the scope 
and direction of studies and analyses required to accomplish this EIS. 

This EIS discusses the potential environmental impacts associated with the 
Proposed Action and its alternatives. To provide the context in which potential 
environmental impacts may occur, discussions of potential changes to the local 
communities, including population and employment, land use and aesthetics, 
transportation, and community and public utOity services are included in this 
EIS. In addition, issues related to current and future management of hazardous 
materials and wastes are discussed. Impacts to the physical and natural 
environment are evaluated for sols and geology, water resources, air quality, 
noise, biological resources, and cultural resources. These impacts may occur 
as a direct result of disposal and reuse actions or as an indirect resdt of 
changes to the local communities. 


S-2 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








The hasaline assumed in this docwnent is the condttions projected at base 
dosure. in^Mcts associated with disposal and/or reuse activities may then be 
addressed separately from the impact associated with base dosure. Genwal 
predosure conditions and Impacts of dosure were addressed in the dosure 
EiS. A reference to predosure corvJitions is provided, where appropriate 
(e.g., air quality), to provide a conrtparatlve analysis over time. This wiii assist 
the decision maker and agencies in urxtorstanding potentiai long-term impacts 
in comparison to corxlitions when the Irwtaliation was active. 

The Air Force is also preparing a separate Socioeconomic Impact Analysis 
Study on the ecoTHxrtlc impacts expected in the region. That document, 
although not required by NEPA, provides assistance to local governments and 
redeveiopmera agencies. 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Influencing factors and potentiai environmental impacts associated with the 
Proposed Action arxl attematives for reuse of George AFB are summarized in 5, 
10. and 20 year intervals in Tables S-1 through S-6 and briefly described below. 
Influencing factors are norvbiophysical elements, such as population, 
employment, land use, aesthetics, public utility systems, and transportation 
networks, that directly Impact Ote environment Site-related regional population 
and employment effects for the Proposed Action and all alternatives are 
llustrated in Figures S-1 and S-2. 

SUMMARY OF PUBUC COMMENTS 

The Draft EIS (DEIS) for disposal and reuse of George AFB was made avaflable 
for public review arxl comment In October-November 1991. A public hearing 
was held in Victorvflie, California, on October 17,1991, at which the Air Force 
presented the findings of the DEIS. Public comments received both verbally at 
the public meeting and in writing during the response period have been 
reviewed and are addressed by the Air Force in Volume II of this EIS. In 
addition, the text of the EIS itself has been revised, as appropriate, to reflect the 
concerns expressed in the public comments. The responses to the comments 
in Volume li indicate the relevant sections of the EIS that have been revised. 

SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE DEIS TO THE FEIS 

Based on more recent studies or comments from the public, the following 
sectiorts of the EIS have been updated or revised: 

• The discussion of MAP (Sections 1.3.1,2.2.1,2.3.1,4.2.3.1, and 4.2.3.2) 
have been revised. 

• Additional information has been Included in proposed airfield 
improvements and conceptual airport master pteuis (Sections 2.2.1 and 
2.3.1). 


George AFB Disposd and Reuse FEIS 


S-3 





Table 8-1. Summary of Pn^act-Ralatad Influencing Factora for Rauea of George AFB In the Year lOM* 

Page 1 of 2 


s s s 


£ S 


l|l|f I t f I 

il iS SS SS i S S i i i 1 i 


§ § s 

fo f*i M 

« ^ 3 

1 1 ! 


8 8 § 
S ! 8 
% « « 


; ^ 8 p S 

O O O K A 

3 3 3 3 3 


If § 

'B 


III I 


§ § § 

ni 40 lo 

3 3 3 

i I I 

j I i 


§ I I 

SI 8 8 

-6 '8 B 

1 3 i 

I I I 


8 § 8 

tS di <i 

% '8 -8 

I I ! 

Ill 


I § f § s I I! I 1 9 § 

I0404D «9«OKM^bO^K 

333 333333333 

111 111 III 111 


ii? 


s ^ 

4 ^ I I ! 11 o g 

M 40 40 ^OO V 40 

333333333 

I I I I 111 I I 


111 

? § I I I 1 I 8 

J2a?8S5588 

'8'8^'8'8’8'8'8'8 

I I I I I I I I I 


III 


I I 1 I III 


H 

i-s- _ > 


flill i 

I I Jl It li 


IHi f 

I 


PI ^ 

Ilf t 

ill_i 

h I I 

i 


mu 



I 5 I I I i I s 8 I 

333333333 g 





S lill S III] 


George AFB Dl^aosal and Reuse FEIS 


















Tabl« S*1. Summary of Projact-Ralatad Influancing Fadora for Rauaa of Gaorga AFB In tha Yaar IMS* 

Pago 2 of 2 



George AFB Dfsposel and Reuse FEIS 



















Tabit S-2. Summary of Proiect-Ralatad Influancing Factora for Rauaa of Qaorga AFB in tha Yaar 2003* 

Pag# 1 of 2 


S-6 


li 

jihii i|i|t I itn 1! 

if if 21 if if 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

1 

1 8 § 1 8 1 1! 1 a 8 |L 

ill 111 ill 111 1 

jI 

Ml 

8 8 8 8 8 1 III 1 s 1 ijl 

1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 i 

!| 

ji 

a 1 j i |f 

ill 1 8. 1 1 1 1 1 8 8 t|a 

• 2« *-«25woo-»IL5£ 

111 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 111 

1 

ii 

s 11 ii If 

8 8 8 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 a 8 IfaLls 

^11 -Ills 

111 1111 ill 11 lllllllli 

PropoMd Action 

1 1 i Ijll 

888 8888111.8 Sill 

5 2 2 2 2 8 1 • :: d S 2 'bI^I 

ill 1111 ill 11 li!l 

j 

si 

fir br l|il|it}i|j 
|ir s ill I s III! it It II Hi 


faetow wtl«c<ch«no> In Proptwd Action and >11 aWwimivt oww No-Action Attfn«t(v in 2003 ^.g., wnploynwnt und»f P r opo—d kMon l» i»duo«d by ttw numOf of DMT tnp to^ w). 

George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 



















Tabto 8-2. Summary of Project-Ralatad influandng Factors for Rauaa of Gaorga AFB In tha Yaar 2003* 

Paga 2 of 2 



I III 

i i i i 



I III 

5 IIS 

1 i 1 i 


e> 

4t 


S 

s 


I III 

I III 

S i i i 


w 

I 


1 

1 


I HI 

i i i 1 


I 



S-7 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 












T«bl« S-3. Summary of Prr^ect-Relatad Influencing Factors for Reuse of George AFB In the Year 2013* 

Page 1 of 2 

hitornatiorwl Airport CommordiJ Airport with Qanorai Aviation Cantar 

>iopoaad Action AHamativa Raaidantial Aitarnativa AHamativa Non-Aviation AM 


s s s 


i. I §. 

s s ** 

i i i 

i ! 3 

I I I 


I § § 

8 S S 

^ "S -g 

! f I 

III 


§ § § 

8 8 8 

« '8 'B 

I I I 


S £ 


IlHh hif!! iitt I! 

jf if jf if if i i i i i i i i 


I 3 

« 2 

• 

B % B 

s 1 ! 

I I I 


§8 I 

522 S5i8? 

111 III!! I 


f S 


ill i 


§ § § sill 


B B B 

i i I 

I I I 


11 I 


S e •- I « K 8 g 

tn K os »c^o o M ^ 


III 


t I 

I I 


IHi 


8 3^1 

3 I § 111 


3 § I I U i s I If, 

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 3 

lllllllll^^i 


IlIsS 
s 8 8 I si 2 § t:!' 8 

BBBBBBBBB 


s 3 c 
I c ^ S's is 

1 I 1 S 8 3 |~f “ I 

§l§ I I Slilllll 

'S B B B B SC gS S S 1 « 


I I 


i ! I 9 

III I 


i i I 

§ 3 I § I 1 1 

: it 8 If :: 5 


8 3 

» of 

8 B 


iiillHh 

3*5 ^ € I-S ^%S 


hll 


BBBBBBBBB 

III I I I I III I ' 





IV- 


1^1 I « 
t-. ^ I ii 

^ fill s itii 



















TaM* S-3. Summary of ProJact>Ralatad Influancing Faetora for Rauaa of Qaoqia AFB in tha Yaar 2013* 

Paga 2 of 2 




S-9 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


















TabI* S-4. Summary of Pro)actad Environmantai Impacta of Rauaa of Gaorga AFB in tha Yaar 1998* 




S-10 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 

















Tabto S-5. Summary of Projaclad Envirofunantal Impacta of Rauaa of Gaorga AFB in tha Yaar 2003* 



S-11 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






T«bl« S-6. Summary of Prr^actad Environmantal Impacts of Rausa of Gaorga AFB In tha Yaar 2013* 



S-12 


George AFB Disposal and Pause F£tS 








PfQpOMd AOHOR 

70 

14.200 

27.900 

40,400 

miamaiionai Airport 

70 

49.000 

54.700 

66200 

cofiwnSfCMM Rvpon wm nOTnwNNi 

70 

6.000 

13.800 

21200 

Ganoiai AvMon Caniar 

70 

10.000 

13200 

13,100 

1 

f 

70 

3.400 

5200 

12200 

No Action 

70 

70 

70 

70 


100.000 

ao .000 

60.000 



Vidor Vaitoy 
tlobbnpodo 


Vidor Vaitay 
Joblmpodo 


160,000 


120.000 


60.000 



Total Vidor Vallay 
Jebo with Impads 
of Altamallvao 


EXPLANATION 

NoAeion/Poat-Cloaum 

mmmmmmm PfOpOMd AcHOfl 

mmm, IntMiMUonil Ahport 
Non-AvMion 

MiMMs CoffviMfcW Afcport 

GaiMral Aviaion CwiMr 
HMMMMMMi Pfocioaufa 

Data ratar la afnptoyfnam hnpada aMiin iw Vidor Vaiay ana of 

San Bomanino Cotniy dra(% or hidrodiy laWod 10 ttM Qoorgo AFB do. 


Site-Related Victor Valley 
Employment Impacts 
and Total Employment 
Projections 


Hgure S>1 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


S-13 


















60.000 

S0.000 

40.000 

30.000 

20.000 

10.000 

0 

3SO.OOO 

250.000 

150.000 


Auinuimc 


PfopoMd AcHofi 

kiimaional Airport 

wommorcMi rtvpon wm novowiOM 

Gcnwal Avtalon Ccniar 

Non-A««ian 

No Acton 




8.100 

16.900 

28,000 

32.000 

36.400 

56.700 

5M0 

6.700 

14,100 

5.700 

7.800 

8,500 

3.100 

5.700 

12.500 

0 

0 

0 


VIclorValtay 

PopuMlon 



SH o -Rol fd 
Victor VaUoy 
PopuMion 
impacts 


2010 2013 



Total 

Victor Valloy 
Popula t io n 
wim impacts 
of Altamaitvaa 


2010 2013 


EXPLANATION 

No Acton/Poot^loom 
mmmmamm PVOpOOOd ActOO 
m mm. Iniomaiionol Aiipon 
Non-AvMon 

mmmmm COfltlWfCiN ASpOII 

Gonsral Ai4slion CofMir 

mmmmmmm PrOCkMUO 

Dais roior ID popuMkm impacio wMNn Sw Vieiar Vsloy aaa ol 

San Bornanlno County dracSy or indracSy ralaMd to tia Qaoigs AFB sMs. 


Site-Related Victor Valley 
Population Impacts 
and Total Population 
Projections 


Rgure S-2 


George AFB Disposed and Reuse FEIS 


S-14 
















• Hazardous MaterWa/Hazardous Waste Management (Sections 3.3 nrid 
4.3) indudes expanded dtecussion discussions on the foNowing: 

• FFAscheduie 

• impacts of the IRP process on reuse deveiopment 

• Characterization of iRP sites 

- Evaluation and effects of each IRP site relevant to each aitemative's 
larxlusas 

- Concept of risk assodated with certain types of development and IRP 
sites. 

• Air quality (Section 4.4.3) has been revised to Irx^ude discussion of 
emission credits arxi credit transfer. 

• Where applicable, die probable success of mitigation measures has been 
d e scri b ed. The discussion was not induded for some resource areas; for 
example, mitigation measures involving wastewater treatment are 
cortsidered an englrwerirtg issue, since design modifications would be a 
way of harKfiir>g kicreased demand on the faclity. 


PROPOSED ACTION 


Local Community. Redevelopment activities associated with the Proposed 
Action would result increases in population and employment in Victor Valley 
and in the Region of Influence (ROI) (San Bernardino and Riverside counties). 
Approximately 25,400 direct jobs are projected by the year 2013, with an 
additional 25,700 irxiirect jobs in the ROI. It is estimated that population in the 
Victor Valley region would be 26,600 persons greater, by 2013, and 30,700 
persons greater in the ROI, with the Proposed Action than under post-dosure 
corxlitions. 

Under the Proposed Action, the acquiskion of 2,352 acres of primarly privately 
owned land would be required, arxi one residence would have to be relocated. 
Redevelopment land use plans may result in minor conflicts with local zoning 
ordinances. Incompatiblities between existing residential and proposed 
commercial and irxiustiial iarxl useswestof the airfield have been identified. 

The presence of installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites may constrain or 
delay reuse at these skes unti the extent of contamination is delineated and risk 
assessments and remediai designs have been implemented. Transportation 
improvements would be required to prevent increased traffic generated by the 
Proposed Action from decreasing the levels of service on Air Base Road East 
and U.S. 395 to unacceptable levels. Proposed aircraft activities would not have 
any adverse effects on air traffic or airspace use in the regkMi Nodecreasein 
air passertgerdemarxJ for other airports in the region is expected under the 
Proposed Action, whereas ralroad transportation demand would increase. 

Utflky demands would increase over closure baseline projections as a result of 
the growing population and greater activity levels associated with the Proposed 
Action. Existing infrastructure would have to be modified to meet the needs of 
new users. 


George AFB Disposai and Reuse FEIS 


S-15 





Hazardous ltot«rtai«/Hazanlous Wut*. Types and quantities of hazartkxia 
materiais and hazaidous waste generated by the Proposed Action are expected 
to increase from dosure corxiitiorw. The shift of responsiblity for managing 
hazardous materiais and waste from a singie user to multiple, smalier. 
irxlepeixlent users may result in a potential reduction in service because there 
may no longer be one on-site organization capable of resporxjing to hazardous 
materiais arxf hazardous waste spfia Reuse activities are not expected to 
adversely affect the remediation of IRP sitea Existing underground storage 
tanks (USTs) would either be reused or removed prior to dosure In accordance 
with San BemardirK) County Environmental Health Services regulatiorts. 

Effective management techrvques would be In place for the proper use and 
handilr^g of pesticides and herbicides. Demolition and renovation of structures 
with asbestos-containing materials would be managed in accordance with the 
Natiorwl Emissiorv Starxlards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) arxl other 
applicabie regulationa 

Natural Environment Redevelopment activities associated with the Proposed 
Action would result in an increase of 4 to 5 percent over the existing level of 
grourxtwater overdraft Increased emissions could interfere with the attainment 
and maxitenarx;e of air quality standards for nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive 
organic gases (ROG), and particuiate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 
(PMio). Noise levels, especially those associated with aircraft activities, would 
IrKrease urxier the Proposed Action. Projected noise contours indicate that 
approximately 920 acres wll be exposed to day-night noise levels pNL) of 
65 decibels (dB) or greater by ttie year 2013; however, no residences are within 
areas exposed to ONL of 65 dB or greater. Surfece traffic noise would expose 
59 residerKes to a DNL of 65 dB or greater. 

Potential Impacts to biological resources could Indude a maximum loss of 
vegetation/habitat of 2,641 acres and a possible degradation of wetlands 
(1.32 acres). A maximum of 1,333 acres of known or suitable desert tortoise 
habitat could be lost as a result of Implementation of the Proposed Action. 

No adverse effect on cultural resources is expected for on-base property; 
development of off-base parcels would be accomplished in accordance with 
pertirrent cultural resource regulations. 

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE 

Local Community. Redevelopment activities associated with the International 
Airport Alternative would result ki larger Increases in population and 
employment In Victor VaNey and in the ROI than those projected for the 
Proposed Action. Approximately 54,800 direct jobs are projected by the year 
2013, with an addMonai 50,500 indirect jobs fo the ROI. it is estimated that 
population in the Victor Vafley region would be 56,700 persons greater, by 2013, 
and 64,900 persons greater in the ROI, with the Intemationai Airport Alternative 
than under post-dosure corxiitions. 


S-16 


GeofgeAFB Disposai and Reuse FEIS 




Under this alternative 8,353 acres at primarily privately owned land would have 
to be acquired. Purchase/relocation of 488 residences, 2 apartment complexes, 
1 ranch, 24 commercial estabiishmeias, 4 churches, and 2 government fadMes 
would also be required. Redeveiopmertf land use plans may result in mirwr 
conflicts with local zoning ordbiances. The presence of IRP sites may constrain 
or delay reuse at these sites unti the extent of contamination is delineated, risk 
assessments accomplished, arxi remedial designs have been implemented. 

Transportation improvements would be required to prevent increased traffic 
generated by this altemative from decreasing the levels of service on Air Base 
Road (East and West). U.S. 395, Desert Flower, and El Mirage roads to 
unacceptable levels. Proposed aircraft activities coftstRute nearly 13 times the 
number of predosure operations; thus, there could be an adverse effect on 
competing airspace uses ki the region, as well as the surrounding enroute 
environment No change in air passenger demand for other airports in the 
region is expected imder the international Airport Alternative, but ralroad 
transportation demand would Increase. 

Utility demands would increase over closure baseline projections as a result of 
the growing population and greater activity levels associated with this 
altemative. The existing Infrastructure would have to be tTKxiified to meet the 
needs of new users. 

Hazardous Materiala/Hazardous Waste. Types and quantities of hazardous 
materials and hazardous waste associated with the International Airport 
Altemative are expected to be simlar to those used for the Proposed Action, but 
the quantities used would be larger. The ^ects would likely be similar to those 
of the Proposed Action. 

Natural Environmant Redevelopment activities associated with the 
International Airport Alternative would result in an increase of 8 to 11 percent 
over the existing level of groundwater overdraft. A substantial increase in 
emissions could exceed the air qualRy standards for NOx, ROG, and PMia 
Noise levels, especially those associated with aircraft activities, would increase 
under this altemative. Projected noise contours indicate that approximately 
5,696 acres and 128 people wM be exposed to DNL of 65 dB or greater by the 
year2013. Surtace traffic noise would expose 417 residences to a DNL of 65 dB 
or greater. 

Potential impacts to biological resources could include a maximum loss of 
vegetation/habilat of 7,087 acres and a possible degradation of wetlands 
(1.32 acres). A maximum of 5.112 acres of known or suitable desert tortoise 
habitat coukJ be lost as a result of implementation of the International Airport 
Altemative. No adverse effect on cultural resources is expected for on-base 
property; development of off-base parcels would be accomplished in 
accordance with pertinent cultural resowce regulations. 


George AFB Disposal and Beusa FEIS 


S-17 





COMMERCIAL AIRPORT WITH RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE 


Local Communily. Redevelopment activities associated with the Commercial 
Airport with Residential Altemadve would result in smaller increases in 
population and employment in Victor Valley and in the ROI than those projected 
for the Proposed Actioa Approximately 13,000 direct jobs are prelected by the 
year 2013, with an additional 15,200 indirect jobs in the ROI. It is estimated thtf 
population in the Victor VaUey region would be 14.100 persons greater, by 2013, 
aixi 16,500 persons greater in the ROI. with the Commercial Airport with 
Residemiai Alternative than urtder post-dosure corfoitions. 

Acquisition of off-base property would not be required under this alternative. 
Redevelopment larxl use piarts may result in mirwr conflicts with local zoning 
ordinances. Incompatiblities between residential arfo proposed industrial larxl 
uses at the southwest comer of the base have been identified. The preserK;e of 
IRP sites may constrain or delay reuse at these sites urrtl the exterx of 
contamination is delineated and risk assessments and remedial designs have 
been implemented. 

Transportation improvements would be required to prevent Increased traffic 
generated by the Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative from 
decreasing the levels of service on Air Base Road East aixl U.S. 395 to 
unacceptable levels. Proposed aircraft activities would not have any adverse 
effects on air traffic or airspace use in the region. The change In air and railroad 
passenger demand would be the same as under the Proposed Action. 

Utlity demands would increase over closure baseline projections as a result of 
the growing population and greater activity levels associated with the 
Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative. Existing infrastructure would 
have to be modified to meet the needs of new users. 

Hazardous Materiais/Hazardous Waste. Types and quantities of hazardous 
materials and hazardous waste associated with the Commercial Airport with 
Residential Alternative are expected to be simlar to those used for the Proposed 
Action. The effects would likely be simlar to those of the Proposed Action. 

Natural Environment Redevelopment activities associated with the 
Commerciai Airport with Residential Alternative would result in an increase of 
2 to 3 percerrt over the existing level of groundwater overdraft. Air quality and 
noise impacts would be the same as those under the Proposed Action, except 
that a total of 97 residences would be subject to a ONL of 65 dB or greater from 
surface traffic. 

Potential Impacts to biologicai resources could include a maximum loss of 
vegetation/habitat of 2,568 acres and a possible degradation of wetlands 
(1.32 acres). A maximum of 953 acres of known or suitable desert tortoise 
habitat could be lost as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action. No 
adverse effect on cuRural resources is expected under this alternative. 

S-18 George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








GENERAL AVIATION CENTER ALTERNATIVE 


Local Communily. Redevelopment activities associated with the General 
Aviation Center Alternative wouid result in smaller iricreases in population and 
employmen in Victor Valley and In the ROI than those projected for the 
Proposed Action. Approximately 8,000 direct jobs are projected by the year 
2013, wtth an additional 7.700 indirect jobs In the two-county area. It is 
estimated that population In the Victor Valley region would be 8,500 persons 
greater by 2013, artd 9,800 persora greater In the ROI, with the General Aviation 
Center Altemative than urtder post-dosure conditions. 

Acquisition of off-base property vwMid not be required urxler this altemative. 
Redevelopment land use piarts may result in mIrKX conflicts with local zoning 
ordinances. Incompatibflities between residential and proposed aviation 
support land uses west of the airfield have been hjemifled. The preserKe of IRP 
sites may constrain or delay reuse at these sites unti the extent of 
contamination is delineated and risk assessmerts and remedial designs have 
been implemented. 

Transportation improvements would be required to prevent increased traffic 
generated by the General Aviation Center Altemative from decreasing the levels 
of service on Air Base Road (East and West) and U.S. 395 to unacceptable 
levels. Proposed aircraft activities would not have any adverse effects on air 
traffic or airspace use In the region. No change in air passenger demand for 
other airports in the region is expected under this altemative, but railroad 
transportation demand woidd increase in proportion to population growth. 

UtHity demands would Increase over closure baseline projections as a result of 
the growing population and greater activity levels associated with the General 
Aviation Center Altemative. Existing infrastructure would have to be modified to 
meet the needs of new users. 

Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste. Types and quantities of hazardous 
materials and hazardous waste associated with the General Aviation Center 
Altemative are expected to be simiar to those used for the Proposed Action, but 
the quantities used would be smaller. The effects would likely be similar to 
those of the Proposed Action. 

Natural EnvironmenL Redevelopment activities associated with the General 
Aviation Center Altemative would result in an increase of 1 to 2 percent in the 
existing level of groundwater overdraft. An increase in emissions could exceed 
the NOx, ROG, and PMio air quality standards. Projected noise contours 
indicate that approximately 117 acres wM be exposed to DNL of 65 dB or 
greater; however, no residences wfll be exposed. Surface traffic noise would 
expose 112 residerwes to a DNL of 65 dB or greater. 

Potential impacts to biological resources could include a maximum loss of 
vegetation/habitat of 220 acres. A maximum of 9 acres of known desert tortoise 


Georye APB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


S-19 




habitat couid be lost as a result of implementation of this aKernative. No 
adverse effect on cultural resources is expected from implemeniation of this 
alternative. 

NON-AVIATION ALTERNATIVE 

Local Community. Redeveiopmertactlvltiaa associated \Mlth the NorvAvi&tion 
Alternative \would resUK in smaHer iiwreasea in population arxl employmers in 
Victor Valley and in the ROi than those profectad for the Proposed Actkxv 
Approximately 8.600 direct Jobs are protected by the year 2013. with an 
additional 5,200 Indirect Jobs in the ROI. it Is estimated that population the 
Victor Valley region would be 12,500 persona greater, by 2013, and 13.900 
persons greeter in the ROI, witti the Non-Aviation Alternative than urxler 
post-dosure corxfitions. 

Acquisition of off-base property would not be required under this alternative. 
Redeveiopment larxl use plarts may result In minor conflicts with iocai zoning 
ordinances in the southwest comer of the base. The preser)ce of IRP sites may 
constrain or delay reuse at these sites untl the extent of contamination is 
delineated and risk assessments and remediai designs have been implemented. 

Transportation improvemertts would be required to prevent increased traffic 
generated by the Non-Aviation Alternative from decreasing the levels of service 
on Air Base Road (East and West) and U.S. 395 to unacceptable levels. The 
lack of aircraft activities codd have a beneficial effect on air traffic and airspace 
use in the region. Air and talroad passenger demand would increase in 
proportion to population growth. 

Utlity demaixls would increase over closure baseline projections as a result of 
the growing population and greater activity levels associated with the 
Non-Aviation Alternative. Existing infrastructure would have to be modified to 
meet the needs of new users. 

Hazardous Matariala/Hazardous Waste. Types and quantities of hazardous 
materials and hazardous waste associated with the Non-Aviation Alternative are 
expected to vary, but would be managed toi accordance with all applicable 
regulations. The effects of this altemative would, therefore, be simlar to those 
of the Proposed Action. 

Natural EnvironmanL Redeveiopment activities associated with the 
Non-Aviation Altemative would result in an increase of 1 to 2 percent over the 
existing level of groundwater overdraft. There would be no impact to air quality. 
Surface traffic noise would expose 136 residences to a DNL of 65 dB or greater. 

Potential knpacts to biologicai resources could include a maximum loss of 
vegetation/habilat of 3,762 acres and a possible degradation of wedands 
(1.32 acres). A maximwn of 1,233 acres of known desert tortoise habitat could 
be lost as a result of implementation of this altemative. No adverse effect on 


S-20 


George AFB DieposaJ end Reuse PEIS 




cultural resources is expected from implementation of the NorvAviation 
Alternative. 

OTHER LAND USE CONCEPTS 

Federal transfers arxl irvjependera land use concepts are analyzed in terms erf 
their effects on the Proposed Action and other alternatives. Influencing factors 
and potential envirorvnerrfal impacts associated with these actions in 
con)unction with the Proposed Action and alternatives are summarized in 
Tables S-7 and S-8. 

NO-ACnON ALTERNATIVE 

Local Community. The only activities associated with the No-Action Alternative 
woL.d be disposal managemerti activities, creating less than 70 direct and 
Irxlirect jobs. This alternative would not result In any increases in employment 
or population compared to closure levels. 

No adverse land use effects are anticipated. The orvbase strxjctures would be 
left in place and maintained In a caretaker status. No effects on road, air, or 
railroad transportation are expected. 

Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste. Small quantities of various types of 
hazardous materials, hazardous waste, and pesticides/herbicides would be 
used for this alternative and managed by the disposal management team in 
accordance with ail applicabie regulations. Security of IRP sites would be 
enhanced under this alternative. Ail USTs would have to be removed and/or 
provisions made for sufficient malntimance of all tanks. 

Natural Environment Beneficial effects on geological resources, soils, water 
resources, air quality, noise, bkrfogicai resources, and cultural resources are 
expected as a result of the lack of reuse development and operations. 


George AFB C^sposal and Reuse FEIS 


S-21 




TabI* S-7. Summary of Project-Related Influencing Factors Associated sfHh Other Land Usa Concepts 



George AFB Disposal and Reuse PEIS 




















bl« S-8. Summary of Proiactad Environmantal Impacta Aaaociatad with Othar Land Uaa Concapta 




























THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


George AFB Dfsposei anc/ Reuse FEIS 






TABLE OF CONTENTS 

VOLUME I 












TABLE OF CONTENTS 
VOLUME I 


1.0 


PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION. 

1.1 PU^IP^^^^^E ...........................................................M..*................... 

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCESS. 

1.3 SCOPING PROCESS... 

1.3.1 Summary of Scoping Issues and Concerns. 

1.3.2 Issues Beyond the Scope of the QS. 

1.4 PUBUC COMMENT PROCESS. 

1.5 CHANGES TO THE DBS. 

1.6 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. 

1.7 RELEVANT FEDERAL, STATE. AND LOCAL STATUTES. REGULATIONS. 

AND GUIDEUNES. 


Eaga 

1-1 

1-1 

1-2 

1-4 

1-5 

1-8 

1-8 

1-10 

1-11 

1-11 


2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION. 2-1 

2.1 INTRODUCTION. 2-1 

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION. 2-3 

2.2.1 Airfield. 2-7 

2.2.2 Aviation Support. 2-12 

2.2.3 Commercial. 2-12 

2.2.4 Industrial. 2-13 

2.2.5 RecreatiorWacant Land. 2-13 

2.2.6 Transportation... 2-14 

2.2.7 Employment and Population. 2-14 

2.2.8 Traffic Generation. 2-15 

2.2.9 unities. 2-15 

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES. 2-16 

2.3.1 International Airport Alternative. 2-16 

2.3.1.1 Airfield. 2-20 

2.3.1.2 Aviation Support. 2-22 

2.3.1.3 Commercial. 2-22 

2.3.1.4 Industriaf. 2-24 

2.3.1.5 Transportation. 2-24 

2.3.1.6 Employment and Population. 2-25 

2.3.1.7 Traffic Generation. 2-25 

2.3.1.8 unities. 2-25 

Z3.2 Commerciai Airport with Residentiai Alternative. 2-26 

2.3.2.1 Airfield. 2-28 

2.3.2.2 Aviation Support. 2-29 

2.3.2.3 Commercial. 2-29 

2.3.2.4 Industrial. 2-29 

2.3 2 5 Institutional. 2-29 

2.3.2.6 RecreatiorWacant Land. 2-30 

2.3.2.7 Residentin. 2-30 

2.3.2.8 Transportation. 2-30 

2.3.2.9 Employment and Population. 2-30 

2.3.2.10 Traffic Generation. 2-31 

2.3.2.11 unities. 2-31 

2.3.3 General Aviation Center Alternative. 2-31 

2.3.3.1 Airfield. 2-33 

2.3.3.2 Aviation Support—. 2-34 

2.3.3.3 Commercial. 2-35 

2.3.3.4 Institutional. 2-35 


George AFB Dlsposd end Reuse FEIS 




















































TABLE OF CO»fTENTS 
(COfltifllMCl) 

2.3.3.5 RecraatiorWacant Land. 2-35 

2.3.3.6 Residential_ 2-35 

2.3.3.7 Transportation.. 2-35 

2.3.3.8 Empioyinent and Population. 2-36 

2.3.3.9 Traffic Generation. 2-36 

2.3.3.10 Utilities. 2-36 

2.3.4 NorvAviation Alternative. 2-37 

2.3.4.1 Commercial. 2-39 

2.3.4.2 Industrial. 2-39 

2.3.4.3 Institutional (Education/MedicaO. 2-39 

2.3.4.4 RecreatkaWacant Laral. 2-39 

2.3.45 Residentiffi. 2-39 

2.3.46 Transportation. 2-40 

2 3.4.7 Employment and Population. 2-40 

2.34.8 Traffic. 2-40 

2.34.9 UtiUtlea. 2-40 

2.3.5 Other Lartd Use Concepts. 2-41 

2.3.6 No-Action Alternative. 2-45 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES EUMINATEO FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 2-46 

2.4.1 Evolving Airport. 2-46 

2.4.2 Regional Hub Airport. 2-47 

2.4.3 Expandable AirpM. 2-47 

2.4.4 NorvAirport Land Use. 2-47 

2.5 OTHER FUTURE ACTIONS IN THE REGION. 2-47 

2.6 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. 2-49 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT. 3-1 

3.1 INTRODUCTION. 3-1 

3.2 LOCAL COMMUNITY. 3-2 

3.2.1 Comnuviity Setting. 3-2 

3.2.2 InstaHation Background. 3-6 

3.2.3 Land Use and Aesthetics. 3-7 

3.2.3.1 Land Use. 3-7 

3.2.3.2 Aesthetics. 3-17 

3.2.4 Transportation. 3-19 

3.2.4.1 Roadways. 3-19 

3.2.4J2 Airspace. 3-28 

3.2.4.3 Air Transportation. 3-41 

3.2.4.4 Ralroads. 3-42 

3.2.5 Utilities. 3^ 

3.2.5.1 Water Supply. 3-43 

3.2.5.2 Wastewater. 3-46 

3.2.5.3 Solid Waste. 3-50 

3.2.5.4 Energy. 3-51 

3.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT. 3-65 

3.3.1 Hazardous Materials Management. 3-57 

3.3.2 Hazardous Waste Management. 3-58 

3.3.3 Instalation Restoration Program (IRP) Stes. 3-61 

3.3.3.1 Northeast Disposal Area. 3-72 

3.3.3.2 InduatrW Storm Drain Disposal Area. 3-74 


ii George AFBOIbposa/and Reuse FEiS 























































TABLE OF CONTENTS 
(ContiniMd) 

CaoB 

3.3.3.3 SoulhMHt OitpoMl Atm. 3-74 

3.3.3.4 CwttralDispoMlArM.. 3-74 

3.3.3.5 WmI P f lmgHf Oiiposti Aim. 3-75 

3.3.3.6 Othtr SItoc and DUpoaal Araas.. 3-75 

3.3.4 Storaga Tanks. 3-76 

3.3.5 Asbasloa. 3-79 

3.3.6 PaadcidaandHaitoicidaUsaga. 3-60 

3.3.7 Poiychiorinatad Biphanyla (FC8s). 3-80 

3.3.8 Radon. 3-81 

3.3.9 Madical/BiohazardousWasta. 3-83 

3.4 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. 3-84 

3.4.1 Sols and Gaoiogy. 3-84 

3.4.1.1 Sols.-. 3-84 

3.4.1.2 Physiography and Gaoiogy. 3-85 

3.4.2 water Rasourcas. 3-88 

3.4.2.1 Surface WUar. 3-88 

3.4.2.2 Surface Drainage. 3-88 

3.4.2.3 Groundwater. 3-89 

3.4.3 AirQuaNty. 3-92 

3.4.3.1 Regional AirQuaNty. 3-94 

3.4.3.2 Air Polulart Emission Sources. 3-99 

3.4.4 Noise. 3-100 

3.4.4.1 Existing Noise Leveis. 3-102 

3.4.4.2 Noise-SerMitive Areas. 3-106 

3.4.5 Bioiogical Resources. 3-106 

3.4.5.1 Vegetation. 3-107 

3.4.5.2 WUMe Resources. 3-110 

3.4.5.3 Threatened and Erxtengered Species. 3-i 12 

3.4.5.4 Sensitive Habitals. 3-114 

3.4.6 Cuitural Resources. 3-116 

3.4.6.1 A r c h a e ological Resources. 3-118 

3.4.6.2 Historic Structures and Resources. 3-118 

3.4.6.3 Native American Resources. 3-i 19 

3.4.6.4 P a leo n tological Resou r ces. 3-119 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. 4-1 

4.1 INTROOUCnON. 4-1 

4.2 LOCAL COMMUNITY. 4-2 

4.2.1 Comm u nity Setting. 4-2 

4.2.1.1 Proposed Action. 4-3 

4.2.1.2 International Airport ANamatfve. 4-3 

4.2.1.3 CornrnerciaiAirfxxtvvthResideritial Alternative. 4-3 

4.2.1.4 General Aviation Center ARamative. 4-3 

4.2.1.5 Non-Avislion ARamative. 4-5 

4JZ.1.6 Other Land Uea Concepts. 4-5 

4.2.1.7 NoAcdon ARematNe. 4-6 

4.2.2 Land Use and Aesthetics. 4-6 

4.2.2.1 Proposed Action. 4-6 

4.2.2.2 International Airport ARamative. 4-io 

4JZ.2.3 Commercial Airport vvthResidentiaiARematlve. 4-16 

George APB Olaiposa/and Reuse PEIS H 




















































TABLE OF CONTENTS 
(ContbHMd) 


4.2.2.4 Ganenri Aviation Cantar Altamativa- 

4.2.2.5 Non-Aviation ARamatNa- 

A.ZJ1A Olhar Land Uaa Conoapla- 

4.2.2.7 No-Action Altamativa_ 

4.2.3 Transportation.. 

4.2.3.1 Propoaad Action- 

4.2.3.2 Inlamationai Airport Altamativa-- 

4.2.3.3 CommarcWAir^vvittiRasIdantialAltamaiNa. 

4.2.3.4 Ganaral Aviation Cantar Altamativa. 

4.2.3.5 NorvAviatlon Altarrwttva-- 

4.2.3.6 Othar Land Usa Concapts- 

4.2.3.7 No-Action Altamativa. 

4.2.4 UtlWas. 

4.2.4.1 Proposad Action.... 

4.2.4.2 Intamational Airport Altamativa. 

4.2.4.3 Contmardai Airport with Rasidanllal Altamativa. 

4.2.4.4 Ganaral Aviation Cantar Altamativa. 

4.2.4.5 Nort-Aviation Altamativa. 

4.2.4.6 Othar Land Usa Concapts. 

4.2.4.7 No-Action Altamativa. 

4.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/HAZAROOUS WASTE. 

4.3.1 Propos^ Action. 

4.3.2 International Airport Aitemativa. 

4.3.3 Commercial Airport with Rasidentiai Aitemativa.. 

4.3.4 General Aviation Center Alternative. 

4.3.5 Non-Aviation Alternative. 

4.3.6 Othar Land Usa Concapts. 

4.3.7 No-Action Alternative. 

4.4 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. 

4.4.1 Sols and Geology. 

4.4.1.1 Proposad Action.. 

4.4.1.2 Inter n ational Airport Aitemativa. 

4.4.1.3 Commercial Airport with Rasidantiai Aitemativa. 

4.4.1.4 General Aviation Cantar Altamativa. 

4.4.1.5 Non-Aviation Alternative. 

4.4.1.6 Othar Land Usa Concepts. 

4.4.1.7 No-Action Alternative. 

4.4.2 Water Resources. 

4.4.2.1 Proposad Action.-. 

4.4.2.2 International Airport Aitemativa —.. 

4.4.2.3 Commercial Airport with Rasidantiai Alternative. 

4.4.2.4 General Aviation Cantar Aitamative. 

4.4.2.5 NonnAviation Altama^-- 

4.4.2.6 Othar Land Uaa Concapts.. 

4.4.2.7 No-Action AttarTwtive-- 

4.4.3 AirOuality. 

4.4.3.1 Propoaad Action-- 

4.4.3.2 Intarnational Airport Alternative. 

4.4.3.3 Commercial Air]^ with Ras i dantiai Altamativa. 

4.4.3.4 Ganaral Aviation Cantar Atomativa. 





eaot 

4-18 

4-20 

4-22 

4-24 

4-25 

4-26 

4-37 

4-46 

4-51 

4-68 

4-63 

4^ 

4-65 

4 ^ 

4-74 

4-78 

4-81 

4-83 

4-86 

4-87 

4-88 

4-88 

4-03 

4-97 

4-102 

4-106 

4-100 

4-111 

4-113 

4-113 

4-113 

4-115 

4-116 

4-117 

4-118 

4-118 

4-119 

4-119 

4-120 

4-122 

4-123 

4-124 

4-125 

4-126 

4-126 

4-127 

4-128 

4-142 

4-145 

4-147 


iv 


George ARB OlRposa/and Reuse REIS 























































TABLE OF CONTENTS 
(ContIfUMd) 

£igs 

4.4.3.5 NofvAvtatlon ARamatK#*. 4-148 

4.4.3.6 OttMT Land Um Concapta. 4-150 

4.4.3.7 NoAcdon AMamal^. 4-151 

4.4.4 Noise. 4-151 

4.4.4.1 Propos e d Action—. 4-156 

4.4.4.2 InlemationsI Airport AltemetNe. 4-166 

4.4.4.3 Cormnerdei Airport vrtthResIderSIslAliernellwe. 4-173 

4.4.4.4 General Aviation Center Aitamative. 4-175 

4.4.4.5 Non-Aviation AitemslNe. 4-180 

4.4.4.6 OttMT Land Use Concepts. 4-181 

4.4.4.7 NoAcdon Alternative. 4-183 

4.4.5 Biological Resources. 4-183 

4.4.5.1 Proposed Action. 4-183 

4.4.5.2 International Airport ARernedve. 4-190 

4.4.5.3 Commercial Airport vrtth Resktondai Attemadve. 4-195 

4.4.5.4 General Aviation CeraerAltemetNe. 4-196 

4.4.5.5 NorvAviadon AMamadve. 4-198 

4.4.5.6 Odier Land Use Cortcepts. 4-199 

4.4.5.7 NoAcdon Altemadve. 4-200 

4.4.6 Cultural Resources. 4-200 

4.4.6.1 Proposed Action. 4-200 

4.4.6.2 Irtemadonal Airport Altemadve. 4-201 

4.4.6.3 Cornmerdal Airport vrtth Residential Alternative. 4-201 

4.4.6.4 General Aviation Center Alternative. 4-202 

4.4.6.5 Non-Aviation Altemadve. 4-202 

4.4.6.6 Other Land Use Concepts. 4-202 

4.4.6.7 NoAcdon Alternative. 4-202 

4.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES. 4-202 

4.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE AND LONG-TERM 

PROOUCnVTTY OF THE ENVIRONMENT. 4-203 

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION. 5-1 

6.0 UST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS. 6-1 

7.0 REFERENCES. 7-1 

aO INDEX. 8-1 


G9org0AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS v 






































UST OF TABLES 


TahUi Page 

1.7- 1 Relevant Federal, State, and Local Statutes. Regulations, and Guidelines. 1-12 

1.7- 2 Federal Permits. Licenses, and Entitlements PoteraiaMy Required for Reusers or 

Developers of Disposed Base Property.... 1-16 

2.2- 1 Land Use Acreage - Proposed Action_ 2-5 

2.2- 2 Disturbed Acres in S. 10, and 20 Year Intervals. 2-6 

2.2- 3 Projected Right Operations - Proposed Action. 2-11 

2.2- 4 ROI Project-Related Employment and Popuiation Effects - Proposed Action. 2-14 

2.3- 1 Land Use Acreage - Intsimalional Airport Alternative. 2-18 

2.3- 2 Projected Right Operations - Irsemational Airport Alterrtttive. 2-23 

2.3- 3 ROI Project-Related EmpioymeflC and Population Effects - International 

Airport Alternative.-. 2-25 

2.3- 4 Land Use Acreage - Commerciai Airport with Residential Altematlva. 2-28 

2.3- 5 ROI Project-Related Employment and Population Effects - Commerci a l Airport with 

Residential Alternative. 2-30 

2.3- 8 Land Use Acreage - General Aviation Center Alternative. 2-33 

2.3- 7 Projected Right Operations - General Aviation Center AhemaUve. 2-34 

2.3- 8 ROI Project-Related Population artd Employment Effects - General Aviation 

Center Alternative. 2-36 

2.3- 9 Land Use Acreage - Non-Aviation Alternative. 2-37 

2.3- 10 Project-Related Population arxl Employmera Effects - NorvAviation Altemative. 2-40 

2.3- 11 Employment and Population Effects of Other Land Use Concepts. 2-42 

2.6- 1 Surrunary of Project-Related Influencing Factors for Reuse of George AFB in 

the Year 1998. 2-50 

2.6- 2 Summary of Project-Related Influencing Factors for Reuse of George AFB in 

the Year 2003. 2-52 

2.6- 3 Summary of Project-Related Influencing Factors for Reuse Of George AFB in 

the year 2013. 2-54 

2.6- 4 Summary of Projected Environmental Impacts of Reuse of George AFB in 

the Year 1998. 2-56 

2.6- 5 Summary of Projected Environmental Impacts of Reuse of George AFB in 

the Year 2003. 2-57 

2.6- 6 Summary of Projected Environmental Impacts of Reuse of George AFB in 

the Year 2013. 2-58 

2.6- 7 Summary of Project-Related Influencing Factors Associated with Other Land Use 

Concepts . 2-59 

2.6- 8 Summwy of Projected Environmental Impaas Associated with Other Larxl 

Use Concepts. 2-60 

3.2- 1 Road Transportation Levels of Service. 3-20 

3.2- 2 George AFB Aircraft Operations. 1990. 3-33 

3.2- 3 Restricted A ea Altitudes and CY1990 Aircraft Sorties. 3-39 

3.2- 4 MIKary Training Route Altitudes and 1990 Aircraft Operations. 3-39 

3.2- 5 Existing and Closiae Baseline Projected Annual Aircraft Operations for CIvI 

Public-Use Airports In the Vldnlty of George AFB. 3-40 

3.2- 6 Average Daly Water Demand within the Victor VaHey (MGD). 3-44 

3.2- 7 Wastewater Generation wflhin the Victor Vafley Wastewater Treatmerfl Authority 

Service Area (in MGD). 3-48 

3.2- 8 Solid Waste Generation within the Victor VaHey (mBions of ctft)ic 

yardsperyear). 3-53 

3.2- 9 Electricity Demand within the VictorvMe District of Southern CaHforrfla 

Edison (in MWH/per day). 3-53 


vl 


QeorgeAPB OisposaJ and Beuse FEIS 







































UST OF TABLES 
(Continutd) 


TahiA Cagg 

3.2- 10 Natural GMOemamlvvthin the \^Ofvte District Of the S<xithwe8t 

Company (in therma/day). 3-55 

3.3- 1 Hazarckxjs Waste Storage Locatioris. 3-59 

3.3- 2 Waste Sites and Disposal Area InvestigMIons. 3-56 

3.3- 3 George AFB FFA Schedule as of November 19.1991. 3-77 

3.3- 4 UST Inventory. 3-78 

3.3- 5 Aboveground Storage Tank Inventory. 3-79 

3.3- 6 Pestidde/Fungicids/Herbicide Storage (Pest Management and Coif Course 

Management). 3-61 

3.3- 7 Recommended Radon Surveys and Mitigations. 3-82 

3.3- 8 Slver Recovery Units. 3-83 

3.4- 1 Estimated Groundwater Overdrafts. 3-90 

3.4- 2 National and Callbmia Ambient Air Quality Standards. 3-93 

3.4- 3 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Starxlard Designations for the 

Southeast Desert Air Basin. 3-96 

3.4- 4 Existirtg Air Quality in Area of George AFB. 3-98 

3.4- 5 Predosure Emission Inventory (tons per day). 3-99 

3.4- 6 Qosure Emission Inventoty (tons per day).3-100 

3.4- 7 Comparative Sound Levels.3-101 

3.4- 8 Land Use CompatlMity Guideiiries in Aircraft Noise Exposure Areas.3-103 

3.4- 9 Distance to DNL from Roadway Centerline for the Predosure Reference 

and Oosure Baseline.3-104 

4.2- 1 Residential Land Use Noise Exposure for the George AFB Development Plans. 4-7 

4.2- 2 Projection of Annual Average Daly Traffic (AAOT) on Key Community Roads 

Generated by the Proposed Adion (Qperations and Cor^ruction Workers). 4-28 

4.2- 3 Projeded Aviation Forecast - Propc»ed Action. 4-32 

4.2- 4 Projection of Annual Average Daly Traffic (AADT) on Key Community Roads 

Generated by the Intemationat Airjxxt Attemative (Qperations and 

Construction Workers). 4-39 

4.2- 5 Projeded Aviation Forecast - Intemationd Airport Alternative. 4-43 

4.2- 6 Projection of Annual Average Daly Traffic (AADT) on Key Community Roads 

Generated by the Commerdai Airport with Residentiai Alternative (Qperations and 
Construction Workers). 4-48 

4.2- 7 Projection of Annual Average Daly Traffic (AADT) on Key Community Roads 

Geiierated by the General Aviation Center Alternative (Qperations arxf 
Construction Workers). 4-53 

4.2- 8 Projeded Aviation Forecast - (general Aviation C^er Alternative. 4-56 

4.2- 9 Projection of Annual Average Daly Traffic (AADT) on Key Community Roads 

Generated by the NorvAviation Alternative (Qperdions and 

Construction Workers). 4-59 

4.2- 10 Utlity Demand (Changes in the Vidor Valley-Proposed Action. 4-67 

4.2- 11 UtlityDemarKtChan^intheVidorVdley-Intemational Airport Alternative. 4-76 

4.2- 12 Utlity Demand Changes in the Vidor Valley-ConanerdalAirrxNt with 

Residential Alternative. 4-79 

4.2- 13 unity Demand Changes in the Vidor Valley-General Aviation Center Alternative... 4-81 

4.2- 14 unity Demand (^han^ in the Victor Valley-Non-Aviation Alternative. 4-84 

4.3- 1 Hazardous Matertari Usage - Proposed Action. 4-89 

4.3- 2 IRP Sites withtoi Land Use Areas - Proposed Action. 4-92 

4.3- 3 Hazardous Material Usage - international Airport Alternative. 4-95 

4.3- 4 IRP Sites within Land Use Areas - International Airport Attemative. 4-96 

4.3- 5 Hazardous Materiai Usage - Commerdai Airport with Residentiai Attemative. 4-99 

George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS v8 








































UST OF TABLES 
(ContiniMd) 


Tafaia Pay* 

4.3- 6 IRP Sites within Land Use Arses - Commerdai Akpoit with 

Resldentiai AttemetK/e.4-100 

4.3- 7 Hazardous Material Usage • General Aviation Center Alternative.4-102 

4.3- 8 IRP Sites within Larxi Use Areas-Qerteral Aviation Certer Alternative.4-104 

4.3- 9 Hazardous Material Usage • Nort-Aviation Alternative.4-106 

4.3- 10 IRP Sites within Land Use Areas-NorvAviationAiterrwt^.4-108 

4.3- 11 IRP Sites within Land Use Areas-Other Land Use Concepts.4-111 

4.4- 1 Estimated Acreege to be Oisturted at S. 10. and 20 Year Irtervals - 

Proposed Action.4-114 

4.4- 2 Estimated Acreage to be Disturbed at S, 10. and 20 Year Intervals - 

Intemationai Airport AltemMive.4-116 

4.4- 3 Estimated Acreage to be Disturbed at 5.10. and 20 Year intervals - 

Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative.4-117 

4.4- 4 Estimated Acreage to be Disturbed at S. 10. arvi 20 Year Intervals- 

Norv-Aviation Alternative.4-118 

4.4- 5 Proiected Water DemarKi - Proposed Action.4-120 

4.48 Projected Water Demand - Intemationai Airport Alternative.4-123 

4.4- 7 Projected Water Demand - Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative.4-124 

4.48 Projected Water Demand - General Aviation Center Alternative.4-125 

4.48 Projected Water Demand • NorvAviation Alternative.4-126 

4.4- 10 Pollutant Emissions Associated with the Proposed Action (tons/day).4-128 

4.4- 11 Air Quality Modeltaig Results for the Proposed Action Org/m^.4-138 

4.4- 12 Pollutant Emissions Associated with the Intemationai Airport Alternative 

(tons/day) . 4-143 

4.4- 13 Air Quality Modeling Results for the Intemationai Airport Alternative (ug/m^.4-145 

4.4- 14 Pollutant Emissions Associated with the Commercial Airport with Rc^entU 

Alternative (tons/day).4-146 

4.4- 15 PoilutantEmissionsAssociated with the General Aviation Center Alternative 

(^ons/day) .4-148 

4.4- 16 Pollutant Emissions Associated with the NorvAviation Alternative (tons/day).4-149 

4.4- 17 Percentage of Population HigNy Annoyed by Noise Exposure.4-152 

4.4- 18 Noise Exposure for the George AFB Alternative Development Plans.4-156 

4.4- 19 Sound Exposure Levels at Noise-Sensitive Receptors.4-165 

4.4- 20 Distance to DNL from Roadway Centerline - Projxjsed Action.4-166 

4.4- 21 Distance to DNL from Roadway Centerline • Intemationai Airport 

Alternative .4-173 

4.4- 22 Distance to DNL from Roadway Centerline • Commercial Airport with 

Residential Alternative.4-175 

4.4- 23 Distance to DNL from Roadway Centerline - General Aviation Center Alternative.4-181 

4.4- 24 Distance to DNL from Roadway Centerline-Non-Aviation Alternative.4-182 

4.4- 25 Direct Impacts of the Proposed Action on Vegetation by Phase (acres).4-184 

4.4- 26 Direct Impacts of the Intemationai Airport Alternative on Vegetadon 

by Phase (acres).4-191 

4.4- 27 Direct impacts of the Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative on 

Vegetation by Phase (acres).4-195 

4.4- 28 Dh^ Impacts of the Non-Aviation Alternative on Vegetation by Phase (acres).4-198 


viii 


George APB 0/sposa/ant/Reuse f E/S 







































UST OF FIGURES 


Figure CBOB 

2.2- 1 Proposed Acthxi (Commercial Airport). 2-4 

2.2- 2 Coriceptual Airport Master Plan • Proposed Action. 2-6 

2.3- 1 International Airport Aitemative. 2-17 

2.3- 2 Conceptual Air;^ Mastar Plan - Intemationai Airport Aitemative. 2-19 

2.3- 3 Commer d ai Airport with Residentlai Aitemative. 2-27 

2.3- 4 Qenerai Aviation Center Aitemative. 2-32 

2.3- 5 NorvAviation Aitemative. 2-38 

2.3- 6 . Other Land Use Concepts. 2-43 

2.5-1 Highway 396 Conceptual Realignment. 2-48 

3.2- 1 Regional Map. 3-3 

3.2- 2 Vicinity Topographic Map. 3-5 

3.2- 3 City Boundaries. 3-8 

3.2- 4 Existing Land Use. 3-10 

3.2- 5 Existir^ Ofl-Base Land Use. 3-13 

3.2- 6 High VisuM SensSivity Map. 3-18 

3.2- 7 Victor VaMey Transportation Systems. 3-23 

3.2- 8 George AFB Vicinity: Major Streets. 3-24 

3.2- 9 George AFB OtvBsm Roads. 3-25 

3.2- 10 Peak-HourTraffic Volumes on Key Comrmjnity Roads. 3-27 

3.2- 11 Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes on Key Orv^ase Roads. 3-29 

3.2- 12 Airspace Region of InfluerKe (20 nm Radius of George AFB). 3-31 

3.2- 13 Aircraft Traffic Patterns. 3-34 

3.2- 14 Instrument Approach Runway 17. 3-36 

3.2- 15 Instrument Approach Runway 35. 3-37 

3.2- 16 Standard Instrumera Departure. 3-38 

3.2- 17 Average Daly Water Demand: 1987-1993. 3-45 

3.2- 18 Average Daly Wastewater Generation: 1987-1993. 3-49 

3.2- 19 Total Solid Waste Generation: 1987-1993 . 3-52 

3.2- 20 Average Daly Electricity Demand: 1987-1993 . 3-54 

3.2- 21 Average Daly Natural Gas Demand: 1987-1993. 3-56 

3.3- 1 Installation Restoration Program Sites. 3-60 

3.3- 2 Installation Restoration Program Areas. 3-62 

3.3- 3 Pictorial Presentation of IRP Process. 3-63 

3.4- 1 Regional Geologicai Map. 3-87 

3.4- 2 Southeast Desert Air Basin. 3-95 

3.4- 3 Predosure Noise Contours.3-105 

3.4- 4 Vegetation in the Vicinity of George AFB.3-108 

3.4- 5 Desert Tortoise Dtetribution/Wedands and Riparian Habitat.3-113 

4.2- 1 Comparison of Alternatives - Vidor Valley Population and Employment Effed. 4-4 

4.2- 2 Land Use Conflicts - Proposed Action. 4-8 

4.2- 3 Land Use Conflicts-International Airport Aitemative (1998). 4-12 

4.2- 4 Land Use Conflicts-Intemationai Airport Alternative (2003)—. 4-13 

4.2- 5 Land Use Conflicts - International Airport Attemative (2013). 4-15 

4.2- 6 Land Use Conflicts-Commerdai AirjxirtwflhResidetaial Aitemative. 4-17 

4.2- 7 Land Use Conflicts-General Aviation Cer«er Aitemative. 4-19 

4.2- 8 Land Use Conflicts - Non-Aviation Aitemative. 4-21 

4.2- 9 Peak-Hour Traffic Vdumes on Key Communfly Roads • Proposed Action. 4-30 

4.2- 10 George AFB Airspace Environment within Region of Influence. 4-33 

4.2- 11 Projeded instrument Arrival and Departure Routes for Runway 17. 4-35 


George AFB Disposal aid Reuse FEIS be 























































UST OF FIGURES 
(Continued) 

Rgufe Paga 

4.2- 12 Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes on Key Commiaiity Roads > International Airport 

Alternative. 4-40 

4.2- 13 Peak-HourTraffic Volumes on Key Community Roads'Commercial Airport with 

Residentlai Alternative. 4-49 

4.2- 14 Peak-HourTraffic Volumes on Key Community Roads'General Aviation 

Center Alterrwtive. 4-54 

4.2- 15 Peak-HourTraffic Volumes on Key Community Roads-Non-Aviation Altematlve. 4-61 

4.2- 16 Average Daly Water Demand-All Alternatives (1990-2013). 4-69 

4.2- 17 AverageDaly Wastewater Generation-Ail Alternatives (1990-2013). 4-70 

4.2- 18 Total Solid Waste Generation - Ail Alternatives (1990-2013). 4-72 

4 2-19 Average Daly Bectricity Demand - Ail Alternatives (1990-2013). 4-73 

4.2- 20 Average Daly Natural Gas Demand-All Alterr^atlves (1990-2013). 4-75 

4.3- 1 iRP Sites - Proposed Action. 4-91 

4.3- 2 IRP Sites - International Airport Alternative. 4-94 

4 3 3 IRP Sites • Commercial Airport with Residential Altematlve. 4-98 

4.3- 4 IRP Sites - General Aviation Center Alternative.4-103 

4.3- 5 IRP Sites - Non-Aviation Alternative.4-107 

4.3- 6 IRP Sites - Federal Transfers arxl Indeperxient Land Uses.4-110 

4.4- 1 NOi Emissions from George AFB Reuse Alternatives.4-131 

4.4- 2 ROG Emissions from George AFB Reuse Alternatives.4-132 

4.4- 3 PMto Emissions from George AFB Reuse Alternatives.4-134 

4.4- 4 SO 2 Emissions from George AFB Reuse Alternatives.4-136 

4.4- 5 CO Emissions from George AFB Reuse Alternatives.4-137 

4.4- 6 Sleep Disruption (Awakening).4-154 

4.4- 7 Departure Right Tracks - Proposed Action, Commercial Airport with 

Residentlai Alternative, and General Aviation Center Alternative.4-157 

4.4- 8 Arrival Right Tracks - Proposed Action. Commercial Airport with 

Residential Alternative, and General Aviation Center Alternative.4-158 

4.4- 9 Touch-and-Go Right Tracks - Proposed Action and Commercial Airport with 

Residential Alternative.4-159 

4.4- 10 DNL Noise Contours - Proposed Action and Commercial Airport with 

Residential Alternative (1993).4-160 

4.4- 11 DNL Noise Contours - Proposed Action and Commercial Airport with 

Residential Altemativ'e (1998).4-161 

4.4- 12 DNL Noise Contours - Proposed Action and Commercial Airport with 

Residential Altematlve (2003).4-162 

4.4- 13 DNL Noise Contours - Proposed Action and Commercial Airport with 

Residential Alternative (2013',.4-163 

4.4- 14 Departure Right Tracks - Intemationai Airport Alternative.4-167 

4.4- 15 Arrival Right Tracks • Intemationai Airport Alternative.4-168 

4.4- 16 DNL Noise Contours Intemationai Airport Altematlve (1998). 4-169 

4.4- 17 DNL Noise Contours International Airport Alternative (2003).4-170 

4.4- 18 DNL Noise Contours Intemationai Airport Alternative (2013).4-171 

4.4- 19 DNL Noise Contours Gerreral Aviation Center Alternative (1993).4-176 

4.4- 20 DNL Noise Contours General Avfetflon Center Alternative (1998).4-177 

4.4- 21 DNL Noise Contours (aeneral Aviation Center Altematlve (2003).4-178 

4.4- 22 DNL Noise Contours General Aviation Center Alternative (2013).4-179 


X 


George AFB Dispose/ and Reuse FEiS 










































CHAPTER 1 
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 








1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 


This environmental Impact statement (EIS) examines the potential impacts to 
the environment as a resuK of the disposal and reuse of George Air Force Base 
(AFB). CaiKomia. This document has been prepared in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the CourK:l on 
Environmental Quality (CEO) regulations implementing NEPA. Appendix A 
presents a glossary dt terms, acronyms, and abbreviations used In this 
document. 

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The Proposed Action addressed in this EIS would dispose of George AFB. in 
whole or part, to other federal agerrcles, public entities, and/or private parties. 
The closure of George AFB is authorized by the Defense Authorization 
Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (BCRA) of 1988 (Public 
Law [RL.] 100-526). The Secretary of Defense established the Commission on 
Base Realignment and Closure on May 3.1988 to recommend mBItafy 
installations for realignment and closure, focusing on the military value of the 
installation as the primary criterion in identifying candidate bases. The United 
States Congress and the President endorsed the commission and its charter by 
implementing the Defense Authorization Amendments and BCRA on 
October 24,1988. 

The commission submitted its report to the Secretary of Defense on 
December 29,1988, recommending realignments and closures affecting 
145 military installations. Of these installations, 86 are to be closed, including 
George AFB. The Secretary of Defense approved the commission's 
recommendations on January 5,1989 and announced that the Department of 
Defense (DOD) would implement the realignments and closures of the selected 
installations. Under the provisions of BCRA, the Secretary of Defense must 
initiate the recommended closures and realignments by September 30,1991 
and complete them before September 30,1995. 

The George AFB property w8l be disposed of in compliance with the Defense 
Authorization Amendments, BCRA, the Federal Property and Administrative 
Services Act of 1949, and the Surplus Property Act of 1944. The base is 
scheduled to be dosed in December 1992. 

Air Force dedsions regarding the George AFB property Indude the fdlowing: 

• If, how, and when the property will be divided into parcels for disposal 
(^realization) 

• What disposal method will be used for each parcel, such as: 

- transfer to another federal agency 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


1-1 




- public benefit conveyance to an ellgftjle entity 

• negotiated sale to a public body 

• sealed bid or auction to the general public 

• What mitigation measures are needed for Ak Force actions that cotid 
cause environmental Impacts. 

The Air Force goal is to dispose of George AFB property through transfer and/or 
conveyance to other goverrvnent agencies or private parties. The Proposed 
Action supports the specific goal of base reuse, which is to enhance the aviation 
capacky of the state of Callfomia, partlculaiiy southern Caltfomia. The 
development of a commercial airport in the Victor N^Rey could contribute an 
important source of revenue arvi employment opportunities for the communities 
In the area. 

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCESS 

BCRA also requires compliance with NEPA (with some exceptions) in the 
implementation of the base closures and realignments. The Issues that were 
excluded from NEPA compliance are: 

• The establishment of the Commission on Base Realignment arxl 
Closure 

• The selection of installations for closure or realignment 

• The Secretary of Defense’s acceptance of the Commission’s 
recommerxlations. 

The Secretary of Defense, through the Air Force, Is preparing the required NEPA 
documentation at each stage of the base closure process. The Air Force 
released the Final EIS for the Closure of George AFB on May 4,1990. and 
published the Record of Decision ^OD) on June 20,1990. That document 
addressed the environmental impacts associated with closure; the ROD is 
presented in Appendix B of this EIS. 

The Air Force has prepared this EIS to provide information on the potential 
environmental impacts of federal decisions regarding the disposal and incident 
reuse of George /VFB. Following the completion and consideration of this EIS, 
the /Mr Force will make a series of interrelated decisions regarding transfer, 
conveyance, and parcelization of the property to be disposed. The federal 
decisfon documents, such as the ROD, will state the terms and conditions of the 
conveyance, including the mitigation measures, if any, that wll be completed by 
the Air Force or base property recipients. These decisions wll affect the 
environment by determining or Influencing the nature of the future use of the 
property. 

Because the parcelization and disposal methods do not directly affect the 
environmertt, this EIS wW focus on the environmental impacts associated with 


1-2 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





the reuse Implemented by future (Mvners. The Air Force wll use the 
redevelopment plans developed by the Victor \^ey Economic Development 
Authority (WEOA) as the Proposed Action for the purpose of conductirtg the 
required envlrorunentai an^yste. In addition, the Air Force wll analyze the 
environmental Impacts associated with other reasonable reuse alternatives to 
ensure that al potential envkonmental impacts have been identified. The 
recipients of the property wU subsequently determine the reuse of the property. 
Six alternatives have been identified, which indude four aviation reuse 
proposals, a norvaviation reuse, and a n&action alternative that would not 
Involve reuse. 

The Federal Aviation Adnninistration (FAA), through its Western-Pacific Region, is 
a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EIS. The FAA would have legal 
jurisdiction over the area of George AFB to be reused as a civlian airport The 
FAA also has special expertise and a responsibiity to make recommerxlations 
to the Air Force for the disposal of surplus property for airport use. 

Certain activities inherent in the development or expansion of an airport 
cor>stitute federal actions that fall urxler the statutory and regulatory authority of 
the FAA. The FAA generally reviews these activities through the processing and 
approval of an Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Goals of the ALP review system are 
to: (1) determine its effectiveness in achieving safe and efficient utflization of 
airspace, (2) assess factors affecting the movement of air traffic, and 
(3) establish conformance with FAA design criteria and federal government 
agreements (ref. Federal Aviation Regulation [FAR] Parts 77,139,150,157, and 
169). The FAA approval action may also indude other specific elements such 
as preparation of the Airport Certification Manual (Part 139); the Airport Security 
Plan (Part 107); and the location, construction, or modification of an air traffic 
control (ATC) tower, terminal radar approach control (TRACON) facility, other 
navigational arxJ visual aids, arxJ facilities. 

In view of its possible direct involvement with the reuse of George AFB, the FAA 
is serving as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EIS. The primary 
federal laws and regulations that support the FAA’s participation as a 
cooperating agency in the preparation of this EIS are as follows: 

• The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (P.L. 85-726) 
provides authority for the FAA to develop air traffic control procedures 
and to manage the navigable airspace of the United States. 

• The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248) and, 
as amended. Airport and Airways Safety and Capacity Expansion Ad of 
1987 (P.L 85-726) specifies that airport development projects may not 
be approved unless they are compatible with ^ans of local agencies for 
the development of the entire area in which the airport is located. 
Environmental Impacts must be assessed prior to plan authorization. 
Projects that involve adverse effects wfli not be approved unless no 
prudent or feasible alternative exists and unti all measures to mitigate 
adverse effects have been taken. 


George AFB DisposaJ and Reuse FEIS 


1-3 





The potential envfronmentai impacts of airport developmera nHJSl be assessed 
prior to commitmeni of federal funding, In accordance with NEPA and FAA 
Orders 1050.10. Policies end Procedt^es for Considering Environmental 
Impa^ and S0S0.4A, Airport Ertv^onmentai HsndtMok. 

Compliance with NEPA and FAA Regiiations requires the preparation of 
proposed airport deveiopmert plana. This EIS presents the assessment of 
potential environmental Impacts of such plans as are avalabie. If reuse 
proponents have developed only conceptual plans for the airport area, the 
environmental impacts of those cortcept plans are analyzed. The FAA may then 
use this document to complete their NEPA requirements when the ALP Is 
submitted. This EIS also provides envirorvnental assessment formation to aid 
FAA decisions on funding requests for airport development projects. The new 
owners would be required to prepare a final ALP and submit it to the FAA. as 
appropriate, for approval 

The socioecorromic impacts of disposal arxl reuse of George AFB property are 
analyzed in this EIS only to the extent that those Impacts affect the natural or 
physical envirorwnenL Adetaled. concurrent study, presented In the 
Socioeconomic Impact Ansfysis Stud/, analyzes the socioecorx>mic impacts of 
the base closure and disposal and reuse of the base property. That study 
describes the effects on the local communities arxf the transition of activities on 
the base from corxfitions prior to closure and throughout redevelopment 
Concerns of state and local agerx:ies and the general public regarding those 
issues are addressed in that study. 

1.3 SCOPING PROCESS 

The scoping process identifies the significant Issues relevant to the proposal 
and provides an opportunity for public involvement in the development of the 
EIS. Various issues related to the disposal and reuse of the base were identified 
during the George AFB Closure 0S scoping period (February 8 to AprI 8.1989) 
and at the Closure Scoping Meeting held on March 14,1989 at the Holiday Inn 
in Victorville. Califomia. 

The Notice of Intent (NOI) (Apperxfix C) to prepare an EIS for disposal and 
reuse of George AFB was published In the Federal Register on 
September 28,1990. Notification of the public scoping meeting was published 
in local newspapers and announced on local radio stations, and malers were 
sent to Interested parties. 

The scoping period for the disposal and reuse of George AFB was from 
September 28 to November 30.1990. A public meeting was held on 
October 29,1990 at the Holiday Inn In Victorvlie. Califomia. to solicit comments 
and concerns from the general public on the disposal and reuse of George AFB. 
Approximately 40 people atterxfed the meeting. Representatives of the Air 


1-4 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




Force presented an overview of the meeting’s objectives, agenda, procedures, 
and described the process and purpose for the development of a disposal and 
reuse EIS. In addition to verbal comments, several written comments were 
received during the scoping process. These comments, as welt as information 
from previous Air Force scoping and Base Reuse Executive CouncI meetirtgs, 
experierKe with slmlar programs, and NEPA requirements, were used to 
determine the scope and direction of studies/anaiysis to accomplish this EIS. 
Copies of this EIS have been mailed to ail Interested parties. Apperxlix D 
contairts the distribution iisL 

1.3.1 Summary of Scoping Issues and Concerns 

Issues that arose during the scoping period are summarized in this section for 
Informationai purposes. The summaries reflect the Issues as they were 
presented arxl do not necessarfly imply endorsement or acceptance by the Air 
Force. Issues and corwems raised during the scoping process, for 
consideration in this EIS, are summarized below. 

Environmental Impacts 

• The trichloroethylene (TCE) groundwater contamination emanating from the 
Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Northeast Disposal Area involves Victor 
Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (WWRA) property. WWRA 
presented the following demands: 

. contamination must be effectively and efficiently eliminated from 
WWRA property 

- further contamination must be prevented 

- WWRA and Its affiliates must be assured that they will not be 
responsible for any costs or liability by virtue of the presence of any 
such contamination. This assurance must be included in the EIS. 

• It was requested that OOD intensify its efforts to identify and remove hazardous 
and toxic wastes for the reuse of George AFB. 

• A thorough discussion of remediation activities should be included in the EIS. 

• Monitoring of air quality was recommended in order to formulate a baseline 
inventory and provide a standard by which changes can be measured. 

• Impacts upon air quality resulting from proposed reuse activities should be 
analyzed. The analysis should address stationary, indirect, and mobile sources. 

• Noise, hazardous materials exposure, and other potential health risks related 
to IRP cleanup activities should be addressed within the EIS. 

• A site-speciflc risk assessment should be conducted for all proposed rezoning. 

• Aboveground and underground storage tanks (USTs) must be permitted and 
approved for disposal by the county prior to removal. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


1-5 




Altamativ* Rmsm 




• Three reuse aKemattves were presented by WEDA. Under the first, George 
AFB would be reused (within the existing boundaries) as a regional ht^ for air 
carrier and general aviation airport activities. The peripheral properties of 
George AFB would be developed for aerospace^elated irxjustries, higher 
educatkxVInstitutional development, office/busirress park deveiopmera. health 
care services, and recreational facilities. 

The secorxl WEOA alternative involves developing George AFB as an airport 
in expanded phases, to eventually become a large hub airport This proposal 
would ental the acquisition of additional property in order to odend runways, 
acquire dear zones, and irwrease airport operational capacities. 

The tNrd WEOA proposal envisions an evolving airport developed within the 
existing boundaries of George AFB. The airport would begin as a regional air 
carrier faclity arxt develop into a larger operation serving localities 
throughout the Pacific Southwest and the Pacific Rim countries. 

In con|unction with these proposals, it was recommerxled that the Califomia 
Air National Guard should remain and that the airport should be operational 
in aH reuse alternatives considered for George AFB. 

• An aviation center was proposed for the reuse of George AFB that would retain 
existing housing for the homeless. In the event of a national emergency, the 
faclity could easly accept an Air Force detachment arxl be reconverted to a 
mlltary operatiort 

• A proposal was submitted to reuse George AFB and adjacent properties as an 
international airport designed to accommodate approximately 60 mllion 
annual passengers (MAP). Note: this figure was later revised by the city of 
Adelanto to SO MAR 

Recreational : 

• The National Park Service stated that It was not interested in acquiring any 
portion of George AFB properties, but supported the conveyance of taclities 
and land for park arxl recreational uses to local government agerwies. 

- The city of Victorvlle expressed interest in acquiring the park and 
recreational facllties at George AFB through the public benefit 
conveyance program. 

. WEDA supported the conveyance of the park and recreatiortal 
faclities to the city of Victorvlle. 


Other 

• The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is interested In acquiring 100 to 
800 acres of base pr(^>efty for use as a correctional fadlity. 

• Reuse alternatives should maximize utlization of al properties associated 
with George AFB. 

• The U.S. Department of Education expressed Interest in acquiring certain 
base property and faclities to convey to San Bernardino Cowity and the 
local school district 


1-6 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




Emnlovfnflnt: 


Al proposed G«orge AFB reuse altamatfwes should maximiz* ampkyymeni 
opportunities for the surrounding communities. 

Hmislng- 


• Retention of the 1,641 Single-and muM-temly housing units is incompetibie 
with effective planning for the reuse of George AFB as a potential 
airport/airfield. 

• It was suggested that support for the homeleae be considered in the reuse 
of George AFB. 

Oispoaaini«nefer 


infrastructure: 


• Concern was expressed that potendai impacts (spedflcaily regarding safety, 
traffic, and roadbed) associated with traroporting heavy, oversized, and/or 
hazardous materiais over the state highway system be reviewed in the EiS. 

The existing infrastructure would effher have to be completeiy upgraded 
urxler the reuse options or service would have to be restricted to that 
supportable by the exists infrastructure. A corresponding analysis should 
be included in the EiS. 

It was recommended that the proposed transportation system servicing the 
reuse options of George AFB should be financially feasible, delivered In a 
timely manner, practical relative to right-of-way issues, and agreeable to 
each particular jurisdictloa 


• Prior to any future occupancy of George AFB. WWRAwIt require 
modification of the existing sewage collection system by the potential 
user/owner. These modWrations wO bKiude the foilowi^: 

- separation of industrial and domestic wastewater 

- provisions for pretreatment and spll containment for the industrial 
wastewaters 

. elimination of storm water from the sewage systera 


The sewage c o Moctlo n system of George AFB is presently served by the 
WWRA, under special a^^eement, which wM cease at base closure unless: 

- the U.S. Government continues the existing service agreement 

- the base property Is annexed to a WWRA member agency and 
subsequently annexed to WWRA 

. WWRA and its member agencies agree to serve, by spedai 
contract(s) wffh any per8on(s) or entityOes), aR or a portion of the 
base. 


George AF8 Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


1-7 



Th« WWRA has gnrMd tha US. GoMammant an aa s amant on WWRA 
proparty in ordar to ramowathaTCEconlamlnalion. WWRA asaarta that 
thia aaaament may not ba raaaaignad wtthout thair prior axpiaaa written 
approval. 

Akmmrm- 

The Air Forca Flight Teat Cenlar (AFFTC) at Edwaida AFB atated that upon 
diapoaal of George AFB, commardai akcrall oparationa impinging on raatrictad 
airapace wV adveraaiy affect 000 operationa. Airapace conaiderationa ahouM 
be addraaaed in the EIS. 

MlaceManeoua 

• Strong aupportwaaexpreaaed for a coordinated local piannfaig effort to 
decide the future use of George AFB raaourcaa. 

• 000 was encouraged to recognize WEOA aa the aole reuse authority for 
George AFB. 

• The US. SmaM Business Administration would like to ensure that the 
Minority Small Business Program (Section 8 fa] of the SnwR Business Act) is 
utlized In any program of reuse for George Are. 

1.3.^ issues Beyond the Scope of the EIS 

Concerns and issues that are beyond the scope of this EIS were also expressed 
durkrg the scoping process. These issues, and the reasons they are not 
included in this BS. are identified below. In general, issues were determined to 
be beyord the scope of this BS If they were either not significant or If they have 
been or are being addressed by other surveys and studies. 

Installation Restoration Program. The Air Force is currently conducting an 
IRP that defines and implements the procedures necessary for the remediation 
of hazardous substance releases « George AFB. The IRP Is a separate process 
being conducted concurrently with the analysis of the disposal and reuse EIS; 
final assessments and findirrgs of the IRP are not yet completed and may not be 
completed for a period of up to 5 years. The steps In this process are shown in 
Figure 3.3^ 

With the base dosing and reuse plans in a conceptual state, the exact effect of 
IRP Issues on reuse cannot be quantified with certainty at this time. TheIRP.in 
turn, needs addWorral I rfformation on reuse to ensure that risk-driven 
remediations meet the land usee that wB occur in the future. It is obvious that 
as planning matures and addiUonai IRP information becomes avalaUe. much 
coordination wB take place over the IRP and reuse issues. An in-depth 
consideration of IRP managemertt and analysis procedures is beyond the scope 
of this EIS; however, IRP issues are discussed herein to provide a baseline for 
the sffocted environment 


1-8 


(Seorga AFB ZMpos^ anef Reuse FEIS 






The Ak Force is comrnined to the ittontWcation. assessmgnt. and remediation of 
the contamination from hazardous substanoee at George AFB. This 
commitment wt assure the protection of pubUc heelth as weH as restoration of 
the environment The pubUc may participate In the IRP through the Community 
Relations Plan for the program. Information about this may be obtained through 
the base's Public Affairs Office. Additionaly, the general public vHI be asked to 
comment on the rerrtediations propoeed for the IRP sites through a formal 
process for National Priorities List (NPL) faditiee such as George AFB. A 
process, simlar to the one for this BS, vril be fblOMred in which public hearkigs 
are held on proposed cleanups and commerls are taken for analysis. 

SocioecorKMnIca. Effects the physical or natural environment as a result 
of potential changes in certain socioeconomic factors that are associated with 
or caused by the disposal or reuse of the base are addressed within this EiS. 
Other socioeconomic issues, such as the region’s employment base, school 
budgets, municipal/state tax revenues, medicai care for mlitary retirees and 
dependents, local governments and services, and ecorxxnic effects on utlky 
systems are beyond the scope of NEPA and CEO requirements. Analysis of 
Impacts associated with these issues is provided in the Socioeconomic Impact 
Analysis Study, that document wfll also support the base reuse decision-making 
process. 


1.4 PUBUC COMMENT PROCESS 

The Air Force has complied with the NEPA mandate of public participation in the 
environmental impact analysis process primarily in two ways; 

• The subject Draft EIS was made avaflable for public review and 
comment in October-November 1991. 

• At a public hearing held on October 17,1991, the Air Force presented 
the findings of the Draft EIS and invited public comments. 

All comments were reviewed and addressed, when applicable, and have been 
included in their entirety in Volume II of this document Responses to 
comments offering new or changes to data and questions about the 
presentation of data are also included. Comments simply stating feicts or 
opinions, although appreciated, did not require specific responses. The Public 
Comments and Responses section more thorougNy describes the comment 
and response process. 


George AFB Disposed and Reuse FEIS 


1-9 





1.5 CHANGES TO THE DEIS 

TheteKt ofthis EIS has been re^leed. vvhen appropriate, to reflect concerns 
expressed in public comments. These changes range from typographicai 
corrections to amendmerfls of reuse plana. The responses to the commeras In 
Voliane II indicate the relevant sections of the EIS that have been revised. The 
ma|or comments received on the Draft BS wrare: 

• The treatment of curnulativeifnpacts and rnitigations was considered to 
be Inadequate. 

• Questions concemirrg the differences in the MAP used in analyzing the 
aviation alternatives and the MAP at buldout provided by the alternative 
proponents were raised. 

• The treatment of water rights was considered inadequate. 

• The discussion of contamination, hazardous materials, hazardous 
waste arvl dearujp was considered defident 

• Thetreatmentof Impacts on the Mojave River, especially downstream, 
was considered inadequate. 

• The treatment of socioeconomic impacts was considered insufficient 

Based on more recent studies or comments from the public, the following 
sections of the EIS have been updated or revised: 

• The discussions of MAP (Sections 1.3.1,2.2.1,2.3.1,4.2.3.1, and 
4.2 3.2) have been revised. 

• Additional information has been Induded in proposed airfieid 
improvements arxf conceptual airport master plans (Sections 2.2.1 and 
2.3.1). 

• Hazardous Materids/Hazardous Waste Management (Sections 3.3 and 
4.3) indudes exparxled discussions on the following: 

- Federal Faclity Agreement (FFA) schedule 

- Impacts of the iRP process on reuse development 

- Characterization of IRP sites 

- Evaluation and effects of each IRP site relevant to each alternative’s 
land uses 

- Concept of risk associated with certain types of development and 
IRP sites. 

• Air quality (Section 4.4.3) has been revised to indude discussion of 
emission credits and credit transfer. 

• Where applicable, the probable success of mitigation measures has 
been described. The discussion was not induded for some resource 
areas; for eMvnple, mitigation rneasures involving wastewater treatrnent 
are considered an engineering issue, since design modifications would 
be a way of handling increased demand on the feclity. 


-10 


George AF6 Disposal and Bbusb FEIS 




1.8 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS 


The environmental documents listed belotM have been or are being prepared 
separately and address envlrorvnental issues at George AFB. These documents 
provided supporting information (or the environmental analysis. 

• Final Enviroimental Impact Statement for the ClOMjn George Air 
Force Base 

• Biological Surrey of George AFB {draH) 

• Archaeology Surrey and Inventory of George AFB 

• George AFB, World Wv II BulldIngsIFacillties ArtMtectura! and 
Historical Evaluation (draft) 

• Envlronmerttel Assessment, Impacts of Air Warrior Relocation from 
George AFB 

• Environmental Assessment, Cumulative Impacts of Aircraft 
Reallgrwnents at George AFB (draft) 

• IRP Bibliography (Appervlix E). 

1.7 RELEVANT FEDERAL, STATE. AND LOCAL STATUTES, REGULATIONS. 

AND GUIDEUNES 

Federal, state, and local statutes, regulations, and guidelines with which the 
recipients of George AFB property and cooperating agerKies must comply, as 
related to this disposal and reuse EIS, are presented in Table 1.7-1. Federal 
permits, licenses, and entitiements which may be required by reusers or 
developers are presented in Table 1.7-2. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


1-11 





Ihbto 1.7-1. R«l«vant F«dtnl. Slat*, and Local Statulaa. Ragulatlona. and Guidolinaa 

Paga l 4 


Rasource 

Air Quality 


Project Activity _ 

Changes in vehicle traffic 
levels or aircraft 
operations: changes in 
emissions from 
cor^truction activity or the 
establishment or removal 
of any stationary source of 
emission 


RegulatlorVAuthorty 

The Clean Mr Act 
42U.S.C.SI7401 at 
seq.; 40 C.F.R. Parts 
50<a7 


Agancy _ 

U.S. Envirorvnentai 
Protection Agency. 
Califomia Environmental 
Protection Agency 


The C^omia Oean Air Califomia Air Resources 
Act, Califomia Health A Board 
Safety Code Chapter 
1568 


Analysis of environmental 
impact of development or 
improvement of a public 
airport 

Improvement of a federally 
funded highway project 


Airspace Use Activities that may affect 

airspace use and air traffic 
procedures 

Biologicai Consultation regarding 

Resources federal or federally 

permitted projects to 
impound, divert, or control 
surfeice waters with a total 
surface area greater than 
10 acres 

Dredge and fill activities in 
jurisdictional wetlands 


Activities that may affect 
habitat of migratory birds 


San Bernardino County 
APCO Rules and 
Regulations 

Federal Aviation 
Administration 
Order 5050.4a 

23 U.S.C. § 109 
(Standards for Federal 
Aid Highways): The 
aeanAirAct.42U.S.C. 
§7506: Air Quality 
Conformity and Priority 
Procedures for use in 
Federal-Aid Highway 
and federally funded 
Transit Programs, 
23C.F.R.Part770 

Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) 
Handbooks 7400.2C and 
8260.3 

Fish and WSdlife 
Coordination Act, 

16 U.S.C. §§ 1661 et 
seq. 


Oean Water Act, 

33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et 
seq.: Executive Order 
11990 (Protection of 
WetlarxJs) 


Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act16U.S.C.§§701 et 
seq; 50 C.F.R. Part 21 


San Bernardino County Air 
Pollution Control District 

U.S. Department of 
Transportation • Federal 
Aviation Administration 

U.S. Department of 
Transportation • Federal 
Highway Administration 


U.S. Department of 
Transportation-Federal 
Aviation Administration 

Department of Interior - 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Sen/ice 


U.S. Fish and WHdlife 
Service: U.S. 
Environmental Protection 
Agency Department of 
D^ense - Army Corps of 
Engineers: Califomia 
Environmental Protection 
Agency 

Department of Interior * 
U.S. Fish and WHdlife 
Service _ 




1-12 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







Tibi* 1.7-1. Rtlavant Fadarai, Stata, and Local Statutaa, Ragulationa, and Guidalinaa 


Page 2 of 4 

Resource 

Project Activity 


Agency 

Biological 

Resources 

(con’t) 

Reservoir development 
and stream modification 
projects including specific 
fish and widlife habitat 
improvements 

Watershed Protection 
arKi Rood Prevention 

Act. 16U.S.C. $§ 1001 et 
seq . 33 U.S.C. f 701-1 

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture - Soi 

Conservation Service 


Project activities that 
could affect stream beds 

California Fish arxj 

Game Code. Sectkxts 

1601 and 1603 

Califomia Department of 

Fish and Game 


Project activities that may 
affect state listed 
erxlangered or threatened 
specie 

Endangered Species 

Act. as amended 

U.S. Rsh and Wildlife 

Service 


Project activities that may 
affect state listed 
end'^ngered or threatened 
species 

Califomia Endangered 
Species Act 

Califomia Department of 

Fish arxl Game 


Transportation programs 
or projects that may 
require the use of any 
park, recreation area, or 
wildlife or waterfowl refuge 
of national, state, or local 
significance 

Departntent of 
Transportation Act of 

1966, 49 u s e. § 303(C) 
(formerly 49 U.S.C. § 

1653 (f) 1982) 

U.S. Department of 
Transpt^tion 


Ensuring that necessary 
actions are taken for the 
prevention, control, and 
abatement of 
environmental pollution 
from federal faclKies and 
activities utxier the control 
of the agency 

Executive Order 12088 
(Federal Compliance 
with Pollutton Control 
Standards) 

Department of Defense - 
U.S. Air Force 

Cultural 

Resources 

Project activities that may 
affect properties with 
archaeological, historic, 
architectural, or cultural 
value that are listed or are 
eligible for listing in the 
National Register of 

Historic Places 

Historic Sites Act, 
16U.S.C.§§461 etseq.; 
National Historic 
Preservation Act, 

16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.; 
Protection of Historic 
and Cuiturai Properties, 

36 C.F.R. Part 800; 

Department of Interior - 
National Park Service; 

Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, State 
Historic Preservation Office 


National Register of 
Historic Places, 

36 C.F.R Part 60; 
Califomia Historic 
Preservation Act. 
Determinations of 
BigibRIty for Inclusion in 
the NRHP, 36 C.F.R. Part 
63; The Secretary of the 
Interior's Standards for 
Hi^oric Preservation 
Projects. 36 C.F.R. Part 
68 (Executive Order 
11593) 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


1-13 








lilbl* 1.7-1. Retovant Faderal, Stata, and Local Statutaa, RagulaUona, and GukJalinaa 

Paga 3 of 4 


Resource 


Culturai 

Resources 

(cont’d) 


Land Use 


Noise 


Waste 

Management 


Protect ActMty 


Transportation programs 
or projects that wfll require 
the use of or have 
significant Impacts on land 
of an historic site of 
national, state, or local 
significance 

Disposal of dwellings 


Transfer of federal 
properties comprising 
George Air Force Base 


Control of height of airport 
facilities 

Aviation 


Remediation of past 
discharges of hazardous 
substances 


Generation and temporary 
storage of hazardous 
substances 


Identification of 
asbestos-containing 
materials in base faciities 

Disposal of pesticides and 
pesticide containers 


Reouiatiorv/Aut 


Department of 
Transportation Act of 
1966 (Public Law 
89^70) 49 u s e. 303, 
Section 4(f) 


McKlrmey Homeless 
Assistar)ce AcL 42 
use. §11411 

Federal Property 
Administrative Sen/ices 
ACL40U.S.C. §471 et 
seq.: Base Closure and 
Realignment Act of 
1988, Public Law 100-526 

FAR Part 11 


Housing and Urban 
Development and U.S. 
Environmental 
Protection Agency 
guidelines 

Callfomia Noise 
Standards. Title 21, 
Subchapter 6. 

Comprehensive 
Environmental 
Response, 
Comperrsation arxl 
Llab9ltyAcL42U.S.C. §§ 
9601et seq.; Executive 
Order 12580 (Superfund 
Implementation) 

Resource Conservation 
and Recovery AcL 42 
u s e. §§ 6901 et seq. 


Air Force Policy - 
Management at 
Asbestos at Oosing 
Bases. 

Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide and 
Rodenticide Act, 

7 U.S.C. §§ 136 et seq. 


U.S. Department of 
Transportation 


Department of Housing 
and Urban Development - 
Department of He^h and 
Human Services 

U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 
Department of Defense - 
U.S. Air Force 


U.S. Department of 
Transportation - Federal 
Aviation Administration 

U.S. Department of 
Transportation • Federal 
Aviation Administration 


California Department of 
Transportation, Department 
of Aeronautics 

U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency; 
Department of Defense - 
U.S. Air Force; California 
Environmental Protection 
Agency 


U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 
Department d Delense- 
U.S. Air Force, California 
Environmental Protection 
Agency 

Department of Defense - 
U.S. Air Force 


U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency 
Department d Defense 
U.S. Air Force 





Ihbl* 1.7-1. R«l«vant F«d«ral, State, and Local Stetutaa, Regulationa, and Guidalinaa 


Paga 4 of 4 

Resource 

Project Activity 

ReguiatiorVAuthortty 

Agency 

Waste 

Management 

(cont'd) 

Closure of urxlergrourKf 
storage tanks 

Resource Cortservation 
arKf Recovery Act 

42 u s e . §§6991 - 
69911 

U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agerrcy; 
Department of Defense • 
U.S. Air Force 


Location of 
PCB-contaminated 
eiectrkai equipment 

PCS Transformer Fire 

Rule, SO Fed. Reg. 29. 

177 

California Rre Marshall 

Water 

Estabiishmertt of safe 
water regulations arid 
maximum contaminant 
levels applicable with 
mirKK exceptions to public 
systems 

Safe Drinking Water Act 
(Public Law 95-523), as 
amerxled. Subchapter 

XII. Safety of Public 

Water Systems. Part B 

U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency 


Discharge of wastewater 

Qean Water Act 33 
u s e. §§ 1251 et seq.; 

The National Pollution 
Bimination Discharge 
System, 40 C.F.R. Part 

122 

U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency; 
Department of Defense - 
U.S. Air Force; California 
Environmental Protection 
Agency 


Discharge of dredge or fill 
material into waters of the 
United States 

Clean Water Act, 33 

U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.; 

40 C.F.R. Part 230 

Department of Defense • 
Army Corps of Engineers 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


1 






• 1-16 


George AFB Dfsposal and Reuse FEIS 






1-17 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





CHAPTER 2 
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE 

PROPOSED ACTION 






2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 


This section describes the Propoeed Action, reesonebie sitematives to the 
Proposed Action, and the No-Acdon Alternative. In addkkxt. potential federal 
transfers of George AFB propeitiee and faditiae from 000 to other federal 
age n cies are described, as are Independent reuse options that are not pert of a 
complete plan. Other aRemat^es that wwreidentitled but eliminated from 
further consideration are briefly described. The potential erivirorvnental Impacts 
of the Proposed Action and alternatives are sunwnarized In table form. 

The potential land acquisition identified under each altemative is described If 
(1) the parcel's proposed use and/or deveiopmeni Is expected to occur within 
the 20-year period covered by the analysis, the area Is intended to be set 
aside, as in the case of future airport expansion, or (3) the area is considered a 
buffer zone to prevent future non<x>mpatt)ie land uses. Specific discussions on 
land acquisitions sub)ect to environmental analysis are found within the 
appropriate land use category for each alternative. 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

BCRA legislates the delegation of federal authority and consultative 
requirements of the Administrator of General Services to the Secretary of 
Defense with respect to the excess and surplus real property and hiclities 
located at a mlitary I n stallation dosed or realigned under this act Federal 
property management regulatkMts (FPMR) address disposal methods 
associated with base closure. Disposal methods indude transfer to arK>ther 
federal agency, public benefit conveyance, negotiated sale to state or local 
government and public sale by auction or sealed bid. Because these disposal 
methods are valid in the conveyance of George AFB either in its entirety or in 
some form of parcelization, it is possible that different methods of disposal wW 
be assigrred to dMferent parcels on George AFB. 

Provisions of BCRA and FPMR require that the Air Force first notify other OOD 
departments that George AFB is scheduled for disposal. Any proposals from 
these departments for the reuse of George AFB are given priortty consideration, 
if the department is wNing to purchase the property. 

Under the provisions of FPMR which implement the Stewart B. McKinney 
Homeless Assistance Act 100 • 77), the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) Is required to determine the suitablity of urxierutiiized. 
unutitzed. and/or excess bulding and land for use by homeless assistance 
providers. 


George AFB Disposet end Reuse FEIS 


2-1 












The Air Force has reported George AFB to HUO as no be excess on or about 
December 1992." HUO then reported the potential avalabllly of fadWes at 
George AFB in the June 21,1991. Federal Register. After publication, homeless 
assistance providers had 60 days to make expressions of interest on suitable 
property to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and to receive 
a lease application to be completed in 90 days. HHS is required to determine, 
within 25 days, the sultablity of the homeless assistance provider. Homeless 
Assistance Providers determined to be suitable by HHS may be able to lease 
avalable property prior to closure of the base. The minimum term of a lease is 
one year, if the Air Force determirtes a bulding or a parcel of larxl to be surplus, 
the homeless assistance providers wU be provided an application to acquire the 
property by deed. 

Prior to either leasing or deeding the property, the Air Force ntay consider other 
federal uses and other important national needs. However, in deciding the 
disposition of surplus property, a priority of consideration wil be given to uses 
which assist the homeless. Subsequently the property will be made avalable to 
federal, state, arxf local agencies arxi the public. 

Three reuse plans were provided to the Air Force during the scoping meeting for 
the disposal and reuse of George AFB. Each of these proposals addressed 
redevelopment focusing on cK/lian airports of various nwgnitude: ( 1 )a 
commercial airport, (2) an intemational airport, and (3) a general aviation center. 
Although each of the plarts offered different levels of detal, all three were 
conceptual in nature. In order to accomplish impact analysis, a set of general 
assumptions was made. These assumptions include employment and 
population changes arising from implementation of each reuse plan, consistent 
land use designations for simlar reuse options, proportion of ground 
disturbance anticipated for each land use type, transportation and utiity effects 
of each proposal as a function of increased population growth due to 
redevelopment, and anticipated phasing of the various elements of each reuse 
plan (as measured at the closure baseline, and at the baseline plus 5,10, and 
20 years, respectively). Detals regarding the generation of these assumptions 
are fourxl in Appendix F, Methods of Analysis. Specific assumptions developed 
for individuai reuse plans are identified in the discussion of each proposal, 
within Sections 2.2 arxi 2.3. 

TWo additional alternatives were developed by the Air Force in order to provide 
analysis of the widest range of potential reuse options. The Commercial Airport 
with Residential Alternative was modelled after the Proposed Action, with the 
primary dtfference being the retention of a residential component The 
Non-Aviation Alternative was developed to provide an analysis of a plan whose 
components represent highly marketable reuse options without the continuation 
of an operating airfield. 


2-2 


George AFB DisposaJ and Reuse FEIS 






2.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 


WEDA vtas formed as a Joint F av>Authority (JPA) (Califomia Community 
Redevelopment Law (Health and S^iety Code Section 3300 et seq.]) in 
September 1989 In order to obtabi title to George AFB and Its fadlties. WEDA 
consists of a partnership of local jurisdictions: the courtty of San Bernardino, 
thedtyofVictorvlle, the ctty of Hesperia, and the town of Apple VaNey. WEDA, 
the recognized reuse authority, has developed plans for the reuse of George 
AFB which the Air Force has adopted as the Proposed Action. Thecityof 
Adelanto, another Jurisdiction witNn the overall George AFB environs, removed 
itself from WEDA early in the planning process, and pursued its own plan for 
the purchase and reuse of the base. The International Airport F^n, as proposed 
by the dty of Adelanto, is described in Section 2.3.1. 

Upon announcement of base closure, the county erf San Bernardino, and later 
WEDA upon its JPA designation, contracted with several consulting firms and 
agencies to prepare technical reports pertinent to the development of a reuse 
plan. Among the areas addressed were the foiiowing: 

• Airport development 

• Marketing analysis and strategy 

• Existing land use 

• Traffic analysis 

• Bulding Inventory. 

Resuits of these technical studies are being compiled into the WEDA Reuse 
Plan. Area-specific land uses have been identified for development on the 
George AFB property and on adjoining parcels marked for acquisition in 
WEDA's proposal for reuse as an evolving commercial airport. The Air Force 
has irx^luded this plan as the Proposed Action for the purpose of analyzing 
environmental impacts. Two additional alternatives analyzed by WEDA early in 
their planning process are presented in Section 2.4 as alternatives eliminated 
from further consideration. 

Under the Proposed Action (Figure 2.2-1), the reuse of George AFB would 
center around a regional commercial and general aviation airport. The FAA’s 
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 1990-1999 identifies the 
need for a new general aviation airport in the Victorville area. The proposed 
establishment of a civilian aviation reuse at George AFB would be consistent 
with the NPIAS’s goal for a new airport The total acreage of each land use 
category is shown in Table 2.2-1. Off-base property acquisition needs are 
discussed in the applicable land use category descriptions, as described in 
detal below (all acreages used in this document are approximate). Table 2.2-2 
describes the acres disturbed by construction in each of the three phases 
(1993-1998,1998-2003, and 2003-2013) after base closure for the Proposed 
Action as well as the other alternatives. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-3 




EXPLANATION 



AMeld 



AvMion Si^iport 



hiduatial 



hwttiional* 

(MadMai) 



hiiljtoni * 
(Eduoatoi) 

CommanW 
(Ptto^iinai Pivk) 

RewtoiM* 

PuUWReorealion 


run 

0 1/4 1/2 IMte 



AtpouNure* 

VaowlUnir 
8lopM>19% 

Bne Bomfiiy 
==== Abandoned Runway 
• Not Appiodble 



Proposed Action 
(Commercial Airport) 


Figur« 2.2-1 


Georgo AFB DispoaeJ and Reuaa FEIS 




















Land Use 


Acraaoe 


Off-Base Property 
AcouislUon 

AMald 

U75 

338 

AviationSuppott 

CofnfMfcU 

746 

1,879 

Oflios^Business Park 

612 


Industrlal/Business Park 

016 

135 

IndustrW 

860 


Recreation/Vacant Land 

297 


Golf Course 

77 


Subtotal 

5,073 

2,352 



7.425 


WEDA provided the fblcMring types of data for analysis: 

• Proposed reuse options for the airfield 

• Conceptual plan for cMian use of the aviation fadities using the FAA 
Airport Reference Code (ARC) 0-5 

• Sorne antic^Mtted constructiorVdemolition activities 

• A general listing of anticipated airport tenants 

• Proposed acquisitions 

• General guidelines for projected employtnent 

• Trip generation rates for aviation areas 

• Phasing plarrs for aviation improvement 

• Recommended use of existing buMings 

• Lxrng-range development concept 

• Projected air passenger demand. 

The foHowing assumption were used to expand upon the aneriysis: 

• Aaeage figures for proposed land uses 

• Projected (light operations and fleet mixes through 2013 

• Reet mix representation of a minimum of 50 percent of applicable 
Stage III aircraft in 2003 and ail Stage III in 2013 

• ConstructiorVdemolition activities 

• Employment arxf population projections through 2013 for Victor VsHey 
and the 2-county region of influence (ROI) 

• Traffic generation arxf daly trip projections through 2013 

• Utility requirement projections through 2013 

• Areas disturbed by construction/demolition 

• Phasing piansfortotal reuse through 2013 

• Proposed transportation systems. 


George APB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-5 








Tabto2.a-2. OislurlMdAcnsinS, 10,and20 YmtI ntarvils 


1983-1986 _tssfram_a»a~ 2 flia-Lan 

OrvBaae Q n-BAMi OhAmo Off-RftM Off-Base On-Baaa Off-Bai 


Proposed Action 
Airfield 

68 





101 

68 

101 

Aviation Support 
Commercial 

130 


155 


238 


523 


Office/Business 

Park 

13S 


135 


281 


551 


Industrial 







595 


Aviation-Related 

154 


140 


301 



Business Park 


101 

357 


330 


687 

101 

Recreation 

IS 






15 


Totals 

502 

101 

787 


1,150 

101 

2.439 

202 

International Airport AHemative 






876 

3.169 

Airfield 



876 

3.168 



Avittion Support 
Commercial 


268 


268 


690 


1,226 

Hotel 

Industriai 

477 






477 

687 


General 

687 







Business Park 



124 


125 


249 


Aviation-Related 



217 



186 

217 

186 

Totals 

1.164 

268 

1,217 

3.437 

125 

876 

2.506 

4,581 


Commercial Airport with Residential AHemative 


Aviation Support 
Commerciai 

67 

67 

69 

203 

Retal 

14 

9 


23 

Industrial 

Institidional 


244 

490 

734 

Medical 

1 



1 

Educational 

22 



22 

Public 

12 



12 

Residential 

314 

565 

694 

1,573 

Totals 

430 

885 

1,253 

2,568 


General Aviation Center Alternative 
Aviation Support 220 

Totals 220 


220 

220 


Non-Aviation Alternative 
Commerciai 
Retal 
Industrial 


Business Park 

165 

Institutionai 


Medical 

1 

Educational 

69 

Public 

12 

Recreation 

4 

Vacant Land 

15 

Residential 

709 

Totals 

975 


9 

9 

18 

165 

330 

660 



1 

69 

144 

282 



12 



4 



15 

921 

1,140 

2,770 

,164 

1,623 

3,762 


George AFB 0/sposa/ and Reuse FEIS 


2-6 







2.2.1 AMtoM 


The akfieid land use category Inductee 1.575 acras on base. It encompasses 
the foHowing proposed reuse options ctepicted In the WEDA Airport Master 
Plan: iiimvays, taxiways. runway protection zcNies. terminal, control tower, fire 
station, and terminal parking (Figure 2.2-2). The airfieid would be used primarly 
by passenger aircraft (air canter and commuter), akcraft maintenance and 
general aviation aircraft. Additional acdvMea requiring airfield support indude 
the transport of air cargo, and flights associated with the maintenance of all 
types of aircraft. (Specific tecflities requirsd for general aviation and 
maintenance furKdons are discussed under Section 2.2.2, Aviation Support). 

An area of 338 acres of off-base property has been ctesignated for acquisition by 
WEDA as part of the airfield. This parcel is located to the north and along the 
westemedgeof Runway 17/%. It would be set aside for future extension of the 
runway, if necessary, and provides an increased safety zone for operations 
within the 20-year period of analysis. The total area to be disturbed by 
(X)nstruction would be 68 acres on site and 101 acres off site. 

A conceptual plan for the dvflian use of the aviation facflities at George AFB was 
developed and provided in the Airport Master Plan. The conceptual plan used 
the FAA Advisory Circular 150^300-13 in developing the layout of the 
characteristics (e.g., dimensions, separations, and clearances) of airfieid 
elements to allow currerrt operation of aN commercial aircraft. The airfield as 
designed is capable of handling widebody aircraft, such as the Boeing 747. The 
following Important features of the airfield are cited in the airport development 
plan: 

• The existing runways would be retained at their current length arxf 
width, although they wll be repaired, as required. 

• Some unused pavements would be abandoned or removed. 

• New taxiways would be constnxfted as follows: 

- parallel to the western side of the north-south (primary) runway 

- at the northern erxf of the primary runway for existing aircraft 

- west of the primary runway to serve aviation-related industrial areas 

- parallel to the crosswind (secorxtery) runway at Its northeast edge 
to serve aviation support areas 

- east of the secondary runway to support aviation support areas. 

• Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) located at either erxl of each runway 
would be kept free of structural development except for required 
navigational aids. These zones would provide an enlarged safety area, 
yet retain the possiblity of lengthening the runways at a later date. 

• Rexiblity exists within the layout to add runways parallel to either the 
primary or secondary runway if the airport capacity requires expansion. 


George AFB Disposal end Reuse FEIS 


2-7 







EXPLANATION 

mmm ANpod Boundvy 


I I A. 


a 


Rumny PralKion Zona 


AitfMd Pammant 


Runway SaMy Aiaa 


^ InaaumantLandhgSyslani 
(ILS)(3WaSlopaSila 


Conceptual Airport 
Master Plan - 
Proposed Action 


==== A b anctonad Runway 
Runway Aiwa -BasaBoundary 


run 

0 750 1500 aOOOFaal 




Figure 2.2-2 


2-8 


Geofge AFB Disposaf and Reuse FEIS 


























A terminal area would be located at the intersection of Wortey and Cory 
Boulevards, adjacent to the large aircraft parking rampe. AN terminai functions 
(aircraft parking, terminal bulding. vehide parking, fire statkwt. and air traffic 
control tower) would be provided in one central location. Theplanforthe 
terminal is flexible. Although kterxled to meet passenger forecasts for a 
20-year period (up to 15 MAP by 2013). expansion of the terminal area beyond 
those projected numbers is feasible N the need arises. The analysis is based on 
1 MAP by 2013. the WEDA anticipated passenger load projected for that year. 

Services related to general aviation would be provided aiorrg the secorxlary 
runway, adjacent to the terminai area. Associated fadities are discussed In 
Section 2.2.2. Aviation Support 

The existing faclkies would be reused to the maximum extent possible. 
especiaUy for aviatiort-related functions. However, some bufldings would have 
to be removed or modified. Nearly aN new construction associated with the 
airfield land use zone would be in the terminal area. Anticipated 
construction/demolition activities include: 

• Removal of d buldings within the boundaries of Sabre Boulevard, 
Calico, Weasel, and Readiness streets, except Bulding 350, for vehide 
access arxi pacing 

• Construction of a new passeriger terminal (approximately 67,000 
square feet) in the location of existing Buldings 691,692. and 695, 
which would be demolished. 

The majority of rehablltation arxi construction within the airfield is expected to 
take place soon after base dosure. Existing buldings (e.g., 717,718, or 720) 
could be used as a temporary terminal until the new feclity is complete. 

The following airfield improvements are proposed and would be developed in 
accordance with FAA Advisory Circulars, standards, and recommendations: 

• Reconstruct, strengthen, and recommission existing Runway 17/35, 
10,050 feet by 150 feet with high intensity runway lighting (HIRL). 

• Reconstruct, strengthen, and recommission existing Runway 3/2i, 

9,116 feet by 150 feet with HIRL 

• Maintain and strengthen the existing taxiway and apron system and 
construct additional lighted taxiways arxi aircraft run-up aprons. 

• Install precision approach path indicator (PAPI) systems for Runways 3, 
17,21. and 35. 

• Install runway erxi identifier lights (REIL) on Runways 3,21, arxi 35. 

• Establish two helicopter larxiing areas. 

• Establish a fuU precision instrument landing system (ILS) including 
runway visual range (RVR) with necessary off-airport marker fadities to 
Runway 17. The ILS would consist of a localizer and guide slope and 
an approach light system with sequerx^ed flashing lights. 


George AFB Dispose/ and Reuse FEIS 


2-9 







• Establish a r»npradsk)nin 8 tnjin 0 rt(NPI) approach to Runways 3.17, 
and 35. 

• Estabiish a VHP ornrtidlrectionai range (VOR)/distanca measuring 
equipment (DME) with an ofMrport compass locator outer marker or 
simlarfaclities. 

• Retain an air traffic control tower (ATCT). 

• Construct aircraft rescue and fire fighting faditles. 

• Establish RPZs to meet FAAcrteria. 

• Retain and construct commercial passenger handling fadities, 
including auto parking. 

• Construct ta)dways, aprons, holdings, and hangars for aircraft 
maintenance and gen^ aviation operations. 

• Improve and construct on-aIrport roads to accomodate aviation 
development and faditiee. 

The above-mentioned off-airport compass locator outer marker is a criticai 
component of an ILS. The marker would be located 4 to 7 nautical mies (nm) 
from the threshold of the ILS runway (Runway 17/35). The outer marker is a 
low-powered transmitter that provides a nondirectionai signal used for 
directional guidance to the kiitial segment of the ILS approach, as wen as a 
signal that activates aural and visual indicators in the aircraft for guidance in the 
final approach. The outer marker plot is approximately 180 by 60 feet, including 
access road and easement The device consists of an antenna mounted on a 
wood pole with a prefabricated equipment shelter and battery standby power. 

Ail equipment would be enclosed within a 7-foot chain link fence. A simlar 
fadity could be needed to establish the proposed nonpredslon approaches. 

The exact site of the outer marker or markers under the Proposed Action has 
not yet been selected. They would likely be situated on private property; a real 
estate interest would be acquired for this larxf. An environmental survey would 
be corxiucted as part of the siting process to avoid potential environmental 
impacts resulting from construction of the marker. 

Passenger service by air carrier arxf commuter airlines makes up a substantial 
proportion of flight operations proposed for the reuse of George APB. Although 
freight arxf mal would be transported as ”beily cargo” in the fuselage of 
passenger aircraft, there does not appear to be a significant demand for 
dedicated air-cargo service in the Victor Valley area. General aviation activities 
anticipated at the commerdai airport include corporate flying, private or 
pleasure flying, arxf instructionai flying. In addition, other potential airport 
tenant operations could include airline flight crew training and activities 
associated with mlitary law enforcement or other government agencies. 

Table 2.2-3 lists the projected flight operations assumed for the Proposed Action 
for the baseline year foliowing closure (1993), and for the periods 5,10, and 
20 years beyorxf baseline (1998,2003, and 2013, respectiveiy). Because of the 


2-10 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







Taliit 2 . 2 > 3 . ftro>icfd HgW Opirllow - l¥ opom i Action 


Yaar 

'^eSSSSn - 



naat Mb 

Annual Qparawna 

1983 

AltOna TraMno 


100% 

B-747.200 

Total 

lOMO 

1989 

Air Paaaangar 

Air Cwriar. 

8% 

B-727^ OC«60 


3W 




48% 

B-737.600* 






46% 

B-797-aOO* 






8% 

B-747-aOO: OC-1MO*; Lr1011-600* 





OommMlar: 

28% 

Baaoh 1900 


18A» 




28% 

SAAB 340 






28% 

OHCB 






28% 

Emtaaar BraiMa 




Airlbw Training 


100% 

B-747-aOO 


10^ 


Ganaral AsHation 


67% 

22% 

Smqis EnfliM 

MuHBt^ 


16,000 

5,200 




7% 

Turbo Prap/Jat 


1,700 




4% 

HaHooplar 


900 


Aircnrft Maintananoa 


48% 

B-737-300* 


1W) 




8% 

B-747-200 






48% 

B-797-200* 






8% 

B-787-200* 

Total 

53,600 


Air Paaaangar 

Air Carriar. 

8% 

B-727; D&MO 


5,200 



46% 

B-737-aOO* 






48% 

B-787-200* 






8% 

B-747-aOO; DC-1(K30n L-1011-800* 





Commutar. 

28% 

Baaeb 1900 


16,100 




28% 

SAAB 340 






28% 

OH&6 






28% 

EmbraarBraaHia 




Airllna Training 

Ganaral Aviation 


100% 

68% 

23% 

B-747-aOO 


10,000 

20,000 

7,100 



SinglaEngba 

MuK 





7% 

Turbo Prop/Jat 


2,200 




8% 

riMiXipiw 


1,800 


Aircraft Maintananoa 


48% 

8-737-300* 


2,600 




8% 

B-747-200 






48% 

B-7S7-200* 






8% 

B-787-200* 

Total 

64,700 

2013 

Air Paaaangar 

Air Carriar. 

8% 

MG63* 


8,900 



48% 

B-737-300* 






48% 

B-7S7-200* 






8% 

B-747-200^ OC-1030*; L-1011-500* 





Commutar. 

28% 

Baaeb 1900 


14,200 




28% 

SAAB 340 






28% 

OHC6 






28% 

EmbraarBraaiHa 




Airlina Training 

Ganarai Aviation 


100% 

64% 

24% 

8-747-200* 


10,000 

24,900 

9,300 



Singla Engina 

MuM Engina 





7% 

Turbo Prep/Jat 


2,700 




8% 

rftuoopwr 


2,000 


Aircraft Maintananca 


48% 

B-737-300* 


4,000 




8% 

B-747-200* 






48% 

B-7S7-200* 






8% 

B-767-200* 

Total 

76,000 




Soum: Opmrtiora baaad on MiimatM from commorcial airport foracast (P&O Tachnologioa, 1990). 


George AFB Di^iosat and Reuse FEIS 


2-11 
















proposed elimination of Stage II aircraft, the fleet mix for 2003 represents a 
minimum of 50 percent applicable Stage III aircraft. The fleet mbc for 2013 
emuid consist of all Stage III aircraft. 

The primary runway is the north-south Runway 17/35. An estimated 50 percent 
of all flight operations would iftlize this runway. The remaining operations are 
expected to use the northeast-southwest trerxling crosswind Runway 03/21. 

Approximately 93 percent of ail operations are likely to occur between 7 a.m. 
and 10 p.m. The remainir^ 7 percent would occur between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 
As an airport authority. WEDA wouid operate the commercial airport It would 
also assume the role of a redevelopment agency, arxj manage the marketing 
activities for the airport and associated properties. 

2.2.2 Aviation Support 

The aviation support larxi use consists of 746 acres within the base boundaries 
designated as areas for the support of general aviation and government agency 
usage. The proposed training for flight crews of widebody aircraft could also be 
supported in this zone. The primary locations of aviation support (696 acres) to 
be developed within the 20-year analysis period lie on either side of the northern 
section of the crosswind runway. A 50-acre parcel north of Air Base Road will 
continue to be used in ks presettt capacity for fuel storage and distribution. The 
total area to be disturbed by construction would be 523 acres on site. 

The largest off-base area (1,879 acres) proposed for acquisition by WEDA is for 
aviation support and consists of two parcels. The larger parcel (1,605 acres) 
lies to the east of Runway i7l3S. The smaller parcel is the 274-acres south of 
Air Base Road currently under avigational easement to George AFB. Specific 
development is not identified for these parcels within 20 years. They are 
intended to act as a protective buffer between the airfield and future, possibly 
incompatible, uses. These areas also provide room for expansion if the 
predicted capacity of 15 MAP is exceeded. 

In addition to the airfield, some or ail of the aviation support land use zones 
would probably fall under the |urisdictlon of the airport authority. The 
development and operations of the aviation support area would, thus, be 
managed in accordance with FAA arxl other applicabie statutes. 

2.2.3 Commercial 

The commercial land use zone covers 612 acres of on-base property adjacent 
to the northern edge of Air Base Road. Reuse for this parcel has been identified 
as office/business park. This would require removal of existing base housing to 
provide space for proposed office complexes. No other details have yet been 


2-12 


George AFB Disposd and Reuse FEIS 








proMided concerning plans for this area. ThetolaiareatobedisturtMdbiy 
construction would be 551 acres on sto. 

2.2.4 industrial 

The area idertfified for industriai land use is 1,766 acres of on-base property. 

Both aviation industrial and Industrial/business park development are propoeed. 

AviatiorMeiated uses are planned for 850 acres on either side of the southern 
portion of the crosswind runway. Potendsi activities that coukt make use of the 
fadMes in this area Indude aircraft overhaul and maintenance, modification, 
manufacturing, and subassembly aeronautics research and development and 
testirtg; law arrfbrcement; briishfire fighting (with water-drop aircraft); and drug 
enforcement 

The locations of the aviation-reiated industrial areas minimize conflict with 
aircraft or vehicle movement Existing hangars and repair shops could be 
reused with Ittie or no nradificatiott Parcels of various sizes would be made 
avalable to potential users. 

An industrial business park is proposed for the 916-acre parcel south of Air Base 
Road. Potential uses Include general office space, research and development 
erxieavors. and related activities. This parcel would be developed in two 
phases (one per decade), with roughly 450 acres developed In each phase. 

AH development in the Industrial parcels west of the primary ninway (650 acres), 
north of Air Base Road (200 acres), and south of Air Base Road (916acres) 
would consist of new construction. The plan projects 1.74 million square feet of 
structural floor space for the western parcel and 4.35 million square feet of floor 
space for the first phase of development of the southern parcel. Overthe 
20-year period of analysis, 8.71 mllion square feet of structural floor space is 
expected to be developed in the southern industrial land use zone. Thetotal 
on-site area to be disturbed by construction would be 1,282 acres. 

Off-base land acquisition, amounting to 135 acres, has been proposed under 
the industrial larxf use. This parcel lies south of Air Base Road, contiguous to 
the western edge of the industriai/business park and the eastern ed{^ of the 
aviation support parcel rK>w under easement to George AFB. Purchase of this 
property by WEDA would allow greater control over land use planning aixl 
improve upon circulation among the various land use zones. The total off-site 
area to be dteturbed by construction would be 101 acres. 

2.2.5 Racreation/Vacant Land 

The proposed recreatkxVvacant land use zone consists of 297 acres. The 
existing golf course, covering another 77 acres, is considered a subset of this 


George AFB O/^tosa/ and Reuse FEIS 


2-13 







land UM category. The total area to be diaturtMd by construction would be 
15 acres. 

Z2.9 ‘nanaportation 

Ground access has been established in the plan throughout the aviation support 
and industrial land use areas adjacert to the airfield. In addition to the existing 
main gate and residential gate entrances, an access road west of the main gate 
is also proposed to serve the industrial area west of the primary runway. AH 
three access roads would intercept Air Base Road. A perimeter road would 
encircle the proposed airport development area. Relocation of the existing 
perimeter road would aUow access to the northeast portion of the airport The 
dedicated airport access road would enable industrial users to avoid using 
Adelanto Road. 

2^7 Employment and Population 

The Proposed Action would generate both direct Jobs (e.g., airport and 
aviatiorweiated employees, irxiustriai arxi commercial personnel, etc.) orv-site 
and indirect Jobs (e.g., retal/commerclai, recreational, food services, etc.) in 
San Bernardino arxi Riverside counties (ROI). Approximately 25,400 direct jobs 
and nearly 25,700 indirect jobs are likely to be generated in the ROi by the year 
2013. This represents a S4-percent increase over closure baseline employment 
levels. Employment knpacts are shown in Table 2.2-4. 


Table 2.2-4. ROI Project-Related Employment and Population Effects 

Proposed Action 



Closure 

1998 

2003 

2013 

Employment 

68 

18,350 

36,017 

51,077 

Direct 

50 

9,100 

17,856 

25,391 

Indirect 

18 

9,250 

18,161 

25,686 



9,405 

19,610 

30,726 


Employment increases woidd be accompanied by population increases. The 
ROI population is e}q)ected to increase by more than 30,700 persons over the 
closure baseline by the year 2013 as a result of the Proposed Action. This 
represents a 9 percent increase over post-closure population projections, 
population impacts are shown in Table 2.24. 


2-14 


George AFB Disposal and Fteuse Ft 











Based on the emptoyment and popilalion projections, the Propoatd 
vrould generate about 85,900 avefage daly hips to and from the base property 
by dw year 2013. 

2,2.8 IMHUea 

By 2013, the projected activities and population increases in the Victor Vsley 
would generate the folowing Increases In utlity demands over projected 
doeure baseline conditions: 

• Water • 6.1 mMiongalortt per day (MGD), or an increase of 
approximateiy 8 percert 

• Wastewater -1.8 MGD. or an increase of 8 percent 

• Solid waste-0.13 mllion cubic yards per year, or an increase of 
approximateiy 5 percent 

• Electricity-580 megawatt-hours (MWH) per day, or an increase of 
approDdrnateiy 5-1/2 percent 

• Natural Gas-30,490 therms per day, or an increase of 3-1/2 percent 

Improvements to some utlity systems would be required to provide adequate 
service to proposed new fadMes. The increases in water demarKf created 
under the Proposed Action woiid be within the total demand currently forecast 
by Mojave Water Agency (the regional State Water Project agency). On-sRe 
infrastructure improvements required to supply water under this action would be 
the responsiblity of project developers. A brief description of required utlity 
improvements associated with the Proposed Action is provided below for each 
of the systems addressed within this analysis. 

Water Supply. Spedflc derations to the water supply system would be 
deperxient on the developer's requhements and the purveyor’s plans to change 
theexistfog supply fofrastructure. 

Wastewater. Regional wastewater treatment is provided by the WWRA. The 
system is considered to be in good condition and improvements do not appear 
necessary to serve new users in the short terni. No pre-treatment system exists 
for industrial wastewater on basa Future industrial users would most likely 
need to develop a pre-treatment fodity. 

Solid Waste. Refuse disposal services are now provided by a contractor who 
disposes of the solid waste at the VictorvMelandfiil. No major changes 
associated with this service are anticipated under the Proposed Action. 

Electricity. Qectricity is provided to the base by Southern Califomia Edison 
(SCE) through two power transformers connected in parailei at the base service 


George AFB Disposal and Rause FEIS 


2-15 









sub8tatk)a Some modMcattons wK)uid be required to servs the needs of new 
users, mMmsNy conelsting of the instalation of additional meters. 

Natural Gas. Southwest Gas Company (SW Gas) supplies the base with 
natural gas from two transmission lines. Major renovations have been made 
since the most recent evaluation conducted In 1985. Some modifications would 
be required to serve the needs of new users, minimaity consisting of the 
installation of additional meters. 

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

2.3.1 iirtemational Airport Alternative 

The city of Adeianto developed a reuse plan independent of that proposed by 
the other communities of the Victor Valley. The city proposes to acquire the 
base through negotiated sale and annex the base property to support the 
creation of the High Desert International Airport (HDIA). This faclity has been 
designed to ultimately accommodate up to 50 MAP as wen as provide extensive 
cargo and freight operations and support the needs of future hypersonic and 
suborbital aircraft now in the planning phases. The analysis is based on 
25 MAP which would service the projected 20-year shortbUI. 

The 20-year time frame analyzed within this EIS wOl, based on regional aviation 
studies aixi reports according to the plan, see a shortfall of 24 MAP in the 
southern California airline passenger market The demand in Orange County is 
portrayed as especially critical, because there is no suitable site for a new 
airport and the existing airports lack space to expand sufficiently. 

The FAA's NPIAS identifies the need for a new general aviation airport in the 
Victorvilie area. The proposed Phase I establishment of a civilian general 
aviation reuse at George AFB would be consistent with the NPIAS goal for a 
new general aviation airport. The Phase II and III establishment of additional 
commercial aviation facOities will be considered by the FAA In a proposed 1992 
update to the NPIAS. 

The proposed Super Speed Train (SST) line from Anaheim, California, to Las 
Vegas, Nevada, with an alignment through Victor Valley, is seen as an added 
incentive to the marketablity of the HDIA. Airline passengers, specificaily from 
Orange County, wll be encouraged to utDize this Acuity because of the 
avaiiabiiity of efficient transportation to and from the airport Operations are 
tentatively scheduled to begin In the year 2000, after a 4-year construction 
period. 

The International Airport Alternative (Figure 2.3-1) proposes a major super-hub 
facility designed to service southern California's projected long-term shortMl in 
passenger arxJ cargo demarxi. The Airport Development District (ADD) 


2-16 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 













ru I 


0 2S00S000 10^ fW 




EXPLANATION 


hidwkiil- 
Buanaaa Parit 




AiftiaM 



RaaidanM* 


Aviainn Bufipart 


InaiWionar 

(MadM) 


FUDMrffeorasnn 


biduBiial 


(Eduoaioi) 


A^ioiiilure* 

Vacant Land* 


Muaiial AvMan 


ConrvneiGM 

o 


8li]pes>18%* 


—•> New Road AigmiH i 
• NotApiaioaUe-BaaeBounday 


International 
Airport Alternative 


Figure 2.3-1 


George AFB IX^sal and Reuse FEIS 


2-17 


































indudes the airfield and aviation support land use categories. Non-aviation land 
uses complete the deveiopmerrt planned for the base-owmed property, and 
indude industrial, industrial-business park, and commercial areas. Analysis 
through the year 2013 encompasses deveiopm^ of 13,426 acres (of a total 
20,000 acres proposed for the complex over a longer period of time). TheADO 
covers 2,920 acres, or 58 percertt of base-owned property. Mostoftheiand 
proposed for acquisition (8,088 of the 8,353 acres) is designated ADD. The 
non-aviation land use zones comprise 2,153 acres, or the remaining 42 percent 
of total base property. Off-base proposed land acquisition comprises only 
265 acres for non-aviation purposes (Figure 2.3-2). 

The total acreage of each land use category is shown In Table 2.3-1. Off-base 
property acquisition needs are discussed in the appiicabie land use category 
descriptions. 


Table 2.3-1. Land Use Acreage - International Airport Alternative 


Acreage 

Land Use 

Base Property 

Off-Base Property 
Acquisition 

Airfield 

2,920 

6,338 

Aviation Support 


1,750 

Commercial 

530 


Industrial - General 

982 


industriai • Business Park 

331 


Industrial • Aviation 

310 

265 

Subtotal 

5,073 

8,353 

Total 


13,426 


Plans for reuse and/or renovation of specific existing facilities or for denK)lition 
or new construction were nd yet fully developed at the time the HDIA Plan was 
released by the city of Adelanto. Data for analysis were provided by the 
proponent, and included: 

• Projected airport activity 

• Projected air passenger demand 

• General guidelines to phasing plans for aviation improvement 

• Aviation and non-aviation related facility projections 

• Proposed transportation system established in the city of Adeianto's 
1990 General Plan 

• General guidelines for employment and population projections 

• Trip generation estimate for 2010 

• Discussion of anticipated environmental impacts. 


2-18 


George AFB Dispost^ and Reuse FE!S 









• Towar 




I 



EXPLANATION 

aMH Airport Boundwy 


Now AMold Pawmont — 


Runony ProMdion Zone 


ED 

a 

nrn 

0 2SOO 5000 10,000 Poet 




P ropooad Boedo 
Base Boundary 


Conceptual Airport 
Master Plan- 
International 
Airport Alternative 


Hgure 2.3-2 


George AFB Dispose snd Reuse FEIS 


2-19 





















Assumptk)ns vw«ra generated to supplemart dalals provkiad in the reuse plan 
where necessary for purposes of analysis. These assumptions were: 

• Acreage figures for proposed larfo uses 

• Projected flight operations and fleet rnbces through 2013 

• Reetmbc representation of a minimum of 50 percent of applicable 
Stage III aircraft in 2003 and al Stage III in 2013. 

• Cfonstructfon/dernoiMonactivitiee 

• Employment and population projections through 2013 for Victor VsNey 
and the 2-county ROt 

• Traffic generation and daly trip projections through 2013 

• Utllty requirement projections through 2013 

• Areas disturbed by constructioiVdemoiition 

• Phasing plans for total reuse through 2013. 

2.3.1.1 Airfield. The airfield land use zone contains 9.258 acres, with only 
2.920 acres, or 32 percent, located within George APB boundaries. The airfield 
category encompasses the same basic comporrents as those described for the 
Proposed Action. 

The general layout of the HDIA is also simlarto that of the Proposed Action and 
of the military airfield in that it retains the primary and crosswind runway 
configuratioa However, under this alternative, one additional runway would be 
constructed parallel to each of the existing runways (primary and crosswind). 

Ail four would be expanded to a length of 14.000 feet and be renovated/ 
constructed to accommodate all types of commercial and cargo aircraft 

The airfield was designed to provide for the required peak-hour operational 
capacity (to support 25 MAP), it is anticipated that the majority of air traffic 
would flow In a north-south direction. The crosswind runways would be used 
only when required because of weather (e.g.. crosswinds above 20 knots) 
except for general aviation. These conditions are expected to occur during no 
more than 20 percent of aU commercial operations. 

The primary and crosswind runways wll be separated in order to provide 
physical access to the center of the airfield. It would be necessary to shift the 
odsting north-south runway 1 mBe to the north. 

The intemationai terminal facility would be constructed west of the primary 
runways. It would consist of two separate buildings with a total of 70 gate 
positions (the number required to service 25 MAP). A specific design for the 
terminal area has not been developed but an estimate of 15.000 to 
25.000 square feet per gate position has been proposed for this complex. 


George AFB Disposai and Reuse FEIS 




The area that encompasses th» currant mlkvy iighlline to the east side of the 
cro8»»rfndruwraywotid be dedicated to contracted. mWtary, fbced-base 
operations (FBO): corpora ta/ executhra terminal; and other general aviation 
uses. The existing fadWesarould be ranovated for these usee wherever 
possible. General avietionoperationa would be focused prirnarly along the 
crosswind runways to separate them from the air carrier flight activities. 

Most of the construction associated wkh the aMekf would occur within the 
off-base land parcel proposed for acquisitioa The new croeswind runway and 
any new fadities required to support general aviation functions would be bitft 
onbaseowned property. The total area to be disturbed by construction would 
be 876 acres on site and 3.168 acres off site. 

Devdiopment has been planned In phases. The existing base would serve as 
the temporary airport faclity unll 1986. The two existing runways would be 
used biitialiy. and an as-yet-unidentifled bulding would become the temporary 
air terminal. Construction of the new Intemationai terminal complex would 
begin In 1995. Activities such as general aviation and contracted mlitary 
operations are assumed to begin soon after base dosura. Limited commercial 
activities would also begin at an unspecified existing faclity in 1993. and 
continue through 1996 when the operation can be moved to Its permanent 
location. 


The following airfield improvwnerls are proposed and wM be developed in 
accordance with FAA Advisory Circulare, standards, and recommendations: 

• Phase I 

• Initial development of the International Airport is essentially the 
same as that depicted for the Proposed Action 

- Land acquisition to accommodate the ultimate airport development 
(Phases 11 and ill). 

• Phases II aixJ III 

- Construction of two mnways. each 14,000 feet by 200 feet 
(Runways 17R/35Land 17L/35R) with HIRL 

- Recorrstruct, sbengthen. arxl lengthen existing Runway 3/21 to 
14,000 feet and widen to 200 feet with HiRL 

- Construct a new runway parallel to Runway 3/21 and install HIRL 

- Maintain and strengthen existing taxiway and apron systems 

- Construct new lighted taxiway system for the new runways and 
aprons 

- Install PAPI systemsfor Runways 17R, 35L. 17L, 35R, and on both 
erxfs of new Runway 3/21 

- IrrstaN REIL on Runways 35L. 35R. and on both ends of new Runway 
3/21 

- Establish fuit precision ILSs including RVR with necessary off-airport 
marker faclities for Runway 17R and 17L The ILS would consist of 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-21 





a k)cailzar and guid« ikip* and an ■pproach light system with 
s eque n ced Bashing lights 

. Abandon ssdating Runway 17/35 

- Establish a new ATCT 

- Constnict a new commercial passenger terminal fadity with aprons, 
auto parking, and road access system 

- Provide facIWes to accommodate ral service at the new airport area. 

The off-airport compass locator outer marker, as described for the Proposed 
Action, wouki be constructed. An environmeriai survey would be conducted as 
part of the siting process to avoid potential environmental impacts resulting 
from cortstruction of the marker. 

The HDIA would, by the time of buldout. be able to accommodate all widebody 
aircraft, as well as hypersonic and suborbltal aircraft Table 2.3-2 lists the 
projected flight operations and fleet mbt assumed for the Intematior^ Airport 
Alternative at S, 10. and 20 years after closure. Because of the proposed 
elimination of Stage II aircraft ttte fleet mix for 2003 represents a minimum of 
50 percent applicabie Stage Hi aircraft. The fleet mix for 2013 consists of all 
Stage III aircraft. 

The rK>rth-south runways would continue to be the primary runways used for 
commerciai operations. It is assumed that 80 percent of all commercial flights 
would utlize these runways. The northeast-southwest trerxiingcrosswirKf 
runways would be used for the remaining 20 percent of commercial (because of 
weather restrictions) and aU gerreral-aviation activities. 

Approximately 95 percent of all operations are likely to occur between 7:00 a.m. 
and 10:00 p.m. The remaining 5 percent would occur between 10:00 p.m. and 
7:00 a.m. 

The city of Adeianto has applied for Public Benefits Transfer of all of the 
aviation-related portions of George APB. The remainder of the base is to be 
obtained through negotiated purchase. 

2.3.1.2 Aviation Support The aviation support land use would consist of a 
total of 1,750 acres, all of which are located off base. The 764-acre parcel to the 
southwest of the ADD, along ttie western border of the base, is planned for 
airport administration, maintenance facility offices, and equipment storage. The 
986-acre parcel north of the prknary runways and the terminal complex woM 
become a major air cargo support area. The total area to be disturbed by 
construction would be 1,226 acres off site. 

2.3.1.3 Commercial. The commerciai land use zone would consist of a single 
530-acre parcel at the eastern edge of the base, north of and adjacent to Air 


2-22 


George AfB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





Tabte 2 . 9 - 2 . Pr<4«ct«l RigM OparatioM • Intwmational Airport ARomativo 


Yaar 

OpMlIIOfI 

^-- a—-- 

HND* 

Annual Oparattona 

1998 

Air Passangar 

31% 

SAAB340; OHOO 


tojom 



40% 

D&ftSO, B-737-aOO*. BAE-146 





14% 

MMO* 





10% 

B-797-200* 




Air Cargo 

S0% 

O&frOO 





90% 

B-727 


2,000 


Oanaral Aviation 

08% 

SingtaEngin* 


12J00 



19% 

MuW Engin* 


3,700 



8% 

Turbo Prop/Jat 


1JS00 



7% 

1 lallfoplar 


1,400 


Aircraft Maintananca 

48% 

B-737-300* 


2.000 



9% 

B-747-200 





48% 

8-797^200 





9% 

8-767-200* 

Total 

103,400 

2003 

Air Passangar 

31% 

SAA8340; OHOO 


200,000 



49% 

OC«30, 8-737-30*. 8AE-14e 





14% 

MOOO* 





10% 

8-757-200* 




Air Cargo 

100% 

8-757-200 


3,000 


Oanaral Aviation 

63% 

Singl* Engin* 


36JOO 



20% 

MuM Engin* 


11,700 



9% 

Turbo Prop/Jat 


9jno 



8% 

Haliooptar 


4.700 


Aircraft Maintanano* 

48% 

8-737-300* 


3,0U) 



9% 

8-747-200 





45% 

8-797-200 





9% 

8-767-200* 

Total 

264,400 

2013 

Air Passangar 

20% 

8-747-200* 


529,000 



18% 

MO60*; 8-737-300* 





15% 

M&63* 





25% 

8-797-200* 





24% 

8-787-200*; OC-1030*; L-1011-500* 




Air Cargo 

100% 

8-757-200* 


4,000 


Ganarai Aviation 

61% 

Singla Bigin* 


83JOO 



21% 

MiHH Engin* 


28,800 



10% 

Turbo *Vop/J*t 


13,700 



8% 

Haiicc ' 


11,000 


Aircraft Maintananca 

45% 

8-737-300* 


4,000 



9% 

8-747-200* 





45% 

8-797-200* 





9% 

8-767-200* 

Total 

670,300 


Not*: R*pr*a*nts Stag* HI Mrcraft. 

Sourc**: Air pass*ng*f op*r«tion« *ttim«t*t b*Md on proj*ct*d fl**t mix from discussion with Don Cortwright, sviation 
consultant to th* city of AcManto. 

Air cargo, maintanano* and ganarai aviation asHmata* from commarcial airport foraeast (P&O Tachnoiogias, 1990). 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-23 

























Base Road. It has been designed as a hotei/park, and would ultimately indude 
resoit/conferencefaclities, hotels, golf courses, recreationai fadMes. and open 
spaceareas. The Mojave River Corridor wll provide the backdrop for active and 
passive recreatiorttri activities. The existing base golf course wouid be retained 
and exparxied to 18 hdes. 

It is assumed that ail existing structures would be removed to accommodate the 
proposed commercial development, although residential units may be 
temporarly used on a short-term or interim baste. The significark stand of 
mature trees located in the current residential areas on base would be retained. 
Construction of the hotel/park complex is antidpated to begin in early 1995. 

The total area to be disturbed by construction wodd be 477 acres on site. 

2.3.1.4 Industrial. The total land area incorporated under the industrial 
category would consist of 1.888 acres. All but 265 acres would be located 
within base boundaries. Three subsets of industrial land use have been 
identified for purposes of analysis: aviation, general, and business park. 

The aviation industrial zone consists of two parcels. The on-base portion would 
encompass a 310-acre parcel along the eastern boundary of George AFB. The 
second, 265-acre parcel would be located at the northwest comer of the ADD, 
adjacent to the air cargo facility complex. It would comprise the sole area of 
land acquisition proposed for industrial use. No specific users have been 
targeted for these parcels; however, a range of operations such as aircraft 
maintenance, overhaul, and parts manufacturing could be accommodated and 
could benefit from the proximity to the crosswind runways arxf to the air cargo 
operations. The total area to be disturbed by construction would be 217 acres 
on site arxl 186 acres off site. 

The industrial-business park area would surround the commercial zone on the 
western and part of the northern sides and consist of 331 acres of on-base 
property. Potential uses of this area include light industrial, offices, public 
facilities, and other typical business park activities. The total area to be 
disturbed by construction would be 249 acres on site. 

The 982-acre site south of Air Base Road would be designated as Industrial 
Park V as part of the ongoing Adelanto Industrial Park Development Program. 
Development in this area is expected to begin soon after closure, and proceeds 
wll be used to finance airport improvements. The total area to be disturbed by 
construction would be 687 acres on site. 

2.3.1.5 Transportation. Specific designs for ground access within the 
International Airport complex have not yet been completed. Ground access to 
the HDIA would be provided through construction/renovation of a multi-modal 
system urxJer this alternative. It would include an enhanced freeway system, 
local transit networks, and the SST network. 

2-24 George AFB Disposal arxl Reuse FEIS 





O 0 w«iopmeiit of this proposed transportation network is stiN In the planning 
phases. A conceptual realignment for U.S. 395, recently approved by the state, 
is discussed imder Section 2.5, Other Futitfe Actions in the Region. An 
eastAvest freeway connecting to Interstate 15 has also been proposed, but a 
specific location has not y^ been identified (see Figure 2.3-1). 

2.3.1.6 Emptoyment and Population. The international Airport Alternative 
would generate both direct jobs (e.g.. airport and aviation-related employees, 
industrial and commerdai personnel, etc.) on-site and indirect Jobs (e.g., 
retal/commercial. recreatiorad, food services, etc.) in the ROI. Based on 
assumptions related to the fioor-to-area ratio and employment factors projected 
for each land use, approximately 54,800 direct jobs and 50,500 indirect jobs 
would likely be gerterated in ttie ROI by 2013. Employment impacts are shown 
in Table 2.3-3. 


Table 2.3-3. ROI Project-Related Employment and Population Effects - 
Intematiorwl Airport Alternative 



Closure 

1998 

2003 

2013 

Employment 

68 

61,246 

67,380 

105,307 

Oired 

50 

36,180 

38,793 

54,843 

Indirect 

18 

25,066 

28,587 

50,464 

Population 


36,533 

41,613 

64,932 


Employment increases wodd be accompanied by population irwreases. The 
ROI population is expected to increase by approximately 64,900 persons over 
the post-dosure estirrate by the year 2013. Population impacts are shown in 
Table 2.3-3. 

2.3.1.7 Traffic Generation. Based on the employment and population 
projections, the l.itemationai Airport Alternative would generate about 310,000 
average daly ^rips to and from the base property by the year 2013. 

2.3.1.8 Utilities. By 2013, the projected activities and population increases in 
the Victor Valley associated with the International Airport Alternative would 
generate the fdlowing increases in utBity demands over dosure baseline 
corxfitions: 

• Water -12.9 MGD, or an increase of less than 17 percent 

• Wastewater - 3.9 MGD, or an Increase of 17 percent 

• Sdid waste - 0.28 million cubic yards per year, or an increase of 
17 percent 

• Electricity -1,200 MWH per day, or an increase of 12 percent 

• Natural Gas - 64,950 therms per day, or an increase of 7 percent 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-25 









Some unity systems would be improved to provide adequate service to 
proposed new fadities. Aniidpated system improvements are expected to be 
simlar in nature to those associated with the Proposed Actkm. 

2.3.2 Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative 

The Commercial Airport wtth Residential Altemdive (Figure 2.3-3), is simlar to 
the Proposed Action in that the reuse of George AFB would cei^ arouixl a 
rei^onal airport The airport area would encompass the airfield and 
aviation-support larxl use categories, covering 1,686 acres, or 33 percent of 
base-owned property. A large residentiai area encompassing 39 percent of the 
base-owned property Is the main difference between this alternative and the 
Proposed Actioa 

Non-aviation larxl uses included within this reuse plan are commerdai, 
irxlustrial, recreational/vacant larxl, institutlonai, and residential. The 
development proposed for these 3,387 acres completes the reuse plan for the 
entire base. No off-base property is proposed for acquisition under this 
alternative. 

The total acreage of each larxl use category Is shown in Table 2.3-4. 

The fdiowing assumptions were used to develop this alternative arxl expand 
upon the analysis; 

• WEDA data used in the analysis 

- proposed reuse for the existing airfield 

• conceptual plan for civflian use of the aviation facilities 

- some anticipated construction/demdition 

- general listing of anticipated airport tenants 

- general guidelines for projected employment 

• Acreage figures for proposed larxl uses 

• Projected flight operations and fleet mixes through 2013 

• Reet mix represents a minimum of 50 percent of applicable Stage Hi 
aircraft in 2003 arxl all Stage III aircraft in 2013. 

• Employment arxl population projections through 2013 for the Victor 
Valley arxl 2-county ROI 

• Traffic generation arxl daily trip projections through 2013 

• Utlity requirement projections through 2013 

• Areas disturbed by constructiorVdemdition 

• Phasing plans fortotal reuse through 2013 

• Residential development concepts 

• Industrial and comnrrercial development concepts 

• Proposed transportation systems. 


2-26 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









EXPLANATION 



AirfkM 


bnfajtkiral 

(Education) 



Aviation Support 


Commercial 

o 


tndustial 


Residential 



Apiculture* 
Vacant Land 
Slopes>1S% 


Commercial Airport 
with Residential 
Alternative 


histttutianal 

(MedkaO 


PuMiof Recreation 


.... Base Boundary 


an 


0 7501500 3000 Feet 




AbatKkmed Runway 

NotAppicaMe Figure 2.3-3 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-27 



























Tabto 2.3-4. Land UMAcrMQt-ConHiMrcial Airport wllh 
Raaidantial AKamativa 


Land Use 

Acreage 

Base Property 


Airfield 

1,400 

Aviation Si^iport 

286 

Commercial Retal 

26 

Industrial 

1,048 

Institutional 


Higher Education 

37 

Medical 

20 

Public Education 

20 

Recreation/Vacant Land 

261 

Residential 


Existing Development 

337 

Proposed Development 

1,638 

Total 

5,073 


2.3.2.1 Airfiald. The airfield land use zone covers 1,400 acres. The airfield 
includes runways, taxiways, and runway protection zones. As In the Proposed 
Action, the airfield would be used primarfly by passenger aircraft (air carrier and 
commuter) aixl general aviation aircraft Additional activities requiring airfield 
support include the trartsport of air cargo and flights associated with the 
maintenance of all types of aircraft 

Conceptual plans and spedflc features of the airfield are similar to those of the 
Proposed Action, which are dted in the Airport Master Plan (see Section 2.2.1). 
The major differences between the Commercial Airport with Residential 
Alternative and the Proposed Action are as follows: 

• The overall airfield land use zone is smaller (by 27 perc«it, or 513 acres) 

• The runway protection zones are restricted to the present base property 

• Ail development is within existing base boundaries. 

Existing taclities would be reused to the maxirrajm extent possible, especiaNy 
for aviatiort-related functions. However, some holdings would have to be 
removed or modified. The majority of rehablitation and construction within the 
airfield is expected to take place soon after base closure. No land is expected 
to be disturbed by constructkxi since the existing airfield would be used. 

Projected operations for this alternative are identical to those of the Proposed 
Action for the baseline year foiiowing closure (1993) and for the periods 5.10, 
and 20 years beyorxl baseline (1998,2003, and 2013, respectively). (See 

George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









Table 2.2-3 [Section 2.2.1] for the Cornmerdal Airport wKh Residential 
Alternative operations.) 

Passenger service, freight trartsportation, and general aviation activities are the 
same as those discussed in Section 2.2.1 for the Proposed Action. 

2.3.2.2 Aviation Support The aviation support land use zone covers 286 
acres. These have been designated as areas for support of general aviation, 
terminai, control tower, fire station, terminal parking, and govemmera agency 
usage. Existing fuel storage tedities could be used for dvlian purposes. 

Some existing facitties would havetobedemolishedand/orrerxivated in order 
to accomtTKxjate dvlian aviation support-related uses. DemdUon arxl 
renovation of some foclities would take place soon after base dosure and 
should be completed within 15 years. The total area to be disturbed by 
construction would be 203 acres. 

in addition to the airfield, some or all of the aviation support larxf use zones 
would probably foil urxier the jurisdiction of the airport authority. The 
development and operations of the aviation support area would be managed in 
accordance with FAA arxi other applicable statutes. 

2.3.2.3 Commercial. The commercial fond use zone covers 26 acres. The 
area would serve both irtdustrfol and residential development as a retal area. 
Existing focliiic^ !ndude a commissary, exchange store, and bowling center. 
These and other buMings could be renovated to accommodate civifon retal 
uses. Renovation and/or new construction is anticipated to take place within 
approximately 10 years. The total area to be disturbed by construction would 
be 23 acres. 

2.3.2.4 Industrial. The industrial fond use zone covers 1,046 acres. This 
category could include aviation-related businesses, such as aircraft 
maintenance, rrxxiification, and manufocturing. The industrial areas could also 
include general office space, research and development endeavors, and related 
activities. The location of aviation-related irxiustries world mirrimize conflict with 
aircraft or vehicle moverrrent Existing hangars arxf repair shops could be used 
with litde or no rrKxJification. ConstnictioiVrenovation is rust expected to occur 
within the first 5 years. The total area to be disturbed by construction would be 
734 acres. 

2.3.2.5 Institutional. The institutional land use zone covers 77 acres. Two 
elementary schools are presently located within this area. A 37-acre parcel 
coiid be used for some form of higher education, such as a small coHege, 
vocational, or training focflity. The existing 25-bed base hospital also lies within 
the institutional fond use area. The total area to be disturbed by construction 
would be 35 acres. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-29 








2.3^6 RMTWtion/Vteant Land. The recreaUonNacam land use zone coven 
261 acres. This area indudes an ^dsting golf course and gymnasium. Steep 
siopes wouid provide approximateiy 130 acres of natural open areas. 

2.3.2.? ReaidentiaL The residential larKi use zone coven 1,975 acres. 

Existing units comprise 337 acres of this total. Proposed new resktoraiai 
development would occur on the undeveloped base land south of Afar Base 
Road, on the west side of the base along Adeianto Road, and north of the 
existing residential area. Ilie total area to be disturbed by construction would 
be 1,573 acres. 

2.3.2.8 Transportation. Ground access has been established in the plan 

throughout the aviation support and industrial land use areas adjacent to the 
airfield. In addition to the exlstirtg main gate arxl residential gate entrances, an 
access road west of the gate is also proposed which would serve the 

industrial area west of the primary runway. All three access roads would 
intercept Air Base Road. A perimeter road would erx^irde the airport 
development area. The relocation of the existing road would allow access to 
the northeast portion of the airport The dedicated airport access road would 
enable industrial users to avdd using the potentially congested Adeianto Road. 

2.3.2.9 Employment and Population. The Commercial Airport with 
Residential Alternative would generate approximateiy 13,000 new direct jobs on 
site by the year 2013. An estimated 15,200 indirect jobs (e.g., retail/commercial, 
recreational, food services, etc.) are likely to be generated in the ROI. 
Employment impacts are shown in Table 2.3-5. 


Table 2.3-5. ROI Project-Related Employment and Population Effects - 
Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative 



Closure 

1998 


2013 

Employment 

68 

10,518 

18,425 

28,225 

Direct 

50 

5,175 

8,703 

13,002 

Indirect 

18 

5,343 

9,722 

15,223 

Population 


5,825 

10,133 

16,490 


Projected employment would generate population changes in the area. 
Population increases of apprc»dmately 16,500 over post-closure are estimated 
by the year 2013, Including 700 students using the higher education faclity. 
Population impacts are shown in Table 2.3-5. 


2-30 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









2.3^10 Ihiffic Gcnaration. Based on the errMsIoyinent and population 
proiections. this altemative would generate approximately 146,600 average daly 
trips to and from the base property by the year 2013. 

2.3.2.11 UtiUlies. By 2013, the projected activities and popuiation increases in 
the Victor Vaiiey associated with the Commercial Airport with Resktontiai 
Alternative would generate the following increases in utility demands over 
closure baselirte corxJItions: 

• Water • 3.2 MGD, or an increase of 4 percent 

• Wastewater-1 MGD, or an Increase of 4 percent 

• Solid waste* 0.07 mllion cubic yards per year, or an increase of 
4percent 

• Bectridty - 300 MWH per day, or an increase of 3 percent 

• Natural Gas-16,100 therms per day, or an increase of less than 
2 percent 

Some utility systems would have to be improved to provide adequate service to 
proposed new foclities. Necessary system Improvements are anticipated to be 
the same as those associated with the Proposed Action. 

2.3.3 General Aviation Center Altemative 

The General Aviation Center AKemative (Figure 2.3-4) focuses upon a variety of 
private aviation activities. A minimal amount of new construction is proposed; 
nearly all operations wocrid reuse existing feiclities. However, approximately 50 
percent of the base has rxX been identified for development and, thus, is 
considered to remain inactive. 

The airfield and aviation support areas comprise 2,038 acres, or 40 percent of 
the base property. Non-aviation land use is higNighted by a large (340 acres) 
residential area that would reuse the majority of the base housing units. The 
remaining portion of George AFB proposed for reuse has been designated for 
institutional, commercial, and public/recreation purposes. The total acreage of 
each land use category is shown in Table 2.3-6. 

The General Aviation Center proponent provided the following types of data for 
analysis: 

• An overall operations concept including air shows, museum, 
restaurants, housing, and concessions 

• Some anticipated construction/demolition activities 

• General guidelines to employment and population projections 

• A general listing of anticipated airport tenants. 


George AFB Disposal aiKl Reuse FEIS 


2-31 







EXPLANATION 



Airfield 



Avialian Support 



Mustiar 



InaMjlional 

(Meifioal) 



knftufional 

(Eduoaliati) 

Commernai 

Residential 

PuMkyReorealion 


PJ~1 

0 750 1 500 3000 Feet 




o 


Agrioullure* 


Vacant Land 


General Aviation 
Center Alternative 


Siopes>15% 

~ ~ Base Boundary 
== = = Abandoned Runway 
• NotAppioaUe 


Figure 2.3*4 


2-32 


George AFB Disposed end Reuse FEIS 

























Tabit 2.3-6. Land Um Acraaga • Ganaial Aviation Cantar Altamattva 


Land Use 

Acreage 

Base Property 


Airfield 

1,573 

Aviation Support 

465 

Commerdai Retal 

282 

Institutional 


Education 

35 

Medical 

20 

Recreation/Vacant Larxl 

125 


2,233 

Residential 

340 

Total 

5,073 


The following assumf^ons were used to expand upon the analyste; 

• Acreage figures for proposed land uses 

• Projected flight operations and fleet mixes through 2013 

• Employment and population projections through 2013 for the Victor 
Valley and the two-county ROI 

• Traffic generation and daily trip projections through 2013 

• UtBity requirement projections through 2013 

• Areas disturbed by construction/demolition 

• Phasing plans for total reuse through 2013 

• Proposed transportation systems 

• Recommended use of existing buildings 

• Areas disturbed by construction/demolition. 

2.3.3.1 Airfield. The airfield land use zone consists of 1,573 acres and includes 
the existing runways, taxiways, and runway protection zones. Other specific 
features of the airfield <e.g., terminal, control tower, parking, etc.) are simlar to 
those of the Proposed Action, as described in Sectton 2.2.1. 

Conceptual plans and specific features of the airfield have not been developed; 
therefore, no airport layout plan is included for this alternative. 

Nearly all bicilities would be reused. The parking apron surrounding Hangar 
676 would be hardened within 5 years of closure. Bulding 694 would be 
removed in order to construct a public parking lot 


George AFB Di^JOsaJ and Reuse FEIS 


2-33 









Airfield activities and/or poter<U users ideniMied indude nationd ak ahoM^ 
corporate and privM avistion, fixed base operations, and experimentai and Ml 
plane demonstrations. Protected operations for the Generai Aviation Certer 
Aitemative are shoem for the years of anaiysis in Table 2.3-7. All operations 
would occur during daylight hoitfs. 


Table 2.3-7. Protected FllghI Operations - General Aviation Center Attemathre 


Year 

Operation 

Fleet Mix 


1993 

General Aviation 

Aircraft Maintenance 

90% Piston Engine 
10%T(tfboProp 

83% Narrow Body Jet 

17% Wide Body Jet 

10,800 

1,200 

415 

85 

Total 12,500 

1998 

General Aviation 

Aircraft Maintenance 

90% Piston Engine 
10%T(tfboProp 

83% Narrow Body Jet 

17% Wide Body Jet 

24,300 

2,700 

1,325 

275 

Total 28,600 

2003 

General Aviation 

Aircraft Maintenance 

90% Piston Engine 

10% Turbo Prop 

83% Narrow Body Jet 

17% Wide Body Jet 

31.500 

3,500 

2,150 

450 

Total 37,600 

2013 

General Aviation 

Aircraft Maintenance 

90% Piston Engine 

10% Turbo Prop 

83% Narrow Body Jet 

17% Wide Body Jet 

45,000 

yyo 

680 

Total 54,000 


Source: EstimetM baeod on oonunoreW airport foracaat (P&O Tachnologiaa, 1990). 


2.3.3.2 Aviation Support The aviation support larxi use zone covers 465 
acres. It includes feclities for aircraft maintenance, aircraft parMng, aviation 
sales center, and other leased properties, as would be defined by market 
demand. 


Some new construction would be undertaken for aviation support Anareaof 
approximately 55 acres at the west end of Runway 03/21, currently used for 
weapon storage, would be leveled and paved to support storage of aircraft 
awaiting refurbishment A bulding would be constructed at this site for airframe 


2-34 


George AFB Dispose} end Reuse FBIS 





















cleaning and painting. T-hangars would be bult In the area of the northwest 
base boundary (near the intersection of El Mirage and Adeianto roads). The 
total area to be disturbed by cor)struction would be 220 acres. 

Activities presently identified to be conducted within the aviation support zone 
Include airframe manutacture, beginning immediateiy after closure; aircraft 
(commuter) overhauls, commertcing in 1998; and large airframe overhaul, 
starting in 1996. 

2.3.3.3 Commercial. A commercial area of 282 acres would occupy a large 
part of the cantonment area of the base. Specific uses identified for the 
development/reuse of facilities within this parcel would include: 

• Conversion of Buflding 591 into an aircraft museum 

• Conversion of an as-yet-unidentified warehouse for a sound stage and 
videotape processing studio 

• Establishment of a data processing center 

• Conversion of dubs and open mess to restaurants 

• Reuse of the service station and commissary for the same purposes 
(leased to independent contractors) 

• Reuse of the movie theater, library, craft center, and child care center 
for the same purposes (operated by the General Aviation Center) 

• Establishment of a flight shop in one of the facilities to sell souvenirs of 
the aviation center. 

2.3.3.4 Institutional. Two institutional land use zones are identified for the 
General Aviation Center. The institutional-medical parcel (20 acres) contains the 
existing base hospital, which would be leased to a private medical group. The 
second institutional parcel (35 acres) would retain its current educational use. 

2.3.3.5 Recreation/Vacant Land. The recreation land use area comprises a 
total of 125 acres. Recreational areas and facilities such as parks, the golf 
course, athletic fields, the gymnasium, and swimming pools would be made 
available to the general public. These facilities would be jointly administered by 
the General Aviation Center and a local jurisdiction. Vacant iands constitute 
2,233 acres for the General Aviation Center Alternative. Vacant land would be 
used as motion picture and/or television sets as the need arises. 

2.3.3.6 Residential. The residential land use zone covers 340 acres. A 
minimum of 1,000 of the 1,641 existing units would be retained for rentes. The 
dormitories would be converted to apartments or townhouses. Some of the 
quadruplexes in base housing would be converted to duplexes. 

2.3.3.7 Transportation. All access roads in and out of the base would be 
expanded to four lanes to facSitate traffic flow, especially during air shows. 
Internal roads would become one-way streets. 


George AFB DisposeJ and Reuse FEIS 


2-35 







2.3.3.t Employin«nl and Population. Tha General Aviation Cantor Altemaliva 
vKMJkJ garterate approadmataly 8,000 tmn direct jobs by the year 2013. 
Approximateiy 7,700 indirect jobs <e.g., retal/commerdal. recreationai, food 
services, etc.) vrould be created in the ROi. Employment impacts are shoNvn in 
Table 2.3-a 


Table 2.3-8. ROI Proiect-Reiated Emptoyment and Population Effects- 
General Aviation CMitw Alternative 



Closure 

1998 

2003 

2013 

Employrrtent 

68 

11.986 

15.846 

15.781 

Direct 

50 

6.131 

8.074 

8.046 

Indirect 

18 

5,855 

7,772 

7.735 

Population 


6.563 

9.018 

9.780 


Projected employment would generate population changes in the area. An 
increase of approximately 9,800 persons over post-closure conditions is 
estimated by the year 2013. Population impacts are shown in Table 2.3-8. 

2.3.3.9 Traffic Generation. The General Aviation Center Alternative would 
generate an estimated 96,000 average daly trips to and from the base 

(5 percent heavy duty diesel. 8 percent medium duty gas. and 8? percent light 
duty gas). An estimated 85 percent of all traffic would be on the roadways 
during daylight hours. 

2.3.3.10 Utilitiea. By2013. the projected activities and population irx;raa8es in 
the Victor VaHey associated with the General Aviation Center Alternative would 
generate the following irwreases in utility demands over closure baseiirre 
corxJitions: 

• Water-Increase of 2.2 MGD or an increase of 3 percent 

• Wastewater - Increase of 0.7 MGD or an increase of 3 percent 

• Solid Waste - Increase of 0.05 million cubic yards per year or an 
increase of 3 percent 

• Bectricity • increase of 211 MWH per day or an increase of 2 percent 

• Natural Gas • Irrcrease of 11.110 therms per day or an increase of 
1 percent 

Some utility systems would have to be improved to provide adequate service to 
proposed new faclities. Necessary system improvements are anticipated to be 
the same as those associated with the Proposed Action. 


2-36 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








EXPLANATION 



Non-Aviation 

Q| Airfield* 

haitJlianal 
^■1 (Eduoalian) 

Agriculture* 

Alternative 

Avialicn Suppcrf 

CcmnwRsial 

O Vacant Land 


biduatial 

1 0 1 Readenlial 

8lope8>16% 


■jn bnfMkinal 

Wim (Mednal) 

Pubic/Reorealion 

.... Base Boundary 





0 7501S00 3000 Feet 




zrzr Abandoned Runway 

. Not Apfii(MUe Figure 2.3-5 


2-38 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 

























2.3.4 NoivAviation Mtwnative 


This alternative includes only ncKvaviation land uses (Figure 2.3-5). The focal 
point of the NoivAviation Alternative is a large residential land use zone. The 
existing airfield would remain inactive and the open areas around the airfield 
and in the southern portion of the base would be used mainly for residential arxi 
recreational purposes. No c^-base property would be acquired for this 
alternative. Other components of this alternative include industrial, education, 
medical, and commercial areas. The total acreage of each land use category is 
shown in Table 2.3-9. 


Table 2.3-9. Larxi Use Acreage - NoivAviation Altemative 


Land Use 

Acreage 

Base Property 

Commercial Retail 

20 

Industrial Business Park 

942 

Institutional 

Higher Education 

470 

Medical 

20 

Public Education 

20 

Recreation/Vacant Land 

290 

Existing Golf Course 

77 

Residential 

Existing Development 

337 

Proposed Development 

2,897 

Total 

5,073 


The following assumptions were used to develop this altemative and expand 
upon the analysis; 

• Conceptual plan for non-aviation use of George AFB 

• Acreage figures for proposed land uses 

• Construction/demolition activities 

• Employment and population projections through 2013 for the Victor 
Valley and the 2-county ROI 

• Traffic generation and daily trip projections through 2013 

• Utility requirement projections through 2013 

• Areas disturbed by construction/demolition 

• Phasing plans for total reuse through 2013 

• Proposed transportation systems 

• Recommended use of existing buildings. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-37 











2.3.4.1 Commercial. The proposed commercial land use zone covers 
20 acres. This retal area would serve both industrial and residential 
development. The existing facilities indude entrance gates arxl the traffic check 
house. It is anticipated that new construction would take place in the 
commercial zone within 10 years of base dosure. The total area to be disturbed 
by construction would be 18 acres. 

2.3.4.2 Industrial The industrial land use zone covers 942 acres, the majority 
of which are presently ruiways, taxiways, and the operational apron. Because 
demdition of these surfaces could be very expensive, they may be reused for 
surface storage areas or parking, as well as for new development sites. 
Approximately 80 percent of the industrial area indudes existing industrial-type 
facilities. The remaining 20 percent is vacant and would be available for new 
development. Development of the industrial area would be phased over 

20 years after base dosure. The total area to be disturbed by construction 
would be 660 acres. 

2.3.4.3 Institutional (Education/Medicai). The higher education land use 
zone covers 470 acres. The existing facilities indude stores, 
administrative/office space, fast-food service, child care center, dormitories, and 
a lounge/day room. These tecflities could potentially support a small 4-year 
college. Demolition or renovation of some existing facilities would likely be 
required to support the education land uses. These activities would likely be 
phased to meet user demands by the year 2013. Auxiliary parking may be 
needed to support the demarxis of the employees and students. The total area 
to be disturbed by construction would be 295 acres. 

The two elementary schools presently on base are located within the 20-acre 
public education portion of the institutional land use zone. The existing base 
hospital lies on a 20-acre parcel that comprises the institutional-medical land 
use area. 

2.3.4.4 Recreation/Vacant Land. The recreation/vacant land use zone covers 
367 acres. The existing facSities include a 9-hoie golf course with clubhouse 
and baseball fields. The golf course would be expanded to 18 holes with 
housing incorporated along the fairways. Steep slopes would provide 
approximately 180 acres of natural open area. The recreation/vacant larxis 
areas may be fully operational within 20 years of base closure. The total area to 
be disturbed by construction would be 19 acres. 

2.3.4.5 Residential. The proposed residential land use zone covers 
3,234 acres. Existing units comprise 337 acres of this total. Proposed units 
include a gated retirement community, which would occupy this area of »cisting 
units and an additional 744 acres of undeveloped land. The remaining 

2,150 acres of undeveloped base land south of Air Base Road and on the west 
side of the base along Adeianto Road is also proposed for new residential 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-39 




development. The reeidentiai development would be phased over a 20-year 
period. Approximately 246 units would be developed by 1998,244 units 
2003, and 300 units by 2013, for an approximate total of 790 housing units. The 
total area to be disturbed by constmction would be 2,770 acrM. 

2.3.4.6 Transportation. Circirtation improvements would include a new road 
exterxling from Emerald (Topaz) Road at the north eixi of the base, south to 
Amethyst Road which would ultimately connect to the proposed east-west state 
highway. This north-south road would be the primary entrance to the industrial 
development. An improved access from Crippen Avenue In Adeianto would 
also be developed. Shay Road and Rancho Road would be extended. Ground 
access has been established in the plan throughout the residential and 
institutional land use areas. Two new intersections with Air Base Road would 
also be required. 

2.3.4.7 Employment and Population. The Non-Aviation Alterr^tive would 
generate approximately 8,600 new direct jobs on site and 5,200 indirect jobs in 
the ROI by the year 2013. Employment impacts are shown in Table 2.3-10. 


Table 2.3-10. ROI Project-Related Employment and Population Effects 

Non-Aviation Alternative 



Closure 

1998 

2003 

2013 

Employment 

68 

3,851 

6,511 

13,846 

Direct 

50 

2,397 

4,081 


Indirect 

18 

1,454 

2,430 

5,214 

Population 


3,401 

6,313 

13,900 


Projected employment would generate an estimated population increase of 
13,900 over the post-closure estimate by the year 2013. In addition, about 8,400 
students would enter into the region and reside in dormitories and family 
housing. Population impacts are shown in Table 2.3-10. 

2.3.4.8 Traffic. Based on the employment and population projection, this 
alternative would generate approximately 185,800 average daily trips to and 
from the base property by the year 2013. 

2.3.4.9 Utilities. By 2013, the projected activities and population increases in 
the Victor Valley would generate the following increases in utility demands over 
closure baseline corxlitions: 

• Water - 2.8 MGD, or an increase of less than 4 percent 

• Wastewater - 0.9 MGD, or an increase of less than 4 percent 

• Solid Waste - 0.06 mBIion cubic yards per year, or an increase of less 
than 4 percent 


2-40 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






• Bectilcity • 272 MWH per day. or an increase of less than 3 percent 

• Natural Gas-14,300 therms per day. or an increase of less than 
2 percent 

2.3.5 Other Land Use Concepts 

This section describes land use concepts which are not part of any integrated 
reuse plan, but could be initiated on an indK/iduai basis. These concepts 
include proposed federal transfers arxl conveyances to non-federal ^jendes 
and private parties. Employment and population effects are diown in 
Table 2.3-11. Rgure 2.3-6 shows the location of each of the proposed land use 
concepts. 

U.S. Department of Justice. The BOP. through the U. S. Department of 
Justice, has submitted a specific request for land at George APB. An 860-acre 
parcel located south of Air Base Road has been designated as a proposed 
Federal Correctional Complex (FCC). This parcel is the present site of the base 
munitions storage area. IRP sites have been identified in this area (see Section 
3.3.3 for location and detaSs). The BOP has requested that the uncontaminated 
portion be made avaOable immediately following publication of the ROD. 
Construction would begin soon after the ROD is filed, and will not be dependent 
upon completion of the final cleanup phase of the contaminated area. 

The BOP estimates that the proposed complex could house 2,000 to 
2,750 inmates, and generate 1,000 jobs. Capital construction costs could reach 
$200 mHiion, and the annual operating budg^ would be approximately 
$32 million. 

U. S. Department of the Interior. The U.S. Department of the Interior (National 
Park Service) has requested the transfer of base recreational facilities to a local 
jurisdiction through the public benefit program. Specific facilities identified 
include, but are not limited to. the following: 

• Schmidt Park and Pool 

• Ballfields 

• Base gymnasium 

• Base youth center 

• Golf course 

• Base recreation center. 

Apart from administration of the aforementioned public benefit program, the 
National Park Service is not interested in acquiring any George AFB properties 
for its own use. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-41 







Table 2.3-11. Employmut and Population EWect» of Other Land Ute Concepts 





I 

Ui 


R 

o 

cf 


It 


M 

O 





“g 

CO M 

zio. 



■o 


lO 



CO 9 





(O 



a> 


**1 

if 

3111 


I 

I 

c 

I 

i 

•o 



I 

I 

•a 

s 



2-42 


George AFB Di^x>sat and Reuse FEIS 



EXPLANATION 


Other Land Use 

0 Fedorai Conodional Complex 

(§) Adalanto School DMrict 

Concepts 

0 Recrealion FadNIios 

^ San Bemanino County 
^ Woifc Fiirtough OormllOTiea 


(D MaskaCircie 

0 Private Medteal Inslffiilton 


^ Boron MwayFacmy Sector 
^ FaM Office PwWngOmge 

..••• BaaeBoundary 

Abandoned Ruf«Nay 

Figure 2.3<6 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-43 





















U. S. D«partnMnt of Housing and Urban Dsvsiopmant As part of the 
McKinney Act of 1987 (R L 100-77). HUD, in conjunction with the Department of 
Health and Human Services and the Generai Services Administration, identifies 
surplus government buildings aixf properties for suitability as housing for the 
homeless. Housing for low-income famBies and individuals and for the 
homeless population in the Victor Valley has been identified within the existing 
housing area in the southeast region of George AFB. There are 60 residential 
units along Alaska Circle, Hawaii Street, and Sheppard Street east of Cory 
Boulevard. The Alaska Cirde Community, a specific proposal developed by the 
Lfllie Ruffs Inc. Homeless Program, lies just north of Air Base Road, dose to 
the hospital and adjacent to the golf course. It is surrounded on all sides by 
approximately 400 feet of vacant land. 

All 60 units were constructed in 1966, and represent the most recent 
construction within the housing area. There are 56 three- or four-bedroom 
duplexes within the Alaska Cirde Community. The remaining buUdings consist 
of four-bedroom detached irxJividual homes. The houses and their associated 
larKiscaping have been well maintained. Needed renovations would be minor, 
and consist primarily of interior/exterior painting, and carpet and fixture 
replacement. The residences could be occupied soon after base closure. 

U. S. Department of Transportation. The FAA, through the U. S. Department 
of Transportation, has expressed interest in obtaining a garage at George AFB 
for use by the Boron Ainway Facilities Sector Field Office (AFSFO). The base 
automotive hobby shop has been identified as adequate to meet the AFSFO’s 
need for a facBity to house seven government vehides. 

U. S. Department of Education. Following the completion of a preliminary 
screening, the U. S. Department of Education has expressed interest in certain 
facilities and property on George AFB on behalf of San Bernardino County and 
the Adelanto School District. Details of the preliminary proposals for reuse are 
as follows: 

• Adelanto School District 

. 10-acre parcel that indudes George AFB School 

• 30-acre parcel consisting of (1) a 10-acre site surrounding the 
Harry R. Sheppard School. (2) a 10-acre site adjacent to the 
southern boundary of the Sheppard School, and (3) a 10-acre site 
located between the eastern boundary of the Sheppard School and 
the southern boundary of George School 

- 10-acre parcel on Texas Street, on the northern side of the base 

• Base gymnasium and athletic fields. 

• San Bernardino County Library 


2-44 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






- An unktontifled 35,000 squara foot tadity is requested for a regional 
library and booknwble headquarters. 

• San BemardirK) Courtty Mineum 

. An unidentified 8.000 square foot taclity has been proposed fbr 
research and operatiorw. 

• San BerrvBrdlno County Superintendent of Schools 

- Corrwnunity College and school districts have expressed interest in 
reuse of some of George AFB property. Spectfic proposals have 
not yet been formulated. 

San Bernardino County Work Furlough Program. San BemardirK) County is 
Irrterested in obtaining one or more of the existing focOlties on George AFB to 
house inmates in support of their Work Furlough Program. Although specific 
buHdings have rtot yet been Identified, it is likely, based on a simlar request in 
another location, that a dormitory or barracks type of faclity would be selected. 
This program would support approximately 200 inmates and require 20 staff 
members. 

Medical Facilities. Several private medical facilities in the Victor Valley have 
expressed a desire to acquire the base hospital. Reuse would most likely ental 
conversion to an out-patient clinic, special purpose, or medical teaching facHity, 
and would generate 60 jobs on site. 

2.3.6 No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would residt in the U.S. Government retaining 
ownership of the property after closure. The property would not be put to 
further use. The base would be preserved, i.e., placed in a condition intended 
to limit deterioration arxl ensure public safety. A disposal management team 
(DMT) would be provided to ensure base security and maintain the grounds and 
physical assets, including the existing utilities and structures. No other mlitary 
activities/missions would be performed on the property. 

The future larxl uses and levels of maintenance would be as follows; 

• Maintain structures in mothballed condition. This would involve 
disconnecting or draining some utility lines and securing faclities. 

• Isolate or deactive utlity distribution lines on base. 

• Provide limited maintenance of roads to ensure access. 

• Provide limited grounds maintenance of open areas. This would 
primarily consist of infrequent cutting to eliminate fire, health, and 
safety hazards. 

• Maintain golf course in such a manner as to faclitate economical 
resumption of use. 

• Maintain existing leases, where applicable. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


2-45 



A DMT has been established at George AFB. TheresponsiUMesofttilsteam 
iTKiude coordinating closure activities, establishing a caretaker force to maintain 
Air Force properties after closure, arvl serving as the Air Force liaison 
supporting community reuse. Forthepurposesofenvironmerftai analysis, it 
\Mas assumed that this team wouid comprise approximately 50 people at the 
time of closure. 

The DMT, as used in this document, may refer to the Air Force disposal 
personnel or to one of the caretaker contractors. In some cases each team 
may have distinct responsiblitles. For example, under the No-Action 
Alternative, each contractor is responsible for the management and disposition 
of their own hazardous waste. The Air Force DMT wouid be respcmsibie for 
inspection and oversight to ensure hazardous waste practices are in 
compliance with pertinent regulatiorts. 

The base would maintain its license with the State Water Resources Control 
Board to continue to fUi its water requirements from the same well system 
although the amount drawn would be significantly reduced. Nonessential water 
lines would be drained and shut off. WWRA would continue to provide 
wastewater treatment under caretaker status, but the flow would be negligible or 
zero. Solid waste collection from the base would likely be reduced to a 
negligible level under this alternative. The existing power and space-heating 
systems serving George AFB wouid likely be utilized at substantially reduced 
levels whfle the base is In car^ker status. Becthcal power would be required 
for security lighting and other essential systems, and natural gas would 
probably be required during winter months to maintain minimal space heating In 
mothballed facilities. 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES EUMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

Several other possible alternatives were considered but eliminated by the Air 
Force from further study. These reuse plans were very similar to the alternatives 
already sut^ect to environments impact analysis. Therefore, the corxlitions 
presented were Sready covered in the range of options reflected within the 
Proposed Action and alternatives. 

2.4.1 Evolving Airport 

A potential alternative proposed by WEDA considered reuse of George AFB as 
an evolving regional air carrier airport located within existing base boundaries. 
This plan was not chosen by WEDA for further development and, thus, was not 
analyzed, because of its limited growth capacity. 


2-46 


George AFB Di^)osd and Reuse FEIS 


2.4.2 RtgiOfUil Hub Airport 


WEOA sriso considered a regional medium hub airport within existing base 
boundaries for a potential reuse optioa This proposal was not developed 
further because of Its limited scope arxi inablity to accommodate airport 
expansion. 

2.4.3 Expandable Airport 

A local/regional airport plan was presented by the city of Adelanto as an 
additional alternative to their international airport plan. The airport would begin 
operations to serve 1 MAP, then expand to ultimately accommodate 15 MAR 
This plan was dropped from further consideration and development by the dty 
of Adelanto because It failed to allow sufficient expansion to meet Adelanlo’s 
projected goals. This alternative is generally encompassed within the Proposed 
Action. 

2.4.4 NorvAIrport Land Use 

A land use plan that would ultimately eliminate ail aircraft operations from 
George APB was also developed by the city of Adelanto. This plan was not 
analyzed separately since a non-aviation plan developed for this study 
incorporated all of the same basic land uses. Analysis of the Non-Aviation 
Alternative therefore encompassed reuses proposed by the city of Adelanto. 

2.5 OTHER FUTURE ACTIONS IN THE REGION 

Three reasonably foreseeable future actions could be considered as 
contributing to a potential cumulative impact on the disposal and reuse of 
George AFB. The first action is Air Force activity at other bases in and adjacent 
to San Bernardino County. 

• Norton AFB - Norton AFB is scheduled to dose In 1994. 

• March AFB - March AFB is projected to be realigned; retiring one unit, 
and relocating several Norton AFB units. 

• Edwards AFB • Total Air Force and civOian contractor personnel is 
projected to decrease by several thousand over the next few years. 

These Air Force actions are expected to have a minimal impact on alternatives 
for reuse of George AFB. 

The proposed realignment of U.S. 395 (Figure 2.5-1) would have the mitigating 
effect of increasing roadway capacity, thereby reducing the level of service 
(LjOS) rating. A prefect start-up date has not yet been established. 


George AFB Disposai and Reuse FEIS 


2-47 




























The SST. proposed by the CalHomia-Nevada Super-Speed Ground 
Transportation Commission, has been delayed for foe forseeabie future due to 
financing difficulties. The possible traffic mitigation effects of the SST are 
addressed under the International Airport Alternative in Section 4.2.3.2. 

2.6 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

A summary comparison of the influencing foctors and environmental impacts on 
each biophysical resource affected by the Proposed Action and alternatives is 
presented in Tables 2.6-1 through 2.6-6. InfluerKing factors are non-biophysical 
elements, such as population, employment, land use, aesthetics, public utility 
systems, arfo transportation networks, that directly Impact the environment. 
These activities have been analyzed to determine their effects on the 
environment Impacts to the SiTvironment are described briefly in the summary 
and discussed in detal in Chapter 4.0. Tables 2.6-7 and 2.6-8 present 
influencing factors and environmental impacts of the federal transfers and 
independent land use concepts. 


George AFB DIsposeJ and Reuse FEIS 


2-49 








Table 2.6-1. Summary of Prolect-Relatad Influencing Factora for Reuae of George AFB in the Year 1998* 

Page 1 of 2 


II 

ii]|i nil!! f 

1 

i 

s § § Ilf !!l - 1 IL 

'S^'B fug 

1 i! 11! I 111! 1 Hi 

General Aviation Center 
Alternative 

Increase of 5,700 

Increase of 6,500 

Increase of 6,100 

Increase of 3,800 

Increase of 5,800 

Increase of 76,300 

Increase of 28,600 

Increase of 1.5 million 

Increase of 0.3 million 

Increase of 0.03 million 

Increase of 140 

Increase of 7,500 

No property acquisition 
requirsNd. Potential conflict 
wim residantial-zoned 

areas 

Commercial Airport with 
Raaidantial Alternative 

Increase of 5,000 

Increase of 5,800 

Increase of 5,100 

Increase of 2,800 

Increase of 5,300 

Increase of 75,400 

Increase of 53,600 

Increase of 1.1 million 

Increase of 0.3 million 

Increase of 0.02 million 

Increase of 110 

Increase of 5,800 

No proper^ acquisillon 
required, (inflict with 
current zoning 

International Airport 
Alternative 

increase of 32,000 

Increase of 36,500 

Increase of 36,100 

Increase of 13,400 

Increase of 25,000 

Increase of 146,100 

Increase of 103,400 

Increase of 7.3 million 

Increaee of 1.6 million 

Increase of 0.16 million 

Increase of 660 

Increase of 36,700 

Acquisition of 6,338 acres 
required. Relocation of 

490 residences, 

2 apartments, and 

30 non-residential 
establishments. Conflicts 
with residential 
development 

Proposed Action 

Increase of 8,100 

increase of 9,400 

Increaee of 9,100 

Increase of 5,000 

Increase of 9,200 

Increaee of 33,000 

Increase of 53,600 

Increase of 1.8 million 

Increase of 0.4 million 

Increase of 0.04 million 

Increase of 170 

Increase of 9,300 

Acquisition of 338 acres 
required. Relocation of 

1 r^denoe. Conflicts with 
residential development 

neaouroo Category 

1 1 1 1 
t - If- 

IM !?if IHt 

s lili 1 It li If it 11 111 

•• . 


e 





<Q 

Hi 

S 

o 

(C 


S 


Q 

5 


I 

(S 


2-50 






















Table 2.6<1. Summary of Project-Ralatad Influencing Factore for Rauae of George AFB in the Year 1998* 

Page 2 of 2 



telora raftoel Chang* In P ropoaad Action and aH altamativaa over No-Action ANamativ* In 1896 (a.g-. amploymant undar P r opo a a d Action la raducad by tha 



















252 



a 

u. 

< 

I 

(9 

o 

s 

s 

c 



18 

S 


8 

0. 


E 

a 

(O 


ci 


ci 


A 

i2 


li 

If li If lilf i t f f f f} 1 

1 

1 

1 ? i. 1 ? 1 ll! 8 § iL 

•B-B-S ^^-Bi-B^^B-B fog 

III 1 ! M III! 

III lllslllllsis 

Generai Aviation Center 
Alternative 

ill |1| 

III § 1 I 1 111 8 I 111 

N-coo) lOKOimoroo**^ ^ g g 

oBB BBBBBBBBB f ^ £ 

1 1 1 1 3 1 i i i i I i 111, 

III 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 iHl 

£ 

^1 

ll 

E S 

li 

< 3 £ 

fi III ll 

• ” «o ” of S S ci 6 6 " o» ij? £ 

BBB BBBBBBBBB f^ § 

111 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 Hi 

III Illlllllli^S 

1 

If 

S 9 

Increasa of 36,400 

increaae of 41,600 

tnerease of 38,800 

Incroaae of 15,000 

increaae of 28,600 

increaae of 171,800 

Increase of 264,400 

Inorease of 8.3 million 

Inoreaae of 2.3 million 

increase of 0.18 million 

Inorease of 780 

Increase of 41,800 

Acquisition of 7,013 acres 
required. Relocation of 

490 residences, 2 
apartments, arKf 30 
non-reaidential 
establishments. Conflicts 
with residential 
rlevelopment and current 
zoning 

Proposed Action 

Increaae of 16,900 

Increaae of 19,600 

Increase of 17,900 

Inoreaae of 10,000 

Increase of 18,100 

Increase of 64,900 

Increaae of 64,700 

Increaae of 3.8 million 

Increaae of 1.1 million 

increase of 0.08 million 

Increaae of 360 

Increaae of 19,300 

Acquisition of 473 acres 
required. Relocation of 

1 residence. Conflicts with 
residential development 

1 

§ 

1 

I 1 1 i 1 

fif |j|f 

||l 2 liU i It 111 111 II lil 


Faclon r«(l«ct change in Propoaad Action and aii allamativM over No-Action AHarnativo in 2003 (a.g., ampioymant under Proposed Action is reduced by the number of DMT 

George AFB Dl^xsal and Reuse FEIS 





















TabI* 2.b-2. SumnMry of Profact-Ralatad Influancing Factors for Rauaa of Gaorga AFB In the Year 2003* 

Page 2 of 2 



George AfB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 

















Table 2.6-3. Summary of Project-Related Influencing Factors for Reuse of George AFB In the Year 2013* 

Page 1 of 2 


ii 

!|l|l| hilt! tit U ! 

1 

III III H§ 1 1 IL 

'8'8'S&666'8'8 fOg 

Hi 1!! hi! 111 

Ganeral Aviation Cantor 

AHamativa 

s 

III § 1 1 1 111 s !- fll 

coated idi«ratMAOON-- 

■S'S'S 'S'S’S'S'S'S'S'S'S 

Hi i i i! Ill! I i 

Commardal Airport with 
nssidanttal AHamativa 

Incraasa of 14,100 

Incraasa of 16,500 

Incraasa of 13,000 

Incraasa of 8,200 

Incraasa of 15,200 

Incraasa of 146,400 

Incraasa of 78,000 

Incraasa of 3.2 million 

Incraaao of 1.0 million 

Incraasa of 0.07 million 

Incraasa of 310 

Incraasa of 16,100 

No proparfy aoquisHion 
raquirad. Conflict wHh 
currant zoning 

Intamational Airport 
AHamativa 

Incraasa of 56,700 

Incraasa of 64,900 

Incraasa of 54,800 

Incraasa of 31,000 

Incraasa of 50,400 

Incraasa of 300,900 

Incraasa of 670,300 

Incraasa of 12.9 million 

Incraasa of 3.9 million 

Incraasa of 0.28 million 

Incraasa of 1,240 

Incraasa of 65,000 

AoquWtlon of 8,353 acras 
raquirad. Rslocation of 

490 rasManoas, 2 
apartmants, and 30 
non-raskfandal 
astablishmants. Conflicts 
with rasidantial 
davalopmant and currant 
zoning 

Propoaad Action 

1 i 1 fill 

§ g g § g g § 111 s § sill 

» 8 » S S 8 S' 5 * 5 8 8 

’S'B’6 ^^^666666 

ill i i i i iii i i iill 

1 

1 

liftliHtliyillllii 

I* •• . 


2-54 


F»9lora raftoet chang* In P ropo—d Action and aH aHamativat ovor No-Acdon AHamativa In 2013 (a.o., amptoymant undar Propoaad Action is raduoad by tha 

Georye AFB DIspoxI and Reuse FEIS 



























SumnMry of ProjAd-ftolatMl InflUMicing Factor* lor Haua# of Gaorga AFB in th* Yaar 2013* 













Tabte 2.6-4. Sumnwry of Projoetad Envkonmantal Impacta of Reuse of George AFB in the Year 1698* 



2-56 


George Dl^x>sal and Reuse FEIS 





TabI* 2.6-5. Summary of Prolactad Environmantal Impaela of Rauaa of Qaorga AFB hi tha Yaar 2003* 



2-57 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





TabI* 2.6-6. Summary of Projactad Environmental Impacta of Rauaa of Gaorga AFB in the Year 2013* 


I, li 


Is? 

Ill 


|it 

sill 



I !i! 


b|s 

<'lll 

IlHlt 

lli«tl 


nil 


ill 


Ms 

III 

Iss 


l2f 


^ii 

• c 


• = 025 

mil ilS £il 


1 s 

St S s 
s ? "a K "S 

lifsl ii| 
In-i ill 
Hill U 
lllll lU 

1, U l| 
il IK 

:|l|| ||| 

ilsll Hi 

lllll 111 


9 c 

|M 

j si 

£rf 


lilU 


II 2 I 


||if| I 


• Q 8 

ml ^ 

Isal 


-358 

sis 


!Ni 


li5| I 

ikhi 

llllli 

• 0 S 

IMII 

I II 


U 

1 !} i 

lllill 1 

pilll s 

NiHf I 
lllill I i 


i'lii I I 

iii I > 

irllll i i 


a 

s 6 

I I 



I ® 

I 


2-58 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


Table 2.S-7. Summary of Project-Related Influencing Factora Aeaociated with Other Land Use Co 



George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





Tabte 2.6-8. Summary of Projactad Environmantal Impacta Aaaociatad wHh Olhar Land Uaa 



2-60 


George AFB Disp<^ and Reuse FEIS 




CHAPTER 3 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 







3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 


This chapter describes the environmental corxlitions of George AFB and its ROi 
as it wouid be at the time of base closure. The disposai and reuse of George 
AFB may influence the surrounding communities of Adelanto, VictorvWe, Apple 
Vailey, and Hesperia. 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter provides information to serve as a baseiine from which to identify 
and evaluate environmentsJ changes. Although this EIS focuses on the 
biophysical environment, some non-biophysical elements, or influencing factors 
are addressed to the extern that they directly impact the environment. The 
non-blophysical elements of population and employment, land use and 
aesthetics, public utility systems, and transportation networks in the region arxi 
local communities are addressed. This chapter also describes hazardous 
materials found on base, storage tanks, asbestos, herbicides and pesticides, 
|30iycNorinated biphenyls (PCBs), radon, medical and biohazardous waste, and 
the IRP process. Finally, it describes the pertinent natural resources oi soils and 
geology, water resources, air quality, noise, biological resources, and cultural 
resources. 

The ROI to be studied will be defined for each resource area affected by the 
Proposed Action and alternatives. The ROI determines the geographical area to 
be addressed as the affected environment. Although the base boundary may 
constitute the ROI limit for many resources, potential impacts associated with 
certain issues (e.g., air quality, utility systems, and water resources) transcend 
these limits. ROIs are carefully delineated to produce an accurate basis for 
analysis regarding base disposal and reuse impacts. 

The baseiine conditions assumed for the purposes of analysis in this document 
are the conditions projected at base closure. Impacts associated with disposal 
and/or reuse activities may then be addressed separately from the impacts 
associated with base closure. The closure EIS (U.S. Air Force, 1990e) 
addressed the general preciosure conditions and impacts of closure. A 
reference to preciosure conditions is provided, where appropriate (e.g., air 
quality) in this document, in order to provide a comparative analysis over time. 
This will assist the decision maker and agencies in understanding potential 
long-term impacts in comparison to conditions when the installation was active. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-1 






3.2 


LOCAL COMMUNITY 


3.2.1 Community Sotting 

George AFB is in the Mojave Desert in southwestern San Bernardino County, 
Caiifomia (Figure 3.2*1). The base is bordered by the cities of Adelanto to the 
west and southwest and Victorville to the southeast. The base is situated in a 
geographic subregion of the southwestern Mojave Desert known as the Victor 
Valley. This analysis utflizes census tract bourxlaries to approximate the 
geographic area known as the Victor Valley. These boundaries are illustrated in 
Figure 3.2-1. It is also called the “High Desert,” designated as such by virtue of 
its elevation of approximately 3,000 feet, in contrast to the below-sea level 
Colorado and Sonoran deserts to the southeast. Most of the population of the 
Victor Valley reside in the cities of Adelanto. Victorville, and Hesperia and the 
town of Apple Valley. 

The two-county (San Bernardino and Riverside) area is considered the ROI for 
purposes of describing and analyzing employment effects. Because the 
greatest job and popidation effects are expected to occur in the Victor Valley, 
the valley is used as an area of concentrated study for community impacts in 
this EIS. 

The populations of San Bernardino and Riverside counties were among the four 
bstest growing in Caiifomia during the 1980$. The two-county ROI increased in 
population from 1.6 million in 1980 to 2.6 million in 1990, an average annual 
growth rate of 5.2 percent during the decade. Ail Victor Valley communities 
witnessed even more rapid population growth during the 1980s. particularly 
during the last half of the decade when the valley was the fastest growing 
portion of San Bernardino County. Average annual rates of population growth 
for key area communities from 1980 to 1990 were as follows: 

• Adelanto, 14.7 percent 

• Apple Valley, 12.4 percent 

• Hesperia, 14.1 percent 

• Victorville, 11.1 percent. 

The populations of Adelanto and Hesperia nearly quadrupled between 1980 and 
1990, arxl both Apple Valley and Victorville tripled in population during the 
decade. Both San Bernardino and Riverside counties are projected to continue 
their rapid growth through the year 2020. Based on results of the 1990 census, 
the Victor Valley communities had the following population figures in April 1990: 
Victorvflie 40,700, Adelanto 8,500, Hesperia 50,400, and Apple Valley 46,100. At 
the time of base closure (January 1993), the population of the Victor Valley is 
projected to be 196,200. 


3-2 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







EXPLANATION 

^ Airports 


[••".••l.-j 'Viclor Valley* Census Tracis 
Interstate Highway 
^ U. S. Highway 


Regional Map 


State Highway 



George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-3 





















































































In 1989, George AFB had a total mlitary-related population of 13,291, which 
included 4,346 permanent parties and 8,945 mlitary depeixients. An additional 
2,537 military retirees are associated with the base. The on-base population 
decreased slightly between the fiscal years 1989 and 1990, although the number 
of military retirees living in tlw area has gradually increased. The total 
mHitary-reiated population, including all mBitary personnel and their deperxlents, 
increased by 1,741 between 1987 and 1990. At closure, the base-related 
population will decrease to approximately 50 DMT employees. 

The two-county ROI has become less dependent on mUitary jobs since 1970. 
Civilian jobs increased from 375,000 in 1970 to 821,000 in 1988, or an average 
gain of 4.5 percent per year. Military jobs increased from 34,000 in 1970 to just 
35,000 in 1988, for an average rise of only 0.1 percent annually. 

In 1990, there were an estimated 34,100 jobs in the Victor Valley. Currently, the 
largest employers in the Victor Valley are George AFB, Continental Telephone of 
California (Contel), the Victor Valley School District, the Hesperia Unified School 
District, and the Southwest Portiand Cement Company (with at least 900 jobs at 
each organization). A detailed analysis of socioeconomic conditions and 
potential impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives is provided in the 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis Study (U.S. Air Force, 1991c). 

As with many facets of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, housing growth 
increased dramatically during the 1980s. The most rapid housing growth in San 
Bernardino County occurred in the Victor Valley. The number of housing units 
constructed in Adelanto, Apple Valley, and Hesperia nearly tripled between 1980 
and 1990 in response to an increased demand. Similarly, the number of units 
constructed in Victorville increased by approximately two and one-half times 
over the same period. Estimated 1990 vacancy rates were high in all Victor 
Valley communities except Victorville, although these figures largely reflect 
recent rapid construction of new housing. 

George AFB comprises 5,073 acres (Figure 3.2-2), half of which is virtually flat 
(less than 2 percent slope), making this area suitable for aircraft runways. The 
base topography generally slopes downward toward the northeast. The base is 
located on a slight ridge and some sloping occurs toward the north and 
northwest. The highest base elevation Is 2,920 feet mean sea level (MSL) at the 
southwestern comer erf the base, south of Air Base Road, and the lowest 
elevation is rougNy 2,650 feet MSL at the northeastern comer of the base. The 
eastern edge of the base, adjacent to the Mojave RK/er, contains scattered areas 
(a total of about 100 acres) of slopes greater than 25 percent. 

Winter temperatures in some desert areas range near zero, often compounded 
by the wind chill factor. In the summer, temperatures can reach as high as 
120 degrees Fahrenheit in the lower elevations. Rainfall and humidity are 
generally low. Precipitation throughout the desert is less than 4 inches per year. 


3-4 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







fU^ 

0 1000 2000 4000 Feet 




Vicinity 

Topographic Map 


Figure 3.2*2 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-5 
























and uauaRy occurs over a short duration wtth high inten^. The rastMng lash 
floods rapidly modVy the tarr^ that is exposed to the erosKra surface naioir. 
Usually, heavy or persistent rabts cause the temporary flfling of a number of dry 
lakes until the surface water evaporates or htiltrates into the sol. Theaparse 
vegetation in the high desert is represented by sage brush and creosote scrub, 
arxl pkKxHuniperarKf Joshua tree woodtands. 

Access to the George AFB area is provided by several highways. U.S. Highway 
395 njns north-south through Adelanto about 1 mie west of the base. Access 
from the south and northeast is provided by Interstate IS 0*15). which runs 
through Victorvlle and is the major route between Los Angeles, Califomia. and 
Las Vegas, Nevada. Access to this region from the west and east is provided by 
State Route (SR) 18, which runs through VIctorvie and south of Adelanto. 

These highways can be reached from the base via Adelanto Road, which runs 
along the western bourxiary of the base, and Air Base Road, which runs along 
the southern end of the base. 

AMTRAK provides direct passenger ral service from Victorvlie ixxth to Las 
Vegas and south to San Bernardino and Los Angeles. The Union Pacific and 
AtcNnson Topeka arxi Santa Fe (AT&SF) ralroads provide service from 
Victorvlle. Piggyback service is avalabie for pickup and delivery by the AT&SF 
Ralroad; however, the Union Pacific Ralroad requires independent carrier 
service. 

Although small airports designed for recreational use and plot training operate 
in the Victor Valley (Adelanto, Apple Valley, and Hesperia), the largest major 
airport serving the region is Ontario Intemationai Airport, approximately 45 mies 
southwest of George AFB. Ontario Intemationai Airport is served by at least 
eight major carriers witir direct or connecting flights to all major cities in the 
nation. Limousine/shuttie service is avalabie between the Victor Valley and the 
Ontario Airport 

3.Z2 Installation Background 

George AFB was established in 1941 as the Victorvlle Army Airfield to train 
plots arxi bombardiers serving in World War II. At the erxl of the war, the airfield 
was deactivated arxi used for storage. It was reactivated in 1950 arxi renamed 
George AFB in hoixx of Brigadier General Harold H. George. The base was 
developed in a relatively isolated area to avoid larxJ-use conflicts. Support 
communities existed and were established dose to tiie base. In 1951 Tactical 
Air Command (TAG) assumed responsiblity for base operations. George AFB is 
currently the home of the 35th Rghter Wing, under TAG. 

The base contains Its own housing, schools, hospital, commercial, arxi 
recreational faclities, as well as the operational air base. Most of the base 
development took place In the 1940s through the 1960s and many World yNar II 


3-6 


George AFB Dispose/ and Reuse FEIS 





buMbigs are 8tl in existence. Expansion and base ImprioMaments continued 
through the 1980s, but ceased after base closure was announced. 

3,2.3 Land Uae and AestheUea 

This section describes the land uses and aesthetics for the base property and 
the surrounding areas of George AFB at base closure. Proiected land uses al 
closure are assumed to be simlar to existing land uses in the vicinity of the 
base. The ROI includes the base property and potentialiy affected adjacent 
properties that are within the Jurisdiction of the cities of Adelanto and Victorvie 
and portions of San Bernardino County. 

George AFB is owned by the U.S. Government However, approximately 
260 acres in the southwest comer of the base are within the Jurisdictional 
bourxlaries of the dty of Adelanto (Figure 3.2-3). The remaining bese area is 
unincorporated and, imiess transferred within the federal government would fal 
under the Jurisdiction of San Bernardino County after the Afar Force disposes of 
the base property. A 274-acre avigational easement is located south of the 
north-south runway and Air Base Road. This easement is considered perpetual 
and assignable, and has no expiration date. 

George AFB adjoins the communities of Adelanto and VictoivUe. Adelanto is 
located to the north, west and southwest of George AFB; Victorvlle is located 
to the east and southeast of the base. These communities regulate planning, 
zoning, and subdivision control within their respective boundaries and have 
extraterritorial Jurisdiction for planning and subdivision review outside those 
boundaries. Other unincorporated areas surrounding the base are under the 
Jurisdiction of San Bernardino County, which regulates zoning and subdivision 
control. 

3.2.3.1 Land Use 

On>Base Land Use. George AFB wfll continue to provide base support for the 
35th Fighter Wing, tenant units. Air National Guard, and miscelianeous agencies 
unti base closure. The base property, which comprises 5,073 acres, includes 
the following general land uses: 


Land Usa 

Acreage 

Aviation support 

133 

Airfieid 

2.418 

Industrial 

197 

Medical 

12 

Educational 

36 

Commercial 

134 

Public/recreational 

316 

Residentiai 

386 

Vacant Land 

1-441 

TOTAL 

5,073 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-7 







Sources: San Bamanino County, 1990a: The Planning Center, 1991; City of Adelanlo, 1990. 


EXPLANATION 

Adeteilo 

hmm Hesperia 

City Boundaries 

Adelanto Sphere 

1 1 Hesperia Sphere 


[22 Apple VaNey 

1 1 Victorvlle 


nil Apple Vaaey Sphere 

Victorvile Sphere 


ru^ 

0 1 2 4Mles 

9 

Figure 3.2>3 


3-8 George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






































































































































The existing land uses for George AFB arxf vicinity are shovm in Figure 3.2-4. 
The following text briefly describes on-base land use categories. 

The aviation support areas contain feiclities for aircraft ground equipment and 
jet engine maintenance. The faclities Include aircraft repair hangars, equipment 
repair shops, and administrative offices. Reflecting the base's primary mission, 
aviation support areas occupy a large portion of the land at George AFB and 
are located between the airfield and the cantonment area. 

The airfield land use at George AFB contairis focilities to support an active 
military flying installation with an operational airfield. The airfield consists of two 
runways of the following iengtha/widths: 

Runway 17/35 - 10,050 by 150 feet 
Runway 03/21 - 9,126 by 150 feet 

Navigational aids on Runway 17/35 include high-intensity runway lights, strobe 
lights, approach lighting, and radar reflectors. Runway 03/21 has the same 
navigational aids, minus strobe lights. The airfield components are generaUy 
well maintained and In good condition. A renovated aircraft control tower and 
new fire department facility are located adjacent to the flightiine at the northern 
terminus of Cory Boulevard. Three large aircraft hangars, a number of smaller 
hangars, office facilities, warehouses, and maintenance facilities are also 
located along the flightiine. An extensive or - ase liquid fuels system, including 
a bulk storage and flightiine distribution systsm, has been developed to support 
aviation operations. 

The industrial area of the base is northwest of Phantom Road near the flightiine. 
Facilities used for aviation maintenance and warehousing are generally in good 
condition with a mixture of new and old buildings. The munitions storage area, 
south of Air Base Road, includes a new administrative building. 

The medical area, in the southeast portion of the base north of Air Base Road, 
includes the renovated base hospital with a new, attached structure. The facility 
provides a full range of medical and dental services. 

The educational area, in the southeast portion of the base north of Air Base 
Road, includes two elementary schools owned and operated by the Adelarflo 
School District on government land. The terms of the lease provide that the 
facilities would revert back to the Air Force if the schools are vacated. 

The office facilities in the commercial area are generally located in the central 
part of the cantonment area near Cory Boulevard. Several of these office 
buildings, including the Air Division Headquarters and the Resource Managers 
complex, were recently constructed and are generally in good to excellent 
condition. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-9 







Imffeiiaiit (Mfldkial) 


PubirfRaorealion 




:=== AtNndoned Ruiwny 
• NalA|)pioaUe 


0 7901S00 3000 Feet 




Figure 3.2*4 


3-10 


Geoige AFB Disposed and Reuse FEIS 
























An a(klitk)nai on-base commercial area supports both ratal and service needs 
of base personnel. RtcUties Include the base exchange, commissary, bcM^ 
aNey, mini-mail, credit union, bank, beverage store, fast-food restaurant, 
automoMe service stadon, post office, chid care center, movie theater, and 
temporary lodging fadWes. The fast-food restaurant (Burger King), post office, 
arxi beverage store have been constructed since 1985. 

PubHc/recreatlonal fadiUes indude a P-hole goK course in the southeast area 
of the base adjacent to base housing. The course bidudes a dubhouse/pro 
shop, a new golf cart bam, arxi driving range. Indoor recreational fadities 
indude a gymnasium that is ec^ipped with racquetbal courts, weHiH^ room, 
basketbali court dressing rooms, and sauna. 

A large park, induding a pod, is located dose to the base gymnasium. 
Additional swimming pods are located at the Officers’and NCOS* Clubs. Within 
the base cantorunerX, there are tennis courts in two locations, in addition to six 
baseball fields, two of which are Littie League baseball fields. 

Additional tadkies indude a recreational center, arts arxi crafts center, an auto 
hobby shop, and skeet shooting range. Thera is also an atNetic field and 
running track to the west of the elementary schods that is currently not used. 

The residential areas at George AFB indude single- and mdtiple-famly housing 
units arxi dormitories. 

The George AFB family housing area consisting of 1,641 units is located on the 
eastern part of the base, north of Air Base Road. The housing consists d 1,617 
multipie-bmiy units arxi 24 singie-famHy homes. The buHdings were 
constructed between 1951 and 1966, have been well maintained, and are 
generally In good condition. Most units have been renovated over the years. 
Open space areas and playgrounds are located throughout the entire housing 
complex. The housing area is well landscaped with grass yards and large 
shade trees. Parking areas are limited and there are only a few garages. 

There are 1,786 units of dormitory and temporary lodging facilities in two 
separate areas on the base. The newer dormitories irxdude separate 
dayroom/laundry structures. Thera are also separate parking lots avalable for 
each of the holdings, as well as two dining hail fadities. Rooms in the newer 
dormitories have irxlividuai exterior entries and private bathroom fodities, 
whereas the rooms in the older buldings exit to a common hallway and have 
common bathroom fadities. Thera are no cooking fodities within any of the 
dormitory rooms. 

The existing urxjeveloped vacant larxl areas at George AFB are primarly 
located near the residential and Industrial areas. These are generally 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-11 







developabie except for areas with 15 percent or greater slopes afong the 
eastern base boundary. 

Adjacent Land Uae. George AFB is adjacertf to the cities of Adelanto to the 
west/southwest and Victorvlle to the east and southeast Approximately 
260 acres fo the southwest comer of the base is witMn Adelanto’s city limits. 

This area is zoned open space-public land (OS-PI 4 . The majority of land 
adjacent to the base is privately owned and is zoned for residential, commercial, 
and Industrial uses. Figure 3.2-5 depicts land uses of the developed areas in the 
vicinity of George AFB. 

In the city of Adelanto there is an urbanized area of 1,000 acres that is bounded 
by Air Base Road on the south, Crippen Avenue on the north, U.S. 395 on the 
west, and the base bourtdary on the east This area contains 458 stucco or 
wood-frame residences, 2 apartment complexes, 4 government foclities 
(Adelanto Fire Station, police station, U.S. Post Office, and the Adelanto School 
District offices), 23 commercial establishments, 4 churches, and some Industrial 
development. The residential uses within this area are concentrated in the 
northern portion and scattered throughout this urbanized area. The churches, 
apartments, and public facHities are located throughout the area. Commercial 
uses are generally located along U.S. 395 and Air Base Road. The light 
industrial uses are located aiong the west side cX the base between Adelanto 
Road and the base 

Another growth area in Adelanto, where sporadic development has occurred, is 
bounded by U.S. 395 on the east, Crippen Avenue on the north, Mojave Drive on 
the south, and extends westward approximately three miles to Koala Road. This 
area is zoned for a mix of residential, industrial, and commercial uses and 
contains several recent housing and industrial park developments, induding 
apartment, mobile home, and single-family projects along Lee, Bartlett, and 
Lawson Avenues, and along Air Base Road. A large industrial development is 
located northeast of the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) 
power plant at Rancho Road and Raccoon Avenue. The Adelanto Correctional 
Facility Is also located in this area. Other large parcels are developed or are 
under construction southwest of the power plant and along Rancho Road 
eastward to Beliflower Road. 

Immediately to the north of the urbanized area of Adelanto and north of the 
base is an area of 7,000 acres that is mainly vacant desert land with scattered 
rural residences. This area is within Adelanto and its sphere of influence. The 
area is generally bounded by foe base on the south, midway between Terosa 
Road and Madera Road on foe north, US. 395 on the west, and Helendale Road 
on the east. The residences consist of 16 modular homes and 15 houses. In 
addition there are five trailer houses occupied in this area. The majority of the 
modular homes and houses are located in two sections 1 -1/2 mBes 
north/northwest of the northern end of the north-south runway. In addition, a 


3-12 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





EXPLANATION 



Existing Off-Base 

Airiiekr 

bisftjional (Eduoatian) 

A^ioiinure* 

Land Use 

Avialicn Supfw^ 

CCTWfwroiii 

^ Vaoant Land 


Muitial 

0 Reaidenlial 

BaaeBoualvy 


haffeitianii (Medkai)* PuMnfRaoreation 

Abandoned Runwniy 


nsi 

0 1/4 1/2 IMte 


••.■•••■•••••• Dirt Road 


9 

* Not Apiifodble 

Figure 3.2-5 


Geo/ge AFB Df^saf and Reuse FEIS 


3-13 































horse ranch, an automoble wrecking yard, and some abandoned wood-frame 
holdings are present in this area. To the northeast of the rK)rth-soi^ runway, 
the off-base iand is vacant desert with no reeidentiai deveiopment. 

Larxi uses southwest and soirth of the base are dominated by open space with 
pockets of commerciai or industrlai development at major iraersections. 
Commerciai iand uses are iocated aiong Bartlett Avenue and U.S. 395. The new 
City Government Center is iocated on Afar Base Road, at U.S. 395, ^th more 
generally isolated commercial development occurrirrg eastward to Adelanto 
Road. A large industrial land use is iocated east of Adelanto Road, north of 
Rancho Road. 

The county of San Bernardino borders George APB on the east and north. 

Within this area the Mojave River channel lies approximately 0.25 mie east of 
the base at Its closest point. Presently, there is some scattered housing 
development in this area about 1.5 mies north of Air Base Road, between the 
base and the river. About 0.5 mile north of the northeast comer of the base is 
the Victor Valley Regional Wastewater Facility. 

The city of Victorville borders George AFB on the east and the eastern portion of 
the south base boundary. Existing development within the city of Victorville, 
adjacent to George AFB, is generally confined to residential development aiong 
both sides of Village Drive, starting approximately 0.5 mile south of Air Base 
Road and continuing south to Mojave Drive, in addition, new residential 
development is proposed south of Air Base Road. Two new single-family 
residential developments including 336 acres are proposed adjacent to Village 
Drive. The densities of these developments range from 2.9 to 3.6 dwelling units 
per acre (Victorville Planning Department, 1991). The remaining areas in 
Victorville adjacent to the base are undeveloped, and planned for industrial 
development as indicated in the Victorville General Plan (Cotton, Beiand and 
Associate, 1988). 

Land Use Plans. The cities of Adelanto and VictorviHe and the county of San 
Bernardino have jurisdiction over the lands adjacent to the base (see 
Figure 3.2-3). Each of these entities has a General Plan. The city of Adelanto 
has adopted the land use plan, not the entire General Plan (The Planning 
Center, 1990a), as the interim policy direction the city plans to implement. The 
plan covers 20,000 acres, including George AFB, and proposes the 
development of an international airport facility. The plan also includes 
noise-compatible land uses, such as manufacturing, industrial, and business 
parks, in the projected overflight areas. The city of Victorville’s General Plan 
(Cotton, Beiand and Associate, 1988) indicates light industrlai uses adjacent to 
the southeast portion of George AFB. Their plan also includes some 
commercial areas and indicates a flood plain along the Mojave River. The San 
Bernardino County General Plan (San Bernardino County, 1990c) indicates a 
fioodway along the Mojave River aixl agricultural/low density residential 


3-14 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




devek)pment(1()-acren^nimum parcel size) to the east of the base. Thecounly 
plan Includes a 5-acre mininiun parcel size for low-density residential usee 
north of the base. 

Air Force Policlea Affecting Adjacent Land Usee. The Air Force developed 
the Air InstaNation Compatible Use Zone (AlCUZ) program to minimize 
development that is irKSompatibie with aviation operations in areas on and 
adjacent to mlitary airfields. Municipalities that have land located within the 
AlCUZ are not required to zone this land in accordance with the AlCUZ. 
However, the Air Force erwourages cooperation by such jurtedictions when 
making land use decisions. 

The AlCUZ land use recommendations for areas near a mlitary airfield are 
based on two composite studies. One study addresses compatible land uses 
based on exposure levels to aircraft noise. The other addresses safety issues 
and identifies the areas with hazard potential due to aircraft accidents and 
obstructions to air navigation. Then the composite study is prepared with the 
safety zones and noise contours combined to make 13 Compatible Use Districts 
(CUDs). CUOs are delineated specifically for each individual Air Force base, 
using operational information derived from the base mission. An AlCUZ report 
for George AF6 was issued in 1983 (U.S. Air Force, 1983). 

The AlCUZ program applies only to mlitary airfields. SimOar criteria are 
established by the FAA for civSian airports. With the closure of George AFB, 

FAA criteria wll apply to airport activities. 

AlCUZ Noise Considerations. AlCUZ noise contours are based on composite 
noise ratings that are calculated from flight patterns, numbers and types of 
aircraft, power settings, times of operations, and climatic conditions (U.S. Air 
Force, 1983). A day-night weighted average sound level (DNL) is used to 
describe the noise environment. 

Figure 3.4-3 shows the DNL noise contours for the baseline aircraft activity at 
George AFB. Within the DNL 65 dB contour, 8,970 acres are in Adeianto, 

3,300 acres are in VictorvUe, and 15,120 acres are in San Bernardino County. 
The areas of Victorvlle and Adeianto most affected by noise are zoned for 
single-famly residential and industrial use. Industrial use is generally 
compatible with noise levels of DNL 65 to 75 dB. 

AlCUZ Safety Considerations. The second objective of the AlCUZ is to ensure 
that the areas surrounding the base are safe and that land uses in areas of high 
accident potential are properly planned. The AlCUZ delineates areas at either 
end of the runway where the probablity of aircraft accidents are highest These 
areas have been identified through statistical analysis of past Air Force aircraft 
accidents in the vicinity of Air Force facilities worldwide. Based on acciderrt risk, 
certain iarxl use restrictions are recommerxied arxJ identified by specific zones 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-15 




known as the Clear Zone (CZ) and two Accident Potential Zones (APZs), APZI 
andAPZIl. 

The area directly beyond either erxl of the runway is designated as a CZ. This 
zone extends for 3,000 fe^ from the end of the runway and is 2,000 to 3,000 feet 
wide centered on the extended runway centerline. The Air Force recommerxls 
no development in the CZ (U.S. Air Force, 1983). At George AFB, the CZ is 
appliedtotheendsof each of the two runways and within these CZs the land is 
undeveloped desert (Figure 3.2-4). 

The APZs are located beyond the CZ. Each zone designates different specific 
allowable uses. APZ I extends beyond the CZ for 5.000 feet and is 3,000 feet 
wide. Industrial, agricutturai, recreation, and open space uses are allowed in the 
APZ i. Residential and iarxl uses that concentrate large numbers of people are 
discouraged in APZ I (U.S. Air Force, 1983). The APZ I at George AFB 
encompasses undeveloped desert, a horse ranch north of the base, and 
commercial, industrial, and residential development along Adelanto Road. 

Low density residentiai arxl retaH uses of low intensity are allowed in APZ II in 
addition to the uses allowed In APZ 1. APZ 11 extends an additional 7,000 feet 
beyorxl APZ I and is 3,000 feet wide with a less critical accident potential rating. 

At George AFB, within APZ II there are approximately 20 residences 
(low-density) along National Trails Highway and southwest of U.S. 395. 

San Bernardino County developed the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to 
address potential land use compatibility/safety issues related to airport traffic 
which are designated on Hazards Overlay Maps. Noise-related aviation hazards 
are included in the Noise Bement in the San Bernardino County General Plan 
(19g0c). 

Because airports do not own or control the land necessary to ensure the safety 
of their operations and adjacent land uses, the county of San Bernardino has 
adopted the following policies applicable to airports including George AFB, as 
follows: 

• Adopt a Land Use Compatibflity Aviation Chart, as set forth in the San 
Bernardino County General Plan (1990c). 

• Adopt a safety area for George AFB that is one mOe outside the existing 
65 ONL contour line. 

• Evaluate existing larxl uses for compatibility and amerxl through the 
General Plan Amerximent process If land use conflicts exist 

• Continue the support of the ALUC in San Bernardino County including 
updating existing and initiating new comprehensive Land Use Plan 
studies for each airport In the county. 

• Adopt the AlCUZ Accident Potential Zone Maps and land use 
compatiblity charts 


3-16 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






At George AFB the San Bernardino County Airport Safety Review Areas extend 
beyond the base boundary in aH directions ranging from 1 to 5 mies. The 
county has not initiated action to revise these overlay maps to reflect base 
closure, pending decisions on reuse. If the reuse of George AFB includes an 
airport, San BemardirK} County wU need to revise safety zones and noise 
impacted areas maps. The zoning and general plans for each entity, with 
jurisdiction in the impacted area, wHI need to be updated once a decision on 
reuse is determined. 

Closure Baseline. Under baseline conditions, George AFB would be dosed 
arxl airfield operations would be terminated, rerrKJving all land use conflicts and 
constraints associated with the AlCUZ. Land use restrictions contained in the 
San Bernardino County General Plan (1990c) and zoning/General Plans for the 
cities of Adeianto and Victorville presumably would remain in effect, however, 
unti repealed or modified. 

3.2.3.2 Aesthetics. Visual resources indude natural and man-made features 
that give a particuiar environment its aesthetic quaiities. Criteri. used in the 
anaiysis of these resources indude visuai sensitivity, which is the degree of 
public interest in a visuai resource and concern over adverse changes in its 
quality. Visuai sensitivity is categorized in terms of high, medium, or low levels. 

High visuai sensitivity exists in areas where views are rare, unique, or in other 
ways special, such as in remote or pristine environments. High-sensitMty views 
would indude landscapes that have landforms, vegetative patterns, water 
bodies, or rock formations of unusual or outstanding quality. Views from the 
east side of George AFB are considered to be of high visual sensitivity, and 
indude the Mojave River in the foreground and Quartzite Mountain in the 
background. These views are mapped in Rgure 3.2-6. 

Medium visual sensitivity areas are more developed than those of high 
sensitivity. Human influence is more apparent in these areas and the presence 
of motorized vehides and other evidence of modem civilization is 
commonplace. These landscapes generally have features containing varieties 
in form, line, cdor, and texture, but tend to be more common than high visuai 
sensitivity areas. The residential areas with numerous mature trees, and the golf 
course and its related landforms are considered to be of medium visual 
sensitivity. 

Low visual sensitivity areas tend to have minimal landscape features, with little 
change in form, line, color, and texture. The portions of George AFB not 
previously mentioned in terms of aesthetics are considered to have low visual 
sensitivity. 

Only a few areas of George AFB are readly visible from off base. The west side 
of the base is visible from Adeianto Road, the south portion from Air Base Road, 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-17 









EXPLANATION 

SoanicVWa 
Dirt Road 
BasoBoundaiy 
=== Abandoned Runway 


High Visual 
Sensitivity Map 


nn 

0 1M 1/2 II 


^9 


Rgure 3^-6 




















and the east side from Shay Road. The base institutional and residential areas 
are not readly visttsle from off base. 

The desert areas surroimding the base are generally of low visual sensitivity. 

The medium visual sensWvity area southwest of the base. In the dty of Adelanlo, 
is used for residentiai and some commercial purposes. 

The aesthetics of George AFB, especiaNy in the residential areas and along Cory 
Boulevard, have been enhanced by numerous landscape projects throughout 
the years. Trees have been planted along the streets in these areas and are 
now mature. 

Other oivbase Improvement projects coixlucted in the 1980s Include 
construction of the following major holdings and related landscaping: 

• Dormitory complex 

• Division headquarters 

• Communications faclity 

• Rre station 

• Squadron operations. 

These new bulding projects have been constructed using masonry units or 
stucco to complement the base’s original buldings. 

Approximately half of the land at George AFB is vacant iand. Recreational areas 
with associated open space provide visually pleasing views, especially eastward 
from the base. The 9-hoie golf course has tree-lined fairways and many 
landforms that enhance the visual appeal of the course. The golf course offers 
panoramic views of the Mojave River and of Quartzite Mountain to the northeast 

3.2.4 Tlransportation 

The ROI for the transportation analysis includes the existing principal road, air, 
and ral networks In the Victor Valley portion of San Bernardino County. The 
analysis focuses on the segments of the transportation networks in the region 
that serve as direct or necessary indirect linkages to the base, and those that 
are commonly used by personnel at George AFB. The area iri the immediate 
vicinity of the base is of special interest. 

3.2.4.1 Roadways. Traffic volumes typically are reported as either the daly 
number of vehicular movements in both directions on a segment of roadway, 
averaged over a full calendar year (average annual daly traffic, or AADT) or the 
number of vehicular movements on a road segment during the average peak 
hour. The average peak-hour volume typically Is about 10 percent of the AADT 
(Transportation Research Board, 1985). These values are useful Indicators in 


George AFB I^sposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-19 





(totermining the ttctent to which the roadway segment is used aixl in assessing 
the potential for congestion and c^er problems. 


Traffic flow conditions are generally reported in terms of LOS, rating tectors that 
represent the general freedom (or restriction) of movement on roadways 
(Table 3.2-1). The LOS scale ranges from A to F, with low-volume, high-speed, 
free-flowing conditions classified as LOS A. lOS E is representative of 
conditions that, although not favorable from the point of view of the motorist, 
provide the greatest throughput per hour. With minor interruptions, however, 
LOS E will deteriorate to LOS F (Transportation Research Board, 1985). As 
traffic volumes increase or traffic-handling capacities along given roadways 
decrease, free-fiow conditions become restricted and LOS deteriorates. LOS F 
represents breakdown, stop-and-go conditions. Levels of service generally are 
evaluated and reported for typical clear-weather conditions. 


TM|e3^^|l|_RoadJ|ians£ortationj£vels^o^ 





Criteria (Volume/Capacitv) 

LOS 

Description 

4-Lane 

Freeway 

4-Lane 

Arterial 

2-Lane 

Highway 

A 

Free flow with users unaffected by 
presence of others in traffic stream 

0-0.35 

0-0.28 

0 -0.10 

B 

Stable flow, but presence of other 
users in traffic stream becomes 
noticeable 

0.36-0.54 

0.29-0.45 

0.11-0.23 

C 

Stable flow, but operation of single 
users becomes affected by 
interactions with others in traffic 
stream 

0.55-0.77 

0.46-0.60 

0.24-0.39 

0 

High density, but stable flow; speed 
and freedom of movement are 
severely restricted; poor level of 
comfort and convenience 

0.78-0.93 

0.61-0.76 

0.40-0.57 

E 

Unstable flow; operating conditions 
near capacity with reduced speeds, 
maneuvering difficulty, and extremely 
poor levels df comfort and 
convenience 

0.94-1.00 

0.77-1.00 

0.58-0.94 

F 

Forced or breakdown flow with traffic 
demand exceeding capacity; unstable 
stop-and-go traffic 

>1.00 

>1.00 

>0.94 


Souroa: Tranapoftation Raaaareh Board, 1965. 


Traffic flow conditions usually are most congested during morning and evening 
peak hours, and depend on the physical characteristics of the roadway, traffic 
volumes, and the vehicular mix of traffic. A common design goal is to provide 
peak-hour service at levels no tower than LOS C or 0. A typical two-lane rural 


3-20 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 











hlQhnMay wi have a maximum tMK>-^y design capacity of 2,000 to 2.800 
passenger vehicles per hou: On such roads, travel is affected substantialy by 
traffic in the opposing lane, and by curves and hlls, afl of which impair a 
motorist’s aUity to pass safely. By contrast, each lane of an Merstate highway 
(divided, with restricted access) will provide a capacity of about 2,000 vehicles 
per hour under a wide range of coixlitions. In urban or suburban settings, the 
capacity of signalized intersections that rettiict traffic flow influences LOS more 
than the capacity of a roadway segment LOS ratings presented in the 
remairKler of this section are determined by: (1) peak-hour traffic volumes and 
capacity for key roadways, and (2) intersection volumes arxf capacities for 
urban and suburban road segments, as noted. 

Existing road and highway conditions are described at three levels: (1) regional, 
representing the major links within the Victor Valley; (2) local, representing key 
community roads; and (3) George AFB roads. 

Regional. The region surrounding George AFB is served by a network of 
interstate, U.S.. and state highways, and city and county roads (Figure 3.2-1). 
1-15 provides direct access to Ontario, 45 miles to the south, and to Barstow, 

35 miles to the northeast 1-215 connects the base to San Bernardino, about 
45 miles to the south, via 1-15. From Ontario, 1-10 links the region with Los 
Angeles, about 50 mfles west of Ontario, arxf Palm Springs, about 60 miles to 
the east U.S. 395 intersects 1-15 about 13 miles south of the base but diverges 
toward the north, whereas 1-15 continues to run in a northeasterly direction. It is 
proposed to upgrade U.S. 395 to full freeway status, and to relocate it 1 to 
3 mHes west of its present alignment. Caltrans currently is planning to widen 
SR 18 (Palmdale Road) into a four-lane expressway with freeway to surface 
street interchanges at U.S. 395 and 1-15. This would become the first major 
east-west highway through Victor Valley. No dates have been established for 
construction of the U.S. 395 or SR 18 improvements. 

Service levels on regional roads currently are comparatively good (free4iowing) 
on road segments outside the Influence of urban commuting traffic. These 
conditions are expected to be unchanged at base closure. Intercity traffic in the 
region is generally unrestricted and the rural sections of the regional-service 
roads provide acceptable LOS. 

As part of the Victor Valley Infrastructure Enhancement Program (traffic/road 
analysis component) of 1988, the San Bernardino Associated Governments 
(SANBAG) in conjunction with San Bernardino County identified roadway 
infrastructure needs in the Victor Valley to the year 2010. A computer-based 
model used future land use assumptions within the Valley for 1995 and 2010 to 
estimate vehicular trips. These trips were then distributed throughout the Valley 
and assigned to the existing road network. The study, which assumed the 
continued operation of George AFB, recommerKfed the following changes 
pertinent to the vicinity of the base (San Bernardino County, I988b): 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-21 






• U.S. 396, change to freeway status 

• Air Base. Emerald (Topaz). B Mirage, and Adeianto roads, change to 
major arterial divided 

• Cobalt Road (across Air Base Road from GeoTM APB Main 6^) and 
B Evado roads, change to major arterial (rwt dhrided). 

Local Figures 3.2-7 and 3.2-8 show the general local road network now in 
place and projected to be in place at the time of base closure in the immediate 
vicinity of George AFB. Access to George AFB may be gained from either the 
Main Gate (Phantom Street) or the Housing (^e (Cory Boulevard), both of 
which open onto the north side of Air Base Road and are about 1 mie apart 
(Figure 3.2-9). Air Base Road is a two-iane, east-west, collector road that 
ttderxis from National Trals Highway, about 3 mfles east of the Main Gate, to 
U.S. 395, about 2 mies west of that gate. 

National Trals Highway (old U.S. 66) Is a two-lane, north-south collector road 
that becomes SR 18 after it crosses under 1-15, and leads into the city of Apple 
Valley. The most important road leading into the city of Victorvlle from the base 
is Vllage Drive, a fbur-iane, north-south arterial. Adeianto Road is a major 
north-south stre^ in the city of Adeianto, and starts where U.S. 395 diverges to 
the northwest, about 2 mIes south of Air Base Road. Adeianto Road adjoins a 
portion of the western boundary of George AFB. 

Under the various base reuse alternatives analyzed in Chapter 4 of this study, 
five other roadways wll become important to provide access to the base area: 

• HeierKfale Road is in the unincorporated portion of San Bernardino 
County and exterxls rK}rth toward the community of Helendale from 
near the rKxth base boundary. 

• Crippen Road is an ea^-west roadway in Adeianto that crosses 
U.S. 3951 mIe north of Air Base Road and extends to the west base 
boundary. 

• Colusa Road an unincorporated area east-west road that runs 
between Adeianto Road and Helendale Road, about 4 mUes north of Air 
Base Road. 

• B Mirage Road is also an east-west road in Adeianto that presently 
extends west from U.S. 395, but is proposed to extend east to the west 
base boundary. 

• Shay Road is an unincorporated area north-south road that extends 
north from Turner Road about 0.6 mie east of Air Base Road, along the 
east base boundary. 

Ail five of these roads are presently relatively minor two-iane roadways for which 
no traffic data have been collected. The Victorvlle General Plan proposes that 
Air Base Road and National Trals Highway, north of Rancho Road, be improved 
to fbur-iane arterial highways with 84-foot rights-of-way. That plan also 
proposes that B Evado Road south of Rancho Road be improved to parkway 
status with four lanes, divided, and with a 100-foot right-of-way. It also proposes 
to improve Amethyst/Cobait Road to parkway status south from Air Base Road 
(City of Victorvlle, 1990). 


3-22 


George AFB Disposal arxl Reuse FEIS 










Victor Valley 
Transportation Systems 


nj-i ^ 


Rgure 3J2~7 


George Dispose aid Reuse FEIS 


3-23 


























EXPLAHATION 


»BoundHy 

wTO.>x<.r Obt Rosd 

AbindofwdRufVMiy 


George AFB Vicinity: 
Major Streets 


nj-\ ® 


ngure 3.2-8 


3-24 


Geofge AFB CXsposal and Reuse FEIS 

















ru I 


0 ISO 300 


600 FmI 




GeofgeAFBl 





Figure 3^-9 







Praelosura Ratarane*. Predosura (1990) peak-hour tnMc volumes, 
capacities, wid LOS on key conununity roadvvays are shawm In Figure 3.2-10. 
The three roadways shown on that flgure and the five local roadways listed 
above are Identified for this study as key community roads because they would 
provide the most direct access to the George AFB area i 4 )on reuse. The 
current key community roads are: 

• Air Base Road Eiffit (Housing Gate to vnage Drive) 

• Air Base Road West (Main (Bate to U.S. 395) 

• U.S. 395 (Ak Base Road to El Mirage Road) 

• Vllage Drive (Ak Base Road to Mojave Drive). 

The key community road currently experiencing the most critical problem is Ak 
Base Road East, where the peak-hour traffic is about 1,700 and the peak-hour 
LjOSIsE. The high volume is the result of base traffic going to and from the 
Vlctorvflle area via VMage Drive. The other key community roadway with LOS E 
is U.S. 395 between Ak Base Road and El Mirage Road, where the peak-hour 
traffic volume is about 1,300. Ak Base Road West has an LOS of C 
(approaching D), with about 750 peak-hour vehicles. Vllage Drive has an LOS 
of A, and a peak-hour volume of about 875. 1-15 is also operating at a 
peak-hour LOS of C. with a peak hour volume of about 5,600 (Victor Valley 
EcoTKimic Development Authority. 1990b). 

Recently, an additional lane was constructed on Ak Base Road at the Main Gate. 
The current LOSs on the three most important intersections on Air Base Road 
are listed below (Victor Valley Economic Development Authority, 1990b). 


Intersection 


LOS 


a.m. 


p.m. 


Main Gate at Air Base Road A 

Housing (aate at Air Base Road A 

Vllage Drive at Air Base Road A 


A 

E 

B 


Conditions of other pertinent intersections in the area are as follows (Victor 
Valley Economic Development Authority, 1990b): 


• Air Base Road at Adeianto Road 

• Air Base Road at NationaiTraDs 
Highway 

• U.S. 395 at Air Base Road 


Four-way stop; long lines of traffic in 
both directions on Air Base Road 

T-kitersection; stop for Air Base 
Road, bik free right turn; inadequate 
merge area 

Flashing red at intersection; long 
queues on north, south, and 
westbound legs. 


3-26 


Geo^ AFB DisposaJ and Reuse FEIS 










Air Base Rd. East 
Air Base Rd. West 
U.S.395 
VWaoe Drive 


HoudneOalito 

VHagtDr. 

Man Gal* to 
U.&385 

AirBaaoRdto 

BMragoRd. 

AirBaaoRdto 

MojavoDr. 


VaMdaa Per Hour 


Precloaure(19B0) 


Level of 


ItSO 12.000 


SjbOO 4tflQ0 


10/M0 ISeOO 


Closure Baseline (1993) 


Air Base Rd. East 

Air Base Rd. West 


U.S.39S 
VHiage Drive 


AirBaaa Rdto 
BMkagaRd. 

AirBaaa Rdto 
MojavaOr. 



2M0 4J)00 SjOOO SyOOO IOlOOO 12.000 


Noto: 1903 P aa h H our VdumaaaiabaaadupoolOBOIawlB and In CT aa a adeo na i rt i nay 
wHh proiacM popuialon growOi, Ibm baaa ganamad MIc. 


SoureaarWEOA, 1990; TranaportaaonRoaoaich Board, 1985. 



George AFB CXsposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-27 










Accass to the base currenily is gained through the Main Gate and the Housing 
Gate, both of which open onto Air Base Drive. The Main Gate is open 24 hours 
a day, whie the Housing Gate is sik^ect to scheduled closures. The base 
contains 53 mles of paved roadways, mostly laid out in a north-south, east-west 
grid pattern that is cut diagonally by Cory-Wortey boulevards (see Fidpjre 3.2-9). 
The three on-base roads that receive the heaviest traffic are Cory Boulevard. 
Phantom Street, atxi Mustang Street These roadways are designated as the 
key on-base roads for the purposes of this study. All are two-lane roads except 
for Phantom Street which has four lanes between the Main Gate and POL 
Access Road (about 0.5 mie). Figure 3.2-11 shows the peak-hour volume, 
peak-hour capacity, arxi LOS of each of the key on-base roads in 1987, 
including two locatiorw on Cory Boulevard and Phantom Street 

The southerly portion of Phantom Street has a peak-hour volume of about 1,380 
and operates at LOS B (approaching C). Between Mustang Street and Sabre 
Boulevard, Phantom Street operates at LOS D because it is orily a two-lane 
road. Cory Boulevard extends north and then curves northwest from the 
Housing Gate and Air Base Road. Between South Carolina Avenue and Nevada 
Avenue, Cory Boulevard has a peak-hour volume of about 960, and operates at 
LOS D. Between the Housing Gate off Air Base Road and Sheppard Street, 

Cory Boulevard operates at LOS E because of Intersection delays at the gate. 
Mustang Street is the main east-west street between Cory Boulevard and 
Phantom Street It has a peak-hour volume of 395 vehicles and operates at 
LOS B (Military Traffic Management Command Transportation Engineering 
Agency, 1987). 

Closure Baseline. Traffic on the key roads will increase in proportion to the 
area's population minus the traffic generated by the base by the 1993 closure 
baseline. Figure 3.2-10 shows the projected peak hour traffic on the key 
community roads. U.S. 395 wtti continue to have peak hour congestion 
problems, operating at LOS E as in 1990. Without base traffic, however. Air 
Base Road is projected to experience relatively free flow (LOS A and B). 
Community growth is projected to be strong enough that loss of 
base-gerwrated traffic would have littie effect on community peak-hour traffic at 
the time of base closure. 

After closure of George AFB, traffic generated by the base wll no longer use 
these streets, except as required by a 50-person DMT using Cory Boulevard as 
the only access. The LOS for all on-base roads wfll then be A (see Figure 
3.2-11). 

3.2.4.2 Airspace. Airspace is a finite resource that can be defined vertically 
arxi horizontally, as well as temporally, when describing its use for aviation 
purposes. As such, it must be managed and utilized in a manner that best 
serves the competing needs of commercial, general, and military aviation 
interests. The FAA is responsible for the overall management of airspace and 

3-28 George AFB Dispose a/Kf Reuse FEIS 









Roacf 


S«onMnt 


Uvalof 


VcMdMPtrHour 


PrtdCMMjr* (1966-1980) 


CoiyBoulevafd 

■_■ Soulh Carolina Ava. 

CoryBoutevard ^NayadaAva. 




Phantom Street 


AirBaaaRdto 

MuatangSL 


Phantom Street 

kj. __ Phantom St to 

Mustang Street jurriblawaad St 






_J 2.000 

—I- 

2.000 


Closure Baseline (1993) 


Phantom Street 
Cory Boulevard 
Mustang Street 



2.000 

—I- 

2.000 


1 /U(liaughNi989nantorCa(yBoulavardoouUopami8alLav«lorSarvtoa0.bMauaa 
of hMarsBClion (Ways at Air Basa Road, It acluaRy ofwniBS at Laval o( Sarvto E. 

2 Upon dpataa, Cory B o u l evard w S balha main crvbaaa road aarvlng 50 majntananoa 


Souroa: MTMCTEA, 1967. 



George AFB D^fx>sal and Reuse FEIS 


3-29 













has established different airspace designations that are designed to protect 
aircraft while operating to or from an airport transiting enroute between 
airports, or operating within ‘special use” areas identified for defense-related 
purposes. Each type of airspace is defined In the Glossary of Terms and 
Acronyn>s/Abbreviations, Appendix A. Rules of flight and ATC procedures have 
been established which govern how aircraft must operate within each type of 
designated airspace. All aircraft operate under either instrument or visual flight 
ruies (IFR or VFR). IFR aircraft (primarDy commercial and military aviation) 
operate within controlled airspace and are tracked and separated by the ATC 
system. VFR aircraft (prinnarfly general aviation) are not normally tracked by 
ATC but rather fly under a see and be seen concept in which pilots are 
responsible for their own separation from other air traffic. Airspace around the 
busier airports is more stringentiy controlled and may require that all aircraft 
Onduding VFR) be in contact with and monitored by an ATC agency while 
transiting through the area. 

A given geographical region may encompass several different types of airspace 
that apply not only to normal IFR and VFR aircraft operations, but to military 
flight training operations as well. Military operations areas (MOAs) and 
restricted areas are the most common types of airspace that have been 
designated for defense-related activities. MOAs contain nonhazardous air 
Intercept flight training operations which do not restrict transit of other air traffic. 
Restricted areas, however, normally contain aerial gunnery or air-to-ground 
bombing activities and transit through these areas by any non-participating 
aircraft is generally limited while such hazardous activities are taking place. 

The type and dimension of individual airspace areas established within a given 
region and their spatial and procedural relationship to each other is contingent 
upon the different aviation activities conducted in that region. When any 
significant change is planned for this region, such as airport expansion, a new 
military flight mission, etc., the FAA will reassess the airspace configuration to 
determine if such changes will adversely affect (1) air traffic control systems 
and/or facilities; (2) movement of other air traffic in the area; or (3) airspace 
already designated and used for other purposes (i.e., MOAs or restricted areas). 
Therefore, considering the limited availability of airspace for air traffic purposes, 
the given region may or ntay not be able to accommodate any significant airport 
or airspace area expansion plans. 

Airspace ROI. The ROI selected for this study is an area within a 20 nm radius 
erf George AFB from the surface up to 13,000 feet MSL, which represents a 
three-dimensional volume of airspace normally required to support IFR air traffic 
operations at a typical military or civil regional airport (Figure 3.2-12). Airport 
expansion resulting from international growth could require additional 
supporting airspace beyond the dimensions of this ROI. The ROI encompasses 
the different airspace areas that were associated with preclosure operations at 
George AFB as well as portions of the DOO R-2508 Complex, which is an 


3-30 


George AFB Di^josat and Reuse FEIS 










EXPLANATION 

O Public Um Airport 

A Restricted/Private Use 
^ Airport 

MM George AFB Grourxl 
Control Apmadi 
Radar Traffic Area 

George AFB Control Zone 

rL_r 


2.5 


10 Nautical Mies 




mm m GeoTge AFB Airport 
Traffic Area 

■M- Federal Airways 

Transition Area 
^ (Root at 700’ AGL) 

MM Transition Area 
■■ (Floor at 1200’AGL) 

Special Use Airspace Areas 

_ Military Training Routes 


Airspace Region 
of infiuence 
(20 nm Radius of 
George AFB) 


Rgure 3.2-12 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-31 









expanse of airspace utflized for defense-related missions. Restricted Area 
R-2515 and the Complex (Chariie MOA) is in the southern portion of the R-2508 
Complex and within the ROI. Airspace within and immediately surrounding this 
ROI is under the jurisdiction of the Edwards FAA Radar Approach Control 
(RAPCON) which is operated by the FAA and primarfly responsible for ATC 
radar services at George AFB. Edwards AFB, China Lake Naval Weapons 
Center, and Palmdale (AF Plant 42). Aircraft operations within this ROi do not 
normally conflict with air traffic flows at the other airfields or the Norton AFB arxl 
Ontario Airport area due to the manner in which ATC airspace and procedures 
have been segregated for the respective locations. Airspace above 13,000 feet 
MSL Is controlied by the Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) 
and is not significantiy affected by operations within the ROI. However, 
significant growth at one or more of the major airfields In the region could lead 
to potential airspace conflicts between the respective airport traffic flows and 
added congestion in the ARTCC's airspace. 

Preciosure Reference. An understanding of the ROI airspace environment 
and its use under the preciosure reference is necessary to help determine its 
capability and capacity to accommodate future aviation activities. The same 
constraints and considerations such as terrain, runway alignments, and other air 
traffic flows would apply under alternate aviation uses of George AFB. 

Airspace designated for ATC purposes around George AFB consists of the 
Grourxl Controlled Approach (GCA) radar traffic area, transition areas 
established in conjunction with George AFB instrument approach procedures or 
overtying federal airways, a control zone, and an airport traffic area (ATA). 
(Explanations of transition areas, control zones, and airport traffic areas are 
contained in the Glossary of Terms and Acronyms/Abbreviations, Appendix A.) 

In addition to these designated ATC airspace areas, five federal, low-altitude, 
enroute airways transit the area containing George AFB terminal operations. 
Figure 3.2-12 depicts each of these designated ATC airspace areas and the five 
federal airways. 

The George AFB GCA radar traffic area is airspace that is sub-delegated to the 
base by the Edwards FAA RAPCON for the control of local IFR traffic. Using an 
Air Force surveillance radar system located on the base, the GCA is responsible 
for providing ATC services within the lateral limits of this airspace below 
7,000 MSL to arriving and departing aircraft, as well as to those remaining within 
the radar traffic pattern for successive practice approaches to the airfield. This 
ATC facility also provides traffic advisories to other aircraft transiting through 
this airspace. After normal operating hours at George AFB, this airspace reverts 
back to the Edwards FAA RAPCON, which is then responsible for IFR 
operations within this area. When the Edwards FAA RAPCON is dosed, this 
airspace is then under the control of the FAA’s Los Angeles ARTCC. Radar 
systems utilized by the Edwards FAA RAPCON and Los Angeles ARTCC cannot 
presently provide radar coverage below 4,500 feet MSL within the George AFB 


3-32 


George AFB Dispose end Reuse FEIS 












vicMty because of tarrain and the remota locations of their varioiw radar akM. 
Therefore. IFR aircraft tfrMng at aiKi departing from George AFBbelowr 
4,500 feet must be separated through the use of conventional nonradar ATC 
procedures when the GCA is not b) operation; however, very few flight 
operations occur at George AFB during those hours. 

The traffic patterrrs, instrument approaches, and departure procedures used at 
George AFB under predosure conditions basically represent the airspace 
requirements for iFR aircraft operating at the base and transitioning between the 
base and the enroute airspace system (ainways or other transit routes) or the 
R-2S08 complex. TaJale 3.2*2 identifies the type and number of aircraft 
operationsthatwerecorxiuctedatGeorge AFB In calendar year (CY) 1990. The 
orderly flow of the base IFR aircraft is predicated on the use of these instnjment 
procedures and traffic patterns or other directions from ATC to maintain proper 
sequencing and separation. VFR aircraft normally fly in a more direct route to 
and from the base; the plots of these aircraft are responsible for maintaining 
visual separation between aircraft. 


Table 3.2>2. George AFB Aircraft Operations*, 1990 


Assignment 


Aircraft Ooeratlons 


Type 

Day 

Night 

Total 

Aircraft Based at George AFB 

F4E/G 

19,915 

1,958 

21,873 

Aircraft Based at George AFB 

OV-10 

3,485 

350 

3,835 

Transient 

A-7 

119 

0 

119 

Transient 

A-10 

187 

0 

187 

Transient 

OA-37 

180 

0 

180 

Transient 

T-38 

4,737 

0 

4,737 

Transient 

F-4 

7.770 

0 

7,770 

Transient 

OV-10 

121 

0 

121 

Transient 

F-15 

4,755 

0 

4,755 

Transient 

F-16 

4.490 

0 

4,490 

Transient 

0130 

260 

0 

260 

Transient 

0141 

277 

0 

277 

Transient 

A-4 

232 

0 

232 

Transient 

A-6 

257 

0 

257 

Transient 

F-14 

184 

0 

184 

Totals 


46,969 

2,308 

49,277 


*An aircraft oparation it one takaoff or ono landifts. 
Source: Goo^a AFB. 


Figure 3.2-13 delineates George AFB's airport traffic patterns as they apply to 
VFR (tower-controlled) as well as radar-directed (GCA-controiied) operations. 

Jet aircraft using VFR traffic patterns are not permitted to fly multiple rectangular 
patterns to Runway 21 daixfing/departlng to the southwest), in order to reduce 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-33 









EXPLANATION Aircraft Traffic Patterns 

-F-4 Radar Traffic 

Pattam 

_ Radar Traffic Pattern- 

Another Aircraft 

..... VFRTraffic Pattern 



3-34 George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 

















noise effects on the ctty of Adeianto. Successive rectangiter patterns to 
Rumway 03 (landing/departing to the northeast) are conducted oniy \Mhen 
necessitated by mission ret^ranients. because of the strong croeswind 
conditions that can result from the Santa Ana winds in the area. 

The radar traffic patterns are used by the GCA to route akcraft under its controi 
for iandkigs on the north/south oriented Runway 17/35. the primary runway for 
thebase. The radar traffic patterns are used for arriving IFR aircraft, as wel as 
for aircraft flight trakring kivoiving successive practice approaches to 
Runway 17/35. There are no radar traffic patterns to Runway 03/21; instrument 
approach procedures are not estabiished for this njnway because of terrain, 
prevaling winds, and noise corrsideratlorrs. 

The airspace utlized for the flight tracks flown by miiitary akcraft using the 
instrument approach procedures to Runways 17 and 35 is shown in 
Figures 3.2*14 and 3.2-15. respecth/eiy. The procedures are based on 
directional guidance and distance provided by a tactical air navigation (TACAN) 
artd an instrument ianding system/distance measuring equipment (ii-S/DME) 
located on the airfield. The standard procedures (identified as TACAN or 
ILS/DME) are contained within a 10-nm radius of George AFB and are primaiiy 
used by air transport-type aircraft. The "high aititude” approaches (identified as 
HI-TACAN) are initiated within AFFTC airspace 24 nm north of George AFB and 
are used primarly by fighter-type aircraft returning to the base after operating in 
the AFFTC special use airspace complex. 

Figure 3.2-16 illustrates the two published, standard-instrument departure 
procedures used prior to closure of George AFB. These procedures channel 
aircraft from the base and into the enroute airspace structure. Essentially, one 
route (identified as the ‘‘Peace” departure) is for traffic westbound from George 
/VFB. and the other route Cidentified as the ”Orddy” departure) is for eastbound 
traffic. These procedures are used for takeoffs from three of the four runways. 

Instrument departures are not conducted from Runway 03 due to terrain, wind, 
and rK)ise cor\siderations. 

Defense-related airspace within the ROI includes a portion of R-2515. the 
Complex 1 Charlie MOA. a Controlled Firing Area (CFA) arxi five mlitary training 
routes (MTRs) as shown in Figure 3.2-12. R-2515 and the Charlie MOA are part 
of the R-2508 Complex, which consists of several different restricted areas and 
MOAs used extensively by Edwards AFB. China Lake Naval Weapons Center, 
and Fort In/vin for various test aixf training activities. Although George AFB 
aircraft were one of the principie users of this complex, other DOD 
requirements have fifled any scheduling vacancies resulting from the base 
closure. 


George AFB Disposd and Reuse FEIS 


3-35 






TACAN OR ILS/DME 
RWY17 



EXPLANATION 

nuc OManos MMSuring 
Equipnwnt 


Instalment Approach 
Runway 17 


(nattumwit Landing 

SysiMn 


TACAN -Tactieal AirNavigMion 


r 


■ 

r 


0 

2 

1.5 ! 

> 

10 Nautical MHas 




Figure 3^-14 


George AFB [Xsposat and Reuse FEIS 


3-36 


















TACAN RWY 35 


EXPLANATION 

M—lllfifMI 
e«|Uipifi5nl 

TACAN - TacifEal AkNavigBibn 


Instrument Approach 
Runway 35 



ru 

0 2^ S 


10 Nautical Mlaa 




Rgure 3.2-15 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-37 















2S 


10Nau«calMiM 




Hgure 3^-16 


3-38 


GeofgeAFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 













R-2S15 is located 16 nm north of the base. Mission activities within R-2S1S 
include extensive test and test support activities at al altitudes. air-4o-ground 
gunnery and precision bon4)ing tests within designated ranges, and ak 
refueling. The number of sorties conducted in R-2S15 in 1990 is shown in Table 
3.2-6. The southerrunost portion of R-^15 contains a 4 nm-wide, east-west 
corridor (Alpha Corridor) designated for supersonic flights below 30,000 feet 
The eastern end of this corridor is appraxhnateiy 16 nm north of George AFB. 
Aircraft utlization data for the Alpha Corridor are not avalabie. Other activity 
iTKiudes numerous helicopters arxj pipeikte or powerline patrol aircraft below 
1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) along Calflomia Highway 58. 


Table 3.2-3. Restricted Area Altitudes and CY 1990 Aircraft Sorties 


Restricted 

Area 

Base 

Altitude (ft) 

Celing 
Altitude (ft) 

Number of 
Sorties 

R-2502N 

Surface 

Unlimited 

5,203 

R-2509 

Surface 

Unlimited 

6,182 

R-2515 

Surface 

Unlimited 

35,226 


SouroM: U.S. Air Fore*, Gaorg* AFB; U.S. Air Foroa, Edwarda AFB. 


The Complex 1 Charlie MOA extends from 200 feet AGL up to, but not 
including, 18,000 feet MSL, with an overlying air traffic control assigned airspace 
(ATCAA) extertding up to 60,000 feet MSL, noted as flight level (FL) 600. This 
MOA and its overlying ATC^AA are approximately 14 nm north of the base, and 
provide additional airspace for aircraft transition within the R-2508 range 
complex. Approximately 24,650 aircraft sorties were conducted through this 
MOA in 1990. 

The five MTRs that transit the George AFB ROI (Figure 3.2-12) are all VFR routes 
(VRs). George AFB is the scheduling agency for VR-1217 and VR-1218. The 
remaining three routes are scheduled by other military groups in the region. 
Table 3.2-4 delineates these MTRs, the operating altitudes for those MTR 
segments that transit ttie George ROI, and the number of operations that were 
corxlucted on each MTR in 1990. 


Table 3.2-4. Military Training Route Altitudes and 1990 Aircraft Operations 


MTR 

Attitude (ft) 

Celing 
Altitude (ft) 

Number of 
Operations 

VR-1205 

200 AGL 

1,500 AGL 

161 

VR-1217 

1,000 AGL 

1,500 AGL 

2,855 

VR-1218 

1,000 AGL 

1,500 AGL 

1,047 

VR-1257 

1,000 AGL 

1,500 AGL 

1,036 

VR-1265 


1.500 AGL 

250 


SouroM: U.S. Air Fbrca, Georg* AFB; U.S. Air Forco, Edwards AFB. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-39 












A CFA is located 9 nm west of George AFB, in conjunction with the B Mirage 
Adelanto private alffleld, and is used by a defense contractor for testing 
remotely ploted vehides. This t^ng is conducted periodically between the 
swface and 5,000 feet MSL under stringently cuntrolled conditions. Restricted 
areas R-2S02N (approximately 45 nm northeast of George AFB) and R-2509 
(approximately 42 nm north/northeast of George AFB) are outside die ROI; 
however, George AFB currently has scheduling responsiblity for these areas. 
R-2502N is utilized for air-to-air arxi air-to-grourxf bombing and gunnery training 
arxf overlies the Leach Lake tacticai weapons range. R-2509 overlies the 
Superior Vailey weapons range arxj is used for air-to-grourxf bombing arxl 
gunnery training. Table 3.2-0 delineates the operating altitudes associated with 
these two restricted areas arxi the number of sorties conducted in each area in 
1990. 

There are 12 cMi airports located within the George AFB ROI (Figure 3.2-12). 
However, only the Apple Valley Airport Hesperia Air Lodge, and Sun Hll Ranch 
are public airports. The remaining nine airports are private airfields. Aircraft 
operations at these airports are conducted only in visual weather corxfitions. 
There are no published instrument approach procedures, ATC facHities, or 
navigational aids available at any of these civfl airports. Aircraft operating at 
these airports are generally unaffected by flight operations at George AFB, as 
they wll either stay dear of the control zone or contact the tower for traffic 
advisories whfle traveling through It. Palisades Ranch, located north of the base 
and within the control zone, has very limited airfield operations which do not 
interfere with base air traffic. The current and projected annual operations for 
each of the three pubiic-use airports are shown in Table 3.2-5. There are no 
operatiorud data avalable for the private-use airports. 


Table 3.2-5. Existing and Closure Baseline Projected Annual Aircraft 
Operations for Civil Public-Use Airports in the Vicinity of George AFB 


Annual Ooerations 

Airport 

1990 

1992 

Apple Valley 

71,000 

77,000 

Hesperia Air Lodge 

40,000 

45,000 

Sun Hll Ranch 

200 

240 


Sourc*: Managwi/Opwitora of Appio Valloy, Hosporia Air Lodgo, and Sun Hill Ranch Airporta. 


Closure Baseline. Upon base dosure and the termination of flight operations 
at George AFB, all designated ATC airspace areas and published instrument 
procedures would be canceled and the area would remain under the general 
contrd of the Edwards FAA RAPCON. The surveillance radar system, control 
tower, and navigational aids (TACAN and ILS) would be removed from senrice, 
pending any reuse requirements for these focPities. It is not likely that the 
airspace would be readOy used by the Edwards FAA RAPCON for new IFR 
transit routes to other airports in the area. VFR aircraft operating from the public 


3-40 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










and private airport* In ttw area could transk freely through the aifspace 
surrounding the dosed airfleid without any tower commuiictfiona requireinerts 
or concerns with base mlltafy aircraft operations. Other mlitary aircraft wodd 
coitinue to operate on the MTRs transiting the ROI. Air traffic on the federal 
airways transiting the ROI would no ior^ be affected by mlitary aircraft 
dimbing/descending between the base and the R-2S08 compile 

Restricted area R-2S1S and Charlie MOA, as weN as R-2502N and R-2S09 are an 
integral part of the R-2S08 airspace complex and wll contirKie to support 
ongoing 000 and cortractor test and training missions. These areas wW not be 
affected by the base dosure loss of the George AFBflykig mission since this 
airspace is scheduled to remain near ful capacity by other mlitary units. The 
MTRs transiting the ROI should also be unaffected since these routes were not 
established sdeiy for George AFB aircraft. Scheduling responslblity for the ten 
MTRs controlled by George AFB would likely be trarrsferred to other OOO 
installations currerdy using or expected to use the airspace. If no 000 user 
can be identified, the drspace could be returned to the National Airspace 
System. 

The special use airspace within the ROI, as well as restricted areas R-2502N and 
R-2509. are an integral part of the AFFTC complex. They wll not be affected by 
the base dosure, because this airspace is used by other mlitary unks and 
scheduling is expected to remain near foil capacity in the future. 

3.2.4.3 Air Ihinsportatlon. Air transportation indudes passenger travel by 
commercial airline and charter flights; business and recreational travel by 
private (general) aviation; arxf priority package and freight delivery by 
commercial arxf other carriers. The dosest commercial airline service to 
George AFB is at Ontario international Airport, approximately 45 road mies and 
50 minutes driving time to the southwest on the eastern city limits of Ontario, 
Califomia. Palmdale /tirport is approximately 50 road mIes and 55 minutes 
driving time to the west of George AFB. 

Ontario Intemationai Airport te substantially larger in terms of passenger vdume 
than Palmdale Airport, although both carry only a fraction of the passengers 
haixlled each year by Los Angeles Intemationai Airport in the city of Los 
Angeles, approximately 2 to 3 hours driving time to the west of George AFB. 
Recent (1990) annual passenger vdumes at the three airports were as follows 
(Los Angeles Department of Airports, 1991): 

• Ontario International Airport - appro)dmateiy 5.4 MAP 

• Palmdale Airport • less than 0.1 MAP 

• Los Angeles Intemationai Airport - approximately 45.8 MAP 

Ontario Intemationai Airport served as a shipping and receiving point for 
approximately 210,000 tons of cargo in 1986, the most recent year for which 


George AFB Disposal artd Reuse FEIS 


3-41 










comprehensive regionai air cargo data are avalabi«(SCAG. 1901). This 
repraaanted approxlmataly 17 percent of al Southern Califomia air cargo 
shipments in that year. Lxw Angeles InCerrtationat Airport accouraed for 
82 percent of air cargo volume in that year, wMe Burbank, John Vtayne, and 
LxNig Beach airports combined represented only 1 percent of rec^onal air cargo 
activity (SGAQ, 1991). 

SanBemardinoCourayoperatesthe Apple Valley Airport, about 10 mles east of 
the base, the Barstow Airport about 30 mies to the northeast, and the Hesperia 
Air Lodge, about 20 mles to the south. These three smaller airports are used 
mostly by private abcrafl omiers, araJ none have scheduled airline flights (San 
Bernardino County, 1988a). 

Upon closure of George AFB there would be a very small reduction in travel 
through the Ontario and Palmdale Airports resulting from the loss of base 
personnel araf deperaients who currently use the airports. As with highway 
transportation, the loss of base^elated air travel would be more than 
compeitsated by projected rapid population growth in the Victor Valley araj 
adjacent areas. Likewise the closure of Norton AFB would minimsdiy reduce air 
passenger travel through the Ontario arai Palmdale airports. 

3.2.4.4 Railroads. The Victor Valley is served by three m^or transcontinental 
ralroads: Southern Pacific, Union Pacific, and the AT&SF (Figure 3.2*7). The 
lines of ttie latter two traverse north-south about O.S mae east of the George 
AFB eastern boundary, the Southern Pacific line runs in a generally east-west 
direction across the southern part of the Victor Valley from the Palmdale area. 

All three of these lines continue south through the Cajon Pass (where trackage 
is shared) into the San Bernardino Valley. 

In 1942, about 2 mles of 100-foot-wide ralroad spur right-of-way was acquired 
b^ween the Union Pacific/Santa Fe line and the easterly base boundary, at a 
point about 3,000 feet south of Air Base Road (Figure 3.2-8). The route crosses 
both National Trals Highway and Air Base Road. The right-of-way continues 
northwesterly from the base boundary about 2 more mles through the 
munitions storage area, across Air Base Road again, and into the main 
warehouse area at the base’s fiightline. The spur was declared excess property 
in 1979 and the trackage was removed and sold in 1986. The right-of-way, 
however, remains in government ownership. This right-of-way could become an 
integral part of any reuse of George AFB (WEDA, 1990). 

Since the erxl of October 1990, AMTRAK service has been avalable to the 
Victor VBdIey. The station is at the intersection of Tlh Street and SR 18 in 
VictorvHe. Duringtheflrst3monthsof 1991, the station was used by 1,149 
passengers. 


3-42 


George AFB Disposai and Reuse FEIS 






There is currersiy a proposal to construct an SST line between Las Vegas. 
Nevada, and Anaheim, Califomia. This privately financed proposal for a train 
itting magnetic levitation technology Is projected to begin operations in the 
year 2000. The system wi be designed to carry up to 4 MAP (Califomia- 
Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, 1990b). The proposed aiignmeni 
could pass very near George AFB, and with a station there, could provide 
access to the Victor Valley. The final alignmera wll not be determined until 
compIMion of an EtS/EIR and approval by both the Califomia and Nevada state 
legislatures. This approval is currently scheduled for 1993. In August 1990, the 
SST Comrrtission designated a consortium headed by the Bechtel CorporMion 
to be the franchisee (subject to a franchise agreement) to buld and operate the 
train. The Bechtel consortium would have the responsibility for developing a 
plan that would include the route and stations (number and locations) to be 
served (Califomia-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, 1990b). 

Upon closure of George APB. there would be some very strrall reductions In use 
of the AMTRAK system in Victorvflie. These reductions would be quickly 
overcome by the projected rapid population growth in the Victor Valley. 

3.2.S UtilHies 

The utlity systems addressed In this analysis indude the facBities and 
infrastructure used for 

• Potable water pumping, treatment, storage, and distribution 

• Wastewater coliection and treatment 

• Solid waste coliection and disposal 

• Energy generation and distribution, induding the provision of electricity 
and natural gas. 

The ROI for utilities indudes systems serving George AFB as well as the 
surrounding Victor Valley area. The major attributes of utility systems in the ROI 
are processing and distribution capacities, storage capacities, average daly 
consumption, peak demand, and related factors required in making a 
determination of adequacy of such systems to provide services in the future. 

Predosure utiities analyses indude the demand for water, wastewater 
treatment, solid waste disposal, electricity, and natural gas. Because the utflity 
demands associated with the base site were such a small proportion of the 
service areas of the various utflity providers, both on-site and off-site utflity 
demands were combined in the analyses, without differentiation by location. 

3.2.5.1 Water Supply. The Victor Valley area and George AFB presently have 
independent water supply systems. George AFB maintains its own wells, on 
land leased from the city of Adelanto. 


3-43 


George AFB Disposd and Reuse FEIS 





Vidor Viiilvy. Within the Victor Valley region surrounding George AFB, there 
are more than 100 public and private water purveyors covering service areas of 
various sizes and popriations, as weN as numerous private wells used for 
individual residences or agriculturai use. The major purveyors (those with over 
200 service connections) are: 

• Hesperia Vtater District 

• Victor VbHeyWder District 

• Apple Vafley Ranchos Water Company 

• City of Adelanto Water Department 

• Southern Califomia Vteter Company - Victorvlle No. 1 

• Southern Caiifomia Water Company • Victorviile No. 4 

• Southern Caiifbmia Water Company • Victorville No. 5 

• County Service Area 70-J 

• MariarKi Ranchos County Water District 

• Apple Valley Heights County Water District 

Virtually all of the water in the \^or WJley is obtained from groundwater 
sources, although the high desert region presently has an unused allotment of 
more than 50,000 acre-feet per year (af/yr) of water from the State Water 
Project The Mojave Water Agency (MWA) was initially created in 1960 to 
manage the distribution of this state water ailotment throughout an area 
encompassing the 4,800-square mie of the high desert region, including the 
Victor Vaiiey. 

The MWA recently published a water demand projection in the Master Plan for 
Dellvefy of Imported Water FirmI Report (MWA, 1990). In 1990, domestic water 
demand averaged 38.1 MGD (Le.. 42,700 af/yr) within the Upper Basin Region 
that underlies Victor Valley (Table 3.2-6 and Figure 3.2-17). 


Table 3.2-6. Average Daiiy Water Demand within the Vidor Vaiiey (MGD) 



1987 

1990 

1993 

Implicit Forecast 

32.6 

38.1 

43.7 

Closure Baseline 

32.6 

38.1 

40.4 

Change from Forecast 

0.0 

0.0 

-3.3 

Percent Change 

0.0 

0.0 

-7.6 


Soutm; Bnad on MWA 1900. 

George AFB. George AFB currently derives its water from eight wells located 
adjacent to the Mojave River north of Turner Road about 0.5 to 1 mIe east of the 
base. The city of Adelanto leases the land to the Air Force, who installed, 
operates, and maintains the wells (U.S. Air Force, 1990b). The state water well 
permit is held jointly by George AFB and the city of Adelanto. The wells vary in 
depth from approximately 100 to 445 feet, and productive capacities vary from 


3-44 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










EXPLANATION 
MMBBB knpldt Foracasi 


Average Dally Water 
Demand: 1987-1993 


CIohm BsmIm 


Rgure 3.2-17 


George AFB Disfxisal and Reuse FEIS 


3~45 














1.0 cubic feet per secoixJ (cfs) to 3.56 cfs (Lee and Ro Consulting Enj^neers, 
1984). 

Water is pumped uphU from each weU to Pumping Station No. 2, located near 
the wells at an elevation of 2,659 feet. Two ground-level, steel storage tanks and 
five booster pumps are located nearby. The two tanks have a total storage 
capacity of 300,000 gailoru. The booster pumps convey the water 
approximately 3 mHes from Pumping Station No. 2 to No. 1, located on the base 
at an elevation of 2,889 feet The conveying lines between Pumping Station No. 
2 and No. 1 consist of three supply mains, two 12- and one 14-inch line that 
extend west from Pumping Station No. 2 alortg the north side of Turner Road, 
and connect to the on-base water treatment and storage plant located east of 
Starfighter Street. 

All incoming water is chlorinated at Pumping Station No. 1. This station has 
three ground-level steel tanks with a combined capacity of 1.05 mllion gallons 
and one elevated steel tank (140 feet high) with a capacity of 500,000 gallons. 
Two booster stations (Nos.1 and 1A) pump water from the three ground-level 
storage tanks and elevated tank into the distribution system that runs 
throughout the main cantonment area (U.S. Air Force Bioengineering, iggob); 
facilities south of Air Base Road are also linked to the base water supply system 
via a 3-inch line; facilities on the west side of the runway connect to a 3-inch line 
metered by the city of Adelsuito Water District (U.S. Air Force, 1990b). 

One of the other 12-inch conveying lines that links Pumping Stations Nos. 1 and 
2 also connects to an Adeianto Water District pump station and continues 
westward to an Adeianto Water District ground storage tank. The remaining 
12-inch conveying line linking Pumping Station Nos. 1 and 2 also links to the 
base non-potable water system at a location upstream from Pumping Station 
No. 1. Non-potabie water is stored in the holding pond near the golf course. 
This water is used primarily for watering the golf course and fire fighting 
purposes. 

It is anticipated that the on-base utilities infrastructure, including the potable 
water treatment and distribution system, will remain on the base in its current 
condition after closure. 

3.2.5.2 Wastewater. Prior to 1981, George AFB operated its own wastewater 
treatment plant, located between the housing area and the crosswind runway 
(U.S. Air Force, 1989b). WWRA constructed a new secondary treatment plant, 
located on property adjacent to the northeastern boundary of George AFB, to 
serve its member communities of Adeianto, Apple Valley, Hesperia, Victorviiie, 
Oro Grande (San Bernardino County Sendee Area [CSA] No. 42), and Spring 
Valley Lake (CSA No. 64). When the WWRA treatment plant came on line, 
George AFB contracted for service from the WWRA and interceptor lines were 
constructed to connect the base with the plant. 


3-46 


George AFB DispostJ and Reuse FEIS 





Vidor Valloy. The WWRA activated sludge plant cun-ently treats an average of 
about 6.5 MGO. Sewage from each community/i»er is collected via a system of 
metered Interceptor lines arxl each community/user Is bIHed by the WWRA on a 
per-gallon basis. Most of the on-base wastewater mains are gravity flow and run 
toward the north side of George AFB. The reveruje source funds normal 
maintenance and operation of the interceptor system and the treatment plant 
Additionaily. a one-time fee for new corrections of Irxiustrial, commercial, or 
residential faclities or other users within each of the WWRA member 
communities is assessed by WWRA. This fee is calculated for each new 
connection based on the projected wastewater flows expected from the f^ity 
and is deposited in a capital improvements fund for future expansion of the 
piant or interceptor system. Each community/user operates and maintains the 
wastewater coiiection system within its boundaries, metering and charging its 
customers accordingiy. George AFB differs from other users in that the base 
has a contracted maximum flow limit (0.83 MGD), and no voting rights as a 
member of WWRA. WWRA discharges approximately 91 percent of its 
advanced secondary treated effluent into the Mojave River and approximately 
9 percent of its standard secondary treated effluent into percolation porxis for 
groundwater recharging (Caiifomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1989; 
Kurtz, 1991). 

By February 1991. WV\^ had completed construction of a sludge-drying 
lagoon (evaporative basin). The bricks produced in this basin are to be stored 
on site until an appropriate disposal technique is selected (expected in 2 years). 
During the first half of 1990 (through July), a contractor removed one-third of 
the sludge inventory from the siudge-holding lagoon (where it had been held 
since plant start-up in 1981) for use on agricuiturai land in Caiifomia. 

Screenings and grit from the WWRA processing, amounting to 329 cubic yards 
in 1990 (0.14 cubic yards per m9lion gallons treated) were hauled to a local 
landfili. Skimmings are currently discharged into thickening lagoons (Kurtz, 
1991). 

George AFB. The base has two metered lines that connect to the WWRA 
Intercefrtor system. Line one services the flightline area and collects about 
65 percent of base wastewater flows. This 15-inch line runs from south of the 
abandoned on-base wa^ewater treatment plant northeast to the treatment 
plant. Line two services the residential areas and the hospital and collects the 
remaining 35 percent of base wastewater flows. The base flow rate is normally 
between 0.8 and 0.85 MGO. Wastewater from buildings on the west side of the 
runways and south of Air Base Road is disposed of in septic systems and 
leaching fields (U.S. Air Force, 1989b). 

In April 1987, WWRA issued George AFB an "Order Requiring Corrective Action 
Pursuant To WWRA Sewer Use Ordinance.” This corrective action order (CAO) 
outlined seven specific non-compliance issues related to wastewater flows from 
George AFB received at the WWRA treatment plant and due dates for 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-47 





corrective actions in ofder to regain compliance with the VVWRA Sevver Use 
Ordinance. 

The non-compliance issues include: George AFB mixing of Industrial and 
residential wastewater; high levels of vdatle cxganics, benzene, viscocjs ol, and 
other toxic materials discharged to the WWRA treatmerrt fadities; and storm 
water directly entering the sewer collection system without pretreatment 
Required corrective actions include: submittal to WWRA of a spW containment 
program; industrial and domestic wastewater separation; storm water runoff 
separation from the sewer collection system; and WWRA approved 
pretreatment and ol separsrtor fadities (WWRA. 1987). 

The CAO identified Apr110,1989 as the deadline for full compliance with the 
order, however, in Apr11988, tiie base requested and received an extension of 
the deadline unti June 1990 (WWRA. 1988). In January 1989, base officiais 
notified WWRA. that in view of the impending closure of George AFB, the 
design of a pretreatment fadity necessary to comply with the CAO, which was 
approximately 60 percent complete, had been canceled. The base indicated 
that it would continue ongoing efforts to minimize industrial discharges to the 
sewer collection system via chemical product/soap substitution, source control 
procedures, and use of d/water separators (WWRA. 1989; U.S. Air Force, 
1989b). WWRA notified the Air Force that because compliance with the CAO 
had not been achieved, future discharges from the base by future base 
occupants other than the Air Force must fully comply with WWRA ordinances, if 
the new user is senred by WWRA. 

Based on the forecast population decline in the Victor Valley associated with the 
closure of George AFB arxl the implicit future rates of per-capita wastewater 
treatment demand Indicated In the IVasrewafer Master Plan, the WWRA 
forecast would be reduced to an average of 6.7 MGD by the year 1993 
(Table 3.2-7; Figure 3.2-18). This reduction is approximately 8 percent lower 
than the extrapolated WWRA projection for the year 1993. WWRA has 
indicated that projection in the plan does not necessarily reflect current 
estimates as a result of recent population changes within the Victor Valley since 
publication of the plan. 


Table 3.2-7. Wastewater Generation within the Victor Valley Wastewater 
Treatment Authority Service Area (In MGD)_ 



1987 

1990 

1993 

Implicit Forecast 

4.3 

5.8 

7.3 

Closure Baseline 

4.3 

5.8 

6.7 

Change from Forecast 

0.0 

0.0 

-0.6 

Percent Change 

0.0 

0.0 

-8.1 


Source: Buod on WWRA, 1988. 


3-48 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 













VVVVRA and member collectk)n agencies that serve the communities in the 
Victor Vailey are presently planning both short-and lorrg-term infrastructure 
improvements on a relativeiy iarge scaie in anticipation of substantial rates of 
population growth arxl increased conversion from septic tank usage to 
centraiized treatment The VWVRA treatment piant was designed for continued 
growth In the region and has an ongoing expansion plan. The current 9.5-MGD 
capacity of the plant is expected to be adequate for the WWRA service area 
until about 1995. In the \NastBmter Master Plan, three alternate scenarios for 
improvement of the existir^irtfrastructure are analyzed. These three 
alternatives are continued expansion of the existing irrterceptor system arxi 
treatment plant to accorrunodate the entire Victor Valley, construction of two 
sub-regional treatment plants, and a combination of the first two scenarios with 
a single new treatment plant located in the Apple Valley. Since publication of 
the plan in 1988, various improvements have been made including substantial 
enlargement of the capacity of the existing centrai treatment plant 

3.2.5.3 Solid Waste. Solid waste from George AFB currently is disposed of in 
the Victorville landfill, operated by San Bernardino County. The landfill is 
located in a hflly area approximately 5 mDes northeast of the base in an 
unincorporated area of the county, immediately north of the city of Victorvflie. 
The tacllty is designated as a Class iii iandfiil, suitable for the disposal of 
non-hazardous and general municipal waste. Presently, the landffll will accept 
dean construction and demolished building material with no volume 
restrictions. However, the county landfSI is planning to coitect fees for such 
materials beginning in summer 1991 (Stager, 1991). 

Victor Valley Disposal is the private hauler for both George AFB and a total of 
approximately 113,000 persons in Adeianto, Apple Valley, and Victorvflie. The 
private hauler annually collects 420 tons (approximately 6,800 cubic yards) from 
the base and these municipalities. George AFB contributes approximately 5 to 
7 percent of the total waste. 

The Sat ^ ^rdino County Solid Waste Management Department (SWMD) 
recently pf epared updated solid waste demand and capacity projections for all 
county landfills, Induding those in Apple Valley, Hesperia, Phelan, and Victorvflie. 

The Victorville landffll had 420,7^ cubic yards of remaining capacity on 
permitted land as of June 30,1990. At the current rate of 510 cubic yards per 
day (186,150 cubic yards per year), the site’s life expectancy is 2 years (through 
1992). The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns additional land with a 
potential capacity of approximately 5 million cubic yards near the existing site; 
however, this area is not presently permitted for use as a landfill (San Bernardino 
County SWMD, 1991). The Hesperia landfill had a remaining capacity of 
958,000 cubic yards on currently permitted land as of June 30,1990, with a life 
expectancy of approximately 6 years (through the year 1996). The county is 
actively seeking to permit adjacent land with an undetermined potential 


3-50 


George AFB Disposal and ft ease FEIS 









expansion capacity. As of June 30,1990, the Phelan landfli had a remaining 
capacity of 847,250 yards, wtth a life expectancy of 16 years (through the 
yeer 2006); the SWMO did not Indicate any expansion potential at the Phelan 
landfli. The Apple VMey landfli had a remaining capacity of 172,430 cubic 
yardswithallfeexpectancyof 2 years (through the year 1992). This site was 
reported to have a potential l.55-mllion cubic yard expansion capacity, 
although the report also indicated that expansion of this landfli was not ‘actively 
pursued* (San Bemardkx) County SWMO, 1991). 

Solid waste in the Victor ^ley region tends to be less dense than in other 
metropolitan areas (50 to 55 pourxls per cubic yard compared to 80 pounds per 
cubic yard) as a result of the slow plant growth in the area and corresponding 
reduction of plant materiai waste products (Barnes, 1991). The county presently 
Is encouraging source Veduction and recycling objectives that meet or exceed 
the objectives of State Assembly BBI939, which would result in a 60-percent 
combined source reduction and recycling by the year 2010. The Victorvlle 
landfill currently utilizes post-sorting by contract salvagers, which results in 
recovery of less than 0.2 percent of solid waste received. Additional time for 
salvage could increase this rate to more than 1.5 percent (San Bernardino 
County SWMO, 1991). 

Several county-owned or -operated disposal sites in the surrounding region, 
notably Big Bear and Lucerne Valley, are nearing or at capacity, and are under 
consideration for replacement by small transfer stations following base closure. 
In the Victor Valley, the Apple Valley landfill is also receiving the same 
consideration to convert its operatbns to a transfer station in 1992. The waste 
from these transfer stations may be diverted to the Victorville landfli, but the 
amount of material from ttie small landfilis will have only a minor effect on 
longterm landfli capacity toi the high desert (Scui Bernardino County, 1991). 
Sludge from the WWRA wastewater treatment plant is not deposited in the 
Victorville landfill but is placed in an on-site WWRA sludge lagoon at the 
treatment plant; therefore, increased activity expected at the treatment plant is 
not expected to have an impact on the landfill. 

According to county projections, the desert region’s landfills will have adequate 
capacity through the year 2030 (San Bernardino County SWMO, 1991). 

Table 3.2-8 and Rgure 3.2-19 indicate the implicit projection of the SWMD at 
current rates of disposal for the four Victor Valley landflis. 

3.2.5.4 Energy 

Electricity. Electricity is provided to George AFB and the surrounding Victor 
Valley area by the High Desert District of SCE. The District consisted of 101,000 
metered customers in 1990. The region is currently utilizing alternate electrical 
generating techniques, including the Solar One project in Daggett and various 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-51 













TabtoSM Solid WatteOanaration withintha VictorVatoy 
_ (milliona of cubic yarda par yaar) 



1967 

1900 

1903 

Implicit Forecast 

0.61 

0.74 

0.87 

Closure Baseline 

0.61 

0.74 

0.80 

Change from Forecast 

0.0 

0.0 

-0.07 

Percent Change 

0.0 

0.0 

-ao 


SouroM: BmwI on Son BotnonMno County SWMD, 1988,1901. 

photovoltaic projects, because the Ngh desert region has a hH^ potential for 
sdar electric generation capabllty. 

SCE supplies electricity to George AFB through parallel connections of two 
manualiy-switched, as-klovolt (kV) circuits terminating at two power 
transformers at the on-base substation. The substation Is on the west side of 
Starfighter Street, across from the water storage and treatment plant, and feeds 
a 4-kV distribution grid comprising sbc main circuits. The on-base substation 
and distribteion system is owned by the Air Force. Afewfaclitiesonthewest 
side of the runways are serviced through a separate metered connection from 
the Adelanto area. 

The reduction in electricity demand within the district associated with the 
closure of George AFB was estimated from the projected population decline in 
the Victor Valley and average per-capita electricity demand under closure 
baseline conditions (Table 3.2-9; Figure 3.2-20). 


Table 3.2-9. Electricity Demand within the Victorville District of Southern 
_ CalHomia Edison (In MWH per day) 



1987 

1990 

1993 

Implicit Forecast 

3,420 

5,070 

5,738 

Closure Baseline 

3,420 

5,070 

5,446 

Change from Forecast 

0.0 

0.0 

-292 

Percent Change 

0.0 

0.0 

-5.1 


SouroM: Btaud on CaUfomia Enargy Commiasion, 1990; SCE, 1991. 


Natural Gas. Senrice to George AFB and the high desert region is provided by 
SW Gas. Natural gas is provided via a 4-inch high pressure gas line ertfering the 
base from the west near Gasoline Alley and extending to a metering and 
regulating station, on the east side of Sno Street Approximately 36,000 linear 
feet of Air Force-owned gas lines extend through most areas of the base from 
this station, except the teclities west of the runways and south of Air Base Road. 
The estimated on-base gas demand for space heating, water heating, and other 
natural gas appliances totalled 219,886 cubic feet per hour in 1985. The annual 
gas consumption declined b^een 1987 and 1989. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-53 








EXPLAMATiON 
M a M ■ Impicll Fdracast 
Clow—B—Ing 


Average Dally 
Electricity Demand 
1987-1993 


Rgure 3^-20 


3-54 


GeotgeAFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 











SW Gas anticipated no futile restrictions to naturai gas service because a 
30-inch. hi(^-pressure, natural gas pipeline (owned by Southern Califomia Gas 
Company) has an existir>g tap near the intersection of Rancho and Adeianto 
roads. Although the existing tap is not yet in service, this line could be used by 
SW Gas to supply additional demands in the area of the base (Goodman, 1991). 

In 1989 SW Gas prepared a long term forecast of population within the 
Victorville OistricL Naturid gas consumption rates within the district for the past 
5 years (1986 to 1990) were used to estimate an average per-capita demand 
fector for the district and obtain an implicit projection erf future natural gas 
consumption based on the total poptrfation projections (SW Gas, 1991). Using 
the same per-capHa rate, the reduction in naturai gas demand within the district 
associated with the closure of George APB was estimated from the projected 
population decline in the Victor Valley under closure baseline conditions 
(Table 3.2-10; Rgure 3.2-21). 


Table 3.2*10. Natural Gas Demand within the Victorville District of the 
Southwest Gas Company (in therms/day) _ 



1987 

1990 

1993 

Implicit Forecast 

161,995 

240,100 

321,976 

Qosure Baseline 

161,995 

240,100 

305,680 

Change from Forecast 

0.0 

0.0 

•16,296 

Percent Change 


0.0 

-5.1 


Source: Based on SW Gas, 1991. 


3.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT 

Hazardous materials and hazardous waste management activities at George 
AFB are governed by specific environmental regulations. For the purpose of the 
following analysis, the temi hazardous waste or hazardous materials will mean 
those substances defined as hazardous by the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S. Code (USC) 
$§9601-9675, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 USC §§6901 -6992. in general, this 
includes substances that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, 
chemical, or infectious characteristics, may present substantial danger to public 
health or welfare or the environment when released into the environment 
Additionally, the U.S. En\4ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted the 
state of Califomia the authority to promulgate and enforce environmental 
regulations. The state regulations, which must be at least as stringent as the 
federal regulations, are outlined in the Califomia Code of Regulations (CCR). 
Tide 22, Section 30. 


3-55 


George AFB Disposal artd Reuse FEIS 










EXPLANATION 

kfipicit FofVCflM 
CtaumBasofiM 


Average Daily 
Natural Gas Demand: 
1987-1993 


Hgure 3.2-21 


3-56 


George AFB Disfxjsal and Reuse FEIS 










Hazardous materials transportation is regulated by the Federal Department of 
Transportation (DOT) regulations within Chaffer 49 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR). 

The ROI encompasses ail geographic areas that are exposed to ttte possibUty 
of a release. The ROI for IRP sites is within the existing base bourxjaries. with 
tf)e exception of the Ncxtheast Disposal Area, where a TCE-contaminated 
groundwater plume has migrated off base. Specific geographic areas affeded 
by past and current hazardous waste operations, Including cleanup activities, 
are presented in detal below. 

3.3.1 Hazardous Materials Management 

Preclosure Reference. Operations at George AFB currently use hazardous 
materials including aviation fuels, oils, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, solvents, 
corrosives and compressed gases. The Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) 
Handlers Business Plan (U.S. Air Force, 1990f) and The SpOl Prevention and 
Response Plan (U.S. Air Force, 1991d) address the prevention of the discharge 
of pollutants arxl include contingency plans to address unauthorized releases. 
The HAZMAT Plan and The Spill Prevention and Response Plan also disclose 
the storage location of hazardous materials that are shipped to the base. At 
closure, hazardous materials will be transferred for use to other installations 
through the Air Force supply system, marketed for reuse through the Defense 
ReutHIzatlon and Marketing Office (DRMO), or disposed of in accordance with 
applicable regulations. 

Closure Baseline. After base closure, only the DMT and possible interim users 
wfll be using hazardous materials. All parties will be responsible for managing 
these materials in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations; for 
protecting their employees from occupational exposure to hazardous materials; 
and for protecting the public health of the surrounding community. 

The DMT will be responsible for the safe storage and handling of all hazardous 
materials used in conjunction with all base maintenance operations, such as 
paint, paint thinner, solvents, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and 
miscellaneous petroleum products associated with vehicle and machinery 
maintenance. These materials will be shipped by the DMT in compliance with 
the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) under 49 CFR. The DMT 
and regulatory authorities will have oversight to ensure compliance with all 
applicable regulations. 

If the Air Force authorizes interim use of base facilities prior to disposal, it wll 
require that all hazardous materials used by an interim user be shipped, stored, 
and handled In compliance with pertinent reguiations by the interim user. Again, 
the DMT and the regulatory authorities wiil have oversight to ensure compliance 
with all applicable reguiations. 


George AFB Disposai and Reuse FEIS 


3-57 







In accordance with federal, state, and local regulations all parties will be 
responsible for the nrianagement of hazardous materials. Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations under 29 CFR require that all 
parties must protect their employees from potential occupational exposure to 
hazardous materials and establish a hazardous communication program to 
protect the surrounding community from a release of a hazardous material; 
appropriate parties must file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan with the San 
Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health Services (DEHS). 

3.3.2 Hazardous Waste Management 

Preciosure Reference. A variety of hazardous wastes are generated as a result 
of maintenance activities on George AFB. These substances include fuel and ol 
wastes, solvents, strippers, paint wastes, and several other chemical wastes. As 
required by CCR, Title 22, Section 66493 (b) these hazardous wastes and 
quantities generated are reported to the California Department of Health 
Services (DHS) Toxic Substances Control Division. 

As a result of an RCRA Part A permit application submission, George AFB 
operated as an interim status Hazardous Waste Storage Facility under a 
California DHS 5-year permit issued 28 June 1985. That permit authorized 
on-site storage within a designated area for up to 1 year. The DRMO operated 
the penmitted Hazardous Waste Storage Yard for the Air Force. Numerous 
Storage Accumulation Points were designated throughout the installation to 
facilitate the daily collection and temporary storage (90 days) of hazardous 
wastes. The wastes were transported to the Hazardous Waste Storage Yard 
prior to the expiration of the 90-day storage limit. 

in view of the impending closure of the installation, an RCRA Part B permit 
application, requesting permanent permit status for the Hazardous Waste 
Storage Yard, has not been filed. As a result, the facility lost its interim status as 
a storage facility on June 28,1990 and has since become a 90-day storage 
facility. Hazardous wastes are stored temporarily at 29 90-day Accumulation 
Points and 6 Satellite Accumulation Points (Table 3.3-1). The wastes are 
transported off base and disposed of by a licensed contractor in accordance 
with RCRA as implemented by 40 CFR Parts 260-270 and CCR Title 22 prior to 
the expiration of the ^porary 90-day storage limit. Permitting information can 
be found in Appendix G. 

George AFB has several plans that address hazardous waste management on 
the base. The Spill Prevention and Response Plan addresses the discharge of 
pollutants and includes a contingency plan to address unauthorized releases. 

Closure Baseline. At the time of base closure, all of the hazardous waste 
generated by base functions will have been collected from all accumulation 
points and disposed of at a permitted faciiity, in accordance with RCRA. 

George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-58 













Tabte 3.3-1. Hazardout Watte Storage Locationa 



Lx)catk)n 


Site 

(Buflding #) 

Description 

Accumulation Pointa (90^y ttoraga) 


1 

18 

Auto Hobby Shop 

2 

310 

Right Simulator 

3 

538 

Supply inspection Section 

4 

540 

Power Production 

5 

552 

Fuel Truck Maintenance 

6 

555 

Vehide Maintenance 

7 

559 

Armament Shop 

8 

564 

NDi Shop 

9 

652 

Corrosion Control 

10 

659 

CE Material Control 

11 

670 

Liquid Fuel Maintenance 

12 

676 

Phase Section 

13 

676 

Phase Section 

14 

676 

Wheel and Tire Shop 

IS 

682 

AGE Section 

16 

682 

Corrosion Control 

17 

683 

Training Section 

18 

685 

Fuel Shop 

19 

685 

Fuel Shop 

20 

686 

Propulsion Branch and Test Cell 

21 

691 

561/562/563 AMU 

22 

719 

20 AMU Support Section 

23 

720 

Support Section 

24 

720 

21 AMU 

25 

724 

Rre Department 

26 

756 

Corrosion Control 

27 

761 

Alert Hangar 

28 

785 

MissHe Maintenance 

29 

789 

AGE Section 

Satellita Accumulation Pointa 


1 

513 

Entomology 

2 

551 

Fuels Testing 

3 

553 

ECM Shop 

4 

768 

Combat Munitions Unit 

5 

1120 

Munitions inspection 

6 



Soure*: U.S. Air Fore*. 19e8*. 




Hazardous waste generated by the DMT wDI be tracked to ensure proper 
kjentifleation, storage, transportation, and disposal, as well as implementation of 
waste minimization programs. The Hazardous Waste Storage Yard (site SS-23) 
(Figure 3.3-1) is an IRP designated site and will be studied, evaluated, 
remediated, and dosed under CERCLA and ail other applicable regulations. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 3 ^ 







EXPLANATION 
--BaaBoundMy 

= === Abandonid Runway 


Installation Restoration 
Program Sites 


nn 

0 750 1500 3000 Faal 




Figure 3.3>1 





























3.3.3 Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Sites 


IRP is an Air Force program to Identity, characterize, and remediate 
environmental contamination on its installations. Although legally acceptable at 
the time, procedures followed prior to the mid-1970s for managing and 
disposing of many wastes often resulted in contamination of the environment 
The program has established a process to evaluate past disposal sites, control 
the migration of contaminants, and control potential hazards to human health 
and the environment Section 211 of the Superfund Amendment and 
Reauthorization Act (SARA), codified as the Defense Environmental Restoration 
Program (DERP) of which the Air Force IRP is a subset, ensures that DOD has 
the authority to coixluct its own environmental restoration programs. 

Prior to passage of SARA and the establishment of the National Contingency 
Plan (NCP) for hazardous waste sites. Air Force IRP procedures followed DOD 
policy guidelines mirroring EPA's Superfund Program. Since SARA was passed, 
most federal facilities have been placed on a federal docket and EPA has been 
evaluating the facilities' waste sites for inclusion on the NPL. George AFB was 
officially listed on the NPL on February 12,1990, primarily because of 
groundwater contamination within the Northeast Disposal Area (Figure 3.3-2). 

In October 1990, the U.S. Air Force entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement 
(FFA) with U.S. EPA Region iX, the state of California (DHS) and the California 
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Lahontan Region. The 
California DHS authority has now transferred to the California Environmental 
Protection Agency (California EPA), Department of Toxic Substance Control 
(DTSC). The FFA stipulates that any corrective actions under RCRA shall be 
considered and managed pursuant to CERCLA. Objectives, responsibilities, 
procedures and schedules for cleanup were also established in the FFA. A 
representation of the IRP management process under CERCLA is shown in 
Figure 3.3-3. 

Ongoing activities at identified IRP sites may delay or limit some proposed land 
uses at or near those sites. Future land uses by the reuse organization on a 
site-specific level may be, to a certain extent, limited by the severity of 
contamination or level of remediation effort at these IRP sites. Regulator review 
as required by the FFA and the Air Force programs will also ensure any 
site-specific land use limitations are identified and considered. The FFA and Air 
Force programs will also ensure sufficient opportunity for public involvement in 
this decisional process. 

The original Air Force IRP was divided into four phases consistent with CERCLA: 

• Phase I: Problem Identification and Records Search 

• Phase li: Problem Confirmation and Quantification 


George AFB Disposal arid Reuse FEIS 


3-61 











EXPLANATION 

TCEPhiroLalMal Extant 


Installation Restoration 
Program Areas 


Baae Boundaiy 


zzzz AbflndofwdRummy 


Rgure 3.3-2 


ru I 

0 7S0 1S00 3000 Paal 




3-62 


GeofgeAFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




























INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROCESS 
(The CERCLA Prooeee) 


Site Discovery 


Preliminary Assessment/ 
Site Insp^on (PA/SQ 


Sources of Information on IRP 

Infoniwtion R«poaitO(y (Public Libraiws) 

USAF Bm« Pubfic Affaira Office 
USAF Disposal ManagamanI Taam (DMT) 

Administraiiva Rscoid (USAF and EPA) 

Taebnieal Raviaw Convnittaa (Local and Ragulatofy Officials) 
Madia Nswm Ralaaaas 
Pubic Maalinga 
Pubic Ndicas 


Remedial Investigation/ 
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 


Formal Proposal to Public of 
RamatSal Action Altamadvas 


Proposed Plan 
(PP) 


Formal Racalpt of Public Commanta 


Public Comment Period/ 
Public Meeting 


Formal Rssponas to Public Comments 
and Decision on Remediallon 


Record of Decision 
(ROD) 


Remedial Design/ 
Remedial Action (RD/RA) 


Pictorial Presentation 
of IRP Process 


Rgure 3.3-3 


George AFB [Xsp(Kal and Reuse FEIS 


3-63 









• Phase III: Technology Base Development 

• Phase IV: Corrective Actloa 

After SARA was passed In 1986, the IRP was realigned to incorporate the 
terminology used by the U.S. ERA and to integrate the new requiremenis in the 
NCR The result was the creation of three action stages: 

• Preliminary Assessmerft/Site Inspection (PA/SI) 

• Remedial investIgation/Feasibllty Study (RI/FS) 

• Remediai Oesign/Remedial Action (RO/RA). 

The PA portion of the first stage under the NCP is comparable to the original 
IRP Phase I and consists of a records search aivi interviews to determine 
whether potential problems exist A brief SI that may include sol and water 
sampling is performed to give an initial characterization or confirm the presence 
of contamination at a potentiai site. 

An Ri is simlartothe originai Phase ii and consists of additional field work and 
evaluations in order to assess the nature and extent of contamination. It 
includes a risk assessment arxl determines the need for site remediation. 

The original IRP Phase IV has been replaced by the PS and the RD witNn the 
third stage. The FS documents the development, evaluation, and selection of 
remedial "on alternatives to dean up the site. The selected alternative is then 
designed (RD) and implemented (RA). Long-term monitoring is often performed 
in association with site deanup to assure future compliance with contaminant 
standards or achievement of deanup goals. The Phase III portion of the IRP 
process is not induded in the normal SARA process. Technology Development 
(TD) under SARA is done under separate processes induding the Superfund 
Innovative Technology Evaluation program. The Air Force has an active TD 
program in cooperation with the ERA to find solutions to problems common to 
Air Force faclities. 

The dosure of George AFB wll not affect the ongoing IRP activity. These IRP 
activities wM continue in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations to 
protect human health arxf the environment, regardless of the alternative chosen 
for reuse. The FFA between the U.S. Air Force, U.S. ERA, Califomia DHS, arxi 
the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control formalizes the joint involvement in 
IRR 

Again, the public may keep abreast of the IRP at George AFB through various 
sowces of information (see Figure 3.3-3). More information about the public 
comment process may be obtained by contacting the base Public Afbtirs Office 
or the Disposal Management Team’s Environmental Programs Office. 
Additionally, the IRP as marxlated by CERCLA and the NCP has a public 


3-64 


George AFB Oisposa/ and Reuse FEIS 








participatory program much like the one in the preparation of this EIS. TheAir 
Force wH, with the acceptance of each Ri/FS by the regulatory community, 
prepare a proposed plan for the remediation of a site(s) which wll include a 
discussion of alternatives considered. The proposed plan wU be distributed to 
the public for commert; a public meeting wll be held to discuss the proposed 
plan and comments on the proposed plan wll be accepted by the Air Force. 

The Air Force wW then respond to al comments making those responses part of 
a public ROD on what the remediation wll ental prior to any Remedial Action 
being taken (see Figure 3.3-3). 

Preclosure Reference. Because the Air Force began the IRP process at 
George AFB in 1981, prior to terminology and procedural changes, both phases 
and stages are contained in the IRP Information Repository and Administrative 
Record. The IRP Phase I Records Search was published In January 1982. It 
initially identified 54 potential disposal sites (3 munitions disposal sites, 

13 landfills, 13 miscellaneous dump or burial areas, and 25 liquid disposal/spW 
areas). Of these sites, 25 were recommended for further evaluation. Three 
primary areas of concern were identified: the Industrial Storm Drain, the 
Northeast Disposal Area, and the Southeast Disposal Area. 

Several field studies have since been performed to determine the existence, 
nature, and extent of any new and existing contaminated sites on base; these 
additional studies have further idantified two more primary areas of concern, the 
Central Disposal Area and the West Perimeter Disposal Area. To date, 65 sites 
have been identified (see Figure 3.3-1) under the FFA for inclusion in the 
remediation process. The initial sources of contamirration at the IRP sites were 
primarily the maintenance and refueling of aircraft and ground support 
equipment, fire protection training, corrosion control, and past disposal actions. 
The most prevalent corrtaminants that have been identified include solvents arxl 
petroleum products. Other contaminants found or thought to exist in small 
quantities include radioactive materials (vacuum tubes), munitions (rifle 
cartridges and flares), acids, asbestos, pesticides, and various other shop and 
household wastes. A summary of site descriptions, including locations and 
wastes is provided In Table 3.3-2. Additional IRP information is availabie at 
Public Information Fie Locations at San Bernardino County Libraries (Adelanto 
arxl Victorvlle Branches). 

For ease of discussion, most IRP sites are grouped into the aforementioned five 
geographic areas on the base, as follows (Figure 3.3-2): the Northeast Disposal 
Area, the Industrial Storm Drain Disposal Area, the Southeast Disposal Area, the 
Central Disposal Area, and the West Perimeter Disposal Area. IRP sites within 
each geographic area are described in Sections 3.3.3.1 through 3.3.3.5. IRP 
sites not Incorporated into one of these five areas are discussed in Section 
3.3.3.6. The following sections discuss Individual sites based upon varying 
status of investigative studies and avalablity of results O-e.. various phases of 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-65 





George AFB tXsposaf and Reuse FEIS 



















































George AFB P’: Tojal and Reuse FEIS 


















































George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


















































George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 

















































George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


















































George AFB Disposal end Reuse FEIS 














IRP have been completed, are currently under way, or are planned for the 
future). 

In addition to the mandates of the IRR prior to the transfer of any property at 
George AFB, the Air Force must also comply with the provisions of CERCLA 
§ 120. CERCLA § 120h specifically requires that, before federal property can be 
transferred from federal ownership, the United States must provide notice of 
specific hazardous waste actMtIes on the property and include in the deed a 
covenant warranting that “all remedial action necessary to protect human health 
and the environment with respect to any [hazardous] substance remaining on 
the property has been taken before the date of such transfer." Furthermore, the 
covenant must also warrant that “any additional remedial action found to be 
necessary after the date of such transfer shall be conducted by the United 
States." To ensure that money is available to conduct environmental restoration 
at mflitary installations scheduled for closure, Congress appropriated 
$100 million to the Defense Base Closure Account for fiscal year 1991 to be 
used exclusively for that purpose. It is expected that future authorization acts 
will continue to fund environmental restoration activities at dosing installations. 
In light of the continuing responsibility of the Air Force for restoration activities 
at George AFB, it is unlikely that such activities would be eligible for federal 
funding under the Airport Improvement Program managed by the FAA. 

The combination of the requirements on the Air Force to complete the IRP for 
the contaminated sites on George AFB and provide the assurances required by 
CERCLA's 120(h) for all properties transferred may delay parcel disposition or 
conveyance and affect reuse. 

The Air Force is committed to the identification, assessment, and remediation of 
the contamination from hazardous substances at George AFB. This 
commitment will assure the protection of public health as well as restoration of 
the environment. Additionally, the Air Force will work aggressively with the 
regulatory community to ensure that parcel disposition or conveyance occurs at 
the earliest reasonable date so as not to impede the economic redevelopment 
of the area through reuse of George AFB. Quantification of those delays based 
on the conceptual plans for ail redevelopment alternatives and what is currently 
known at this stage of the IRP is not possible. 

3.3.3.1 Northeast Disposal Area. The Northeast Disposal Area comprises 
approximately 730 acres. The IRP Phase I Records Search (CH2M Hill, 1982) 
identified waste disposal sites in this area, consisting of burial sites, landfills, fire 
training areas, and spill or liquid disposal sites, which could contain wastes with 
potentially hazardous characteristics. Additionally, an industrial and stormwater 
sewer from the flightline, another potential source of contamination, runs 
through the area. A groundwater monKoring well was installed during the 
Phase 11. (Stage 1) Confirmation/Quantification Study, in 1985. Quarterly 
sampling revealed TCE contamination within the Northeast Disposal Area during 


3-72 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







January 1986. A cleanup and abatemeitf order was issued by the Callomia 
W^ter Quality Control Board. Lahontan Region, on January 16.1986. This order 
required the base to irrvestigate the extent of the grourxiwater contamination 
and InMate the cleanup of TCE In the grourKiwater. This order was rescinded 
upon signature of the FFA. 

As part of the Phase li (Stage 2) Confirmation/Quantification Study (1986), the 
Air Force installed 44 groundwater monitoring wells in the area in order to 
determirte the nature arxj extent of any groundwater contaminatioa TCE 
contamination has been detected at least once in 42 of those wells in past 
sampling, with 12 wells showing TCE concentrations above the Catifomia State 
Action Level of S parts per billion (ppb). The field investigations have shown the 
area of contamination to be approximately 1.25 miles long by 0.75 mile wide, 
extending 0.75 mie north of the base boundary (Rgure 3.3-2). In addition to 
TCE. benzene and 1.2-dicNoroethane were detected in a few wells at levels 
exceeding state drinking water standards. Other volatOe organic compounds 
(VOCs) have also been detected, but below State Action Level concentrations. 

As a result of a Phase IV Feasibility Study, the Air Force has designed and 
constructed an Upper Aquifer remediation facDity for groundwater 
contamination from the Northeast Disposal Area. Remediation would involve 
extracting contaminated groundwater from both on-base and off-base wells, 
removing the TCE and other VOCs by use of air stripping towers, arxi 
recharging the treated water through the existing abandoned wastewater 
treatment percolation ponds. The pump-and-treat system is currently being 
tested, and the Air Force is prepari g for full operations. The system wil treat 
approximately 750.000 gallons per day once operational. A cleanup using this 
system would be anticipated to last from 15 to 30 years. However, the system is 
not supported by a final cleanup decision under the FFA at this time. The Air 
Force is continuing the RI/FS under the FFA which will culminate in a Proposed 
Plan. The Proposed Plan will be distributed for public review and comment 
prior to the Air Force’s submittal to the ERA Region IX and state of California of 
an ROD which wfll specify the exact scope of the final RA to be taken and 
cleanup objectives to be met. 

The Fire Fighting Training Facflity (Site FT-19). also located within the Northeast 
Disposal Area, consists of a 100-foot diameter concrete pad. an ol/water 
separator to separate fuel components from wastewater, and an evaporation 
tank to evaporate residual contaminated water. These facilities were refurbi^ied 
In 1987. Prior to this upgrade, fuel for the training fires was sprayed directly on 
an asphalt pad. which had severely degraded and did not contain the fuel as 
required. The underlying soBs are contaminated with fuel components and 
must be cleaned up. 

Activities in the Northeast Disposal Area are designed to dean up groundwater 
contamination and define and dean up soB contamination associated with the 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-73 


various sites. The method chosen for the deara^ of contaminated sols has not 
been finalized. 

3.3.3.2 Industrial Storm Drain Disposal Area. The Industrial Storm Drain 
Disposal area consists of the irxlustriai storm drain and outfdi ditch site, which 
has been in operation since the early 1940s. In the past, the storm drain 
received bxfustrial wastes, including waste ols, fuels, solvents, and paint 
strippers, as weU as storm water. In 1983, the industrial sources were 
disconnected from the storm drain system and cormected to the sanitary sewer 
system. The storm drain consisted of over 3.5 mies of piping in two paraNel 
sections, the East Storm Drain and the West Storm Drain. 

A segment of the East Storm Drain was constructed of perforated corrugated 
metal pipe. The main flow was easterly to an ol/water separator. Under normal 
flow conditions, the discharge continued easterly from the separator and was 
pumped into the sanitary sewer system. The primary contarpination in the East 
Storm Drain was lead. The perforated corrugated piping was removed arxJ 
replaced during 1990. The remaining segments of the East Storm Drain were Jet 
steam cleaned. Currently, the East Storm Drain receives no industrial waste. 

Some remedial activities for the West Storm Drain are currently under way. The 
remedial activities consist of the cleanup of contaminated areas associated with 
sections of perforated pipe, foiiowed by closure in place of remaining sections. 
Cleanup activities on the West Storm Drain are on-going. This cleanup may not 
be the final cleanup of this area as the remediation activities are not supported 
by an ROD as the final RA. Additional study is ongoing and additional RA may 
be required. 

3.3.3.3 Southeast Disposal Area. The Southeast Disposal Area contains ten 
IRP sites comprised of three munitions, five landfill, one liquid disposal or spill, 
and one burial site. Site RW-09 was identified as being used for the disposal of 
low-level radioactive wastes. The other landfilis reportedly received a variety of 
wastes, including paper, gerwrai refuse, solvents, paints, and miscellaneous 
debris. 

A water quality analysis, corxiucted at the Southeast Disposal Area, indicated 
the presence of radioactivity in the groundwater. The natural occurrence of 
radioactive material in rocks may provide sources for the introduction of 
radioactivity into the groundwater. Uranium materials oxidize readly, providing 
a source of soluble (hexavatem) uranium (JMM, 1988b). The levels detected in 
the groundwater are, thus, likely a result of natural occurrences in the area. 
These results wll be substantiated during additional RI/FS work scheduled for 
this area. 

3.3.3.4 Central Disposal Area. Investigations of the Central Disposal Area 
have been conducted since 1982. Ongoing investigations at the Central 


3-74 


George AFB Disposai and Reuse FEIS 





Disposal Area consist of anrujd santpling and measurements of vvater levdt In 
monitoring vvsis. The Central Disposal Area has seven waste disposal sites 
con^xised of three burial sites and four liquid disposal or spMs sites. SiteWP-11 
corrtahns fuel-related hydrocarbons, such as petroleum, d, and lubricant (POL) 
waste gerterated from vehicle maintenance and the fuels laboratory. Several 
years wM be required to complete this cleanup, which has not yet begun. 

The Hazardous Wbste Storage Yard (Ska SS-23) wM dose in compliance with 
RCRA and OCR, Tide 22 (U.S. Ak Force, 19900- Sol samples were taken as part 
of the Rl effort. Sample results from these tests indicate that no significant 
contamination of the sols and groundwater associated with the Hazardous 
Wbste Storage Yard has occurred. Additional sampling, as outlined in the 
dosure requirements of the permit wH be performed. Any contamination that 
may be identified wll be rmnediated by the Air Force. 

3.3.3.5 West Perimeter Disposal Area. One IRP site (SD-18) comprises the 
West Perimeter Disposal Area. No sol contamination in excess of applicable 
regulatory standards was discovered in ten shallow sol borings adjacent to the 
she. Because there is no confirmed sol contamination, no further sol 
investigations in the West Perimeter Disposal Area wll be performed. 
Groundwater corKfitions In the area have not been investigated. 

3.3.3.6 Other Waste Sites and Disposal Areas. Many IRP sites at George 
AFB have not been inve^gated since their initial identification in 1982 because 
they were not considered to be a sufficient threat to human health and welfare 
to warrant further investigation. Sites 0T49, OT-SO, OT-61, OT-62, OT-64, OT-6S, 
OT-66. and WP-^ have not been delineated on Rgure 3.3-1 but have been 
induded on Table 3.3-2. These sites are not believed to be potential sources for 
contamination (i.e., relatively small quantities are involved). The Air Force wll 
accomplish further investigation on 27 of these sites to confirm contamination or 
noncontamination. The appropriate regulatory officials wll be consulted and a 
decision wll be made as to whether remediation efforts are warranted and what 
methods of remediation wll be adopted. 

Further site characterization was conducted at Site SS-30 from May 22 to 
August 8,1990. Field observations and analytical data indicate that fuel-related 
contamination is present the sols and the groundwater. Several potential 
JP-4 leak sources may have contributed to the total vadose zone (unsaturated 
sol above ground wate^ and groundwater contamination identified at this site. 

A contaminated groundwater plume was detected and estimated to be 
approximately 300 feet long and 240 feet wide. The RA indicates that cleanup is 
required to preserve nearby groundwater resources (IT Corporation, 1990). 

Closure Baseline. IRP dean up activities wll continue well past the 
December 1992 dosure date for George AFB. To help accelerate the dean-up 
process the IRP sites at George AFB have been placed in three operable units. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-75 




Sites designated to each operable unit were determined by common 
contamination type and geographical location. The sites associated wtth each 
operable unit are listed in Table 3.3.2. The DMT will oversee the coordination of 
the contractors and assure that U.S. and Califomia EPA, RWQCB and locd 
regulatory agency concerns are addressed pursuant to the FFA. The Air Force 
wM r^in easements in order to perform operations and maintenance on all 
remediation systems. Funding for the restoration activities at closure 
installations was authorized by Congress in 1991 specifically for that purpose. It 
is anticipated that future authorization acts w9l continue to fund environmental 
restoration activities at closing installations. The current schedule for future IRP 
activMes is provided in Table 3.3-3. The deadlines are binding on the Air Force 
subject to compliance by the other FFA parties to the agreed review periods. 
The parties to the FFA may request extensions for good cause, for example, 
Identification of significant new site conditions. 

3.3.4 Storage Tanks 

Regulations. USTs are subject to federal regulations within RCRA, 40 CFR 
Part 280. These regulations were mandated by the Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments of 1984. The state of Califomia has adopted regulations under 
Tide 23, Chapter 3 of the CCRs. Califomia regulations are more stringent than 
the federal regulations and require secondary containment on both the tank arxl 
piping systems installed after January 1,1984. San Bernardino County DEHS 
administers the state regulations for USTs at George AFB. 

Aboveground storage tanks are regulated under California Health and Safety 
Code, Division 20, Section 6.67, the Uniform Fire Code, and the Natbnal Rre 
Protection Association regulations, and are enforced by the base fire 
department 

Preclosure Reference. There are 47 UST systems at George AFB, listed in 
Table 3.3-4. The George AFB UST Management Plan dated September 1990 
(Entech, Inc., 1990c) describes the number, types and status of USTs on the 
base. 

There are three USTs designed In compliance with San Bernardino County's 
1988 regulations (Table 3.3-4, Tank Nos. 749-1,749-2, and 749-3). Periodic 
monitoring is accomplished through a county-approved tracer system. 

There are five abovegrourxl storage tanks (Table 3.3-5) for JP-4 fuel. This fuel is 
provided to the base through a liquid fuel pipeline system. The fuel is then 
transferred through the Liquid Fuel Distribution System (LFDS) to numerous 
aircraft refueling hydrants on the flightline. The LFDS has leak detection 
(soil-gas) monitoring, in compliance with San Bernardino County regulations. 


3-76 


George AFB Disposal arKi Reuse FEIS 






I 




< £ S 

l.ll 111 

lii|i 

s 

111IIf| I 

o o o o< o 


% 

f 

3 

I 


CM 

% 

« 

« 

3 

I 



nil* 

o C o o o 


« 

% 

? 

3 

o 

3 


3-77 


George AFB Dispose/end fieuse FEIS 






Tabla 3.3-4. USTInvntory 


Tank# 

Capadly 

(oalons) 

Contents 

Instalatlon 

Date 

Construction 

Material 

12-1 

10.000 

Unleaded gas 

1966 

Steel 

12-k 

9.950 

Unleaded gas 

1966 

Steel 

12-3 

10.000 

Unleaded gas 

1966 

Steel 

12-4 

1.000 

Wasted 

1966 

Steel 

285 

500 

# 2 Diesel fuel 

Unknown 

Steel 

550-T6 

10.000 

Unleaded gas 

1971 

Steel 

550-T7 

10.000 

Unleaded gas 

1971 

Steel 

550-T8 

2.000 

# 2 Diesel auto 

1971 

Steel 

643-1 

4,000 

Unleaded gas 

1983 

Fiberglass 

643-2 

4.000 

JP-4 

1983 

Fiberglass 

643-3 


JP-4 

1983 

Rberoiass 

690-1 

50.000 

Contaminated JP-4 

1948 

Steel 

690-2 

50.000 

NaOH - 1 - H 2 O 

1948 

Steel 

690-3 

50.000 

JP-4 

1948 

Steel 

69(M 

50.000 

JP-4 

1948 

Steel 

701 

200 

#2 Diesel fuel 

Unknown 

Steel 

708-1 

50.000 

JP-4 

1951 

Steel 

708-2 

50.000 

JP-4 

1951 

Steel 

708-3 

50.000 

JP-4 

1951 

Steel 

708-4 

50.000 

JP-4 

1951 

Steel 

708-S 

50,000 

JP-4 

1951 

Steel 

708-6 


JP-4 

1951 

Steel 

710-1 

1.250 

#2 Diesel fuel 

1974 

Steel 

710-2 

600 

# 2 Diesel fuel 

Unknown 

Steel 

724-1 

1,000 

Unleaded gas 

Unknown 

Steel 

724-2 

1.000 

# 2 Diesel aiAo 

Unknown 

Steel 

724-3 

500 

#2Dieseifuel 

Unknown 

Steel 

730 

500 

#2 Diesel fuel 

Unknown 

Steel 

749-1 

6.000 

JP-4 

Unknown 

Rberglass 

749-2 

1,000 

Unleaded gas 

Unknown 

Rberglass 

74M 

6.000 

JP-4 

Unknown 


761-1 

1,000 

JP-4 

1976 

Steel 

761-2 

500 

#2Dleseifuel 

1978 

Steel 

806-1 

1.000 

#2 Diesel fuel 

Unknown 

Steel 

808 

500 

Waste fuel & H 2 O 

Unknown 

Steel 

814 

500 

#2Dieseifuel 

1967 

Steel 

819 

500 

Waste fuel &H 2 O 

Unknown 

Steel 

841 

£00 

#2 Diesel fuel 

Unknown 

Steel 

842 


#2 Diesel fuel 

Unknown 

Steel 

1146 

1.000 

Unleaded oas 

Unknown 

Steel 

1155-1 

12,000 

#2Dieselfuel 

1983 

Steel 

1155-2 

25.000 

#2Heatinafuel 

1983 

Steel 

1200-2 

600 

#2 Diesel fuel 

Unknown 

Steel 

32000-1 

5,000 

JP-4 

1951 

Steel 

32000-2 

5,000 

JP-4 

1951 

Steel 

32000-3 

5,000 

JP-4 

1951 

Steel 



JP-4 

_ 



3-78 George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 



















Tabte3.3-^ Abovgroimd Sto(r«g» Tank Invmory 


Tank 

Bidding# 

Total Capacity (galon^ 

1 

547 

420,000 

2 

548 

209,000 

3 

554 

630,000 

4 

556 

668,000 

S 

557 

419,000 


Soutm: CH2M HW, 1982. 


CkMurt BaMlin*. AB USTs not needed for future operations at the base be 
removed. Remaining USTs must comply with all federal, state, and local 
regulations regarding system integrity, spll prevention, arKf liabllty insurance. 
Adequate preservation of the system, including draining and purging flammabie 
gases, may be necessary to minimize the risk of accidentai ignition or explosion 
from abovegrouTKf tanks. Abandonment and temporary closure of both 
underground and aboveground storage tanks wll be dosely coordinated with 
the San Bernardino County OEMS. 

3.3.S Asbestos 

Regulations. Asbestos is regulated by EPA and OSHA. Asbestos emissions 
into ambient air are controlled according to Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 
which establishes the National Emissions Starxfards for Hazardous Air 
PoHutants (NESHAP). The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act 
(AHERA) addresses the management of asbestos in schools from kindergarten 
through grade 12. Asbestos may be released into the air during the renovation 
or demolition of biddings. Asbestos-containing materiai (ACM) that can 
crumble or break as a resiA of hand pressure is called friable asbestos. These 
fftMTs can be emitted from various buBding materials, such as pipe and bder 
wrap, acoustic ceSings, and other insulating materials. NESHAP regulates the 
demolition or renovation of buBdings with ACM. EPA has a policy that 
addresses leaving asbestos in place and not disturbing the material. 

Preclosure Reference. The current Air Force practice is to remove or manage 
asbestos in active facflities only when it poses a threat of release from friable 
ACM. The Air Force policy concerning the management of asbestos for base 
closures can be found in Apperxlix H. George AFB has surveyed 184 of the 
1,970 existing on-base facBities for asbestos; 40 percent contained ACM 
(U.S. Air Force, ISeOc). 

A base-wide survey for ACM is required by FPMR disclosure law prior to base 
disposal. Completion of tl^ George AFB asbestos survey is anticipated in 1992. 
Once the survey is completed, an asbestos management plan wfll be developed 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-79 





w4ifch wdild 0 r<iyappropflrt» i ntihod » far minimizing thtHsto of e><po<ur»^ 
asbottot in accoidanco wAh Air Forco raguladons. 

Closura BaMflna. 

An analysis wl be conduclad to dalermina the cost effectiveness of removing 
ACM versus devaluing the property prior to reuse. ACM wH be removed if a 
buldingis.orlsintendadtobe.usedasaschoolorchld-carefaclity. Exposed 
friable asbestos wl be removed in accordance vAh applicable health iavrs, 
regulations, and standards, V it Is determined that a health hazard exists. 

3.3.6 Peetidde and Harticide Uaage 

Regulations. The federal regulations that control the use of pesticides and 
herbicides are contained widiin the Federal insecticide. Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act (RFRA), 40 CFR162,165,166.170 and 171. Implementation of 
the federal regulations by the state are found under TWe 3, Chapter 4. of the 
CCRs. 

Preclosure Reference. All of the pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides utilized 
at George AFB are stored in Buldings 513 (Pest Martagement) and 1136/1139 
(Golf Course Management) (Table 3.3^). 

Cloaure Baseline. Atthetimeof closure, pesticides arxf herbicides wll 
continue to be utilized at the Pest Management and the golf course 
maintenance areas. 

3.3.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 

Commercial PCBs are Irxlustrial compourxls produced by cNorination of 
biphenyls. PCBs persist in the environment, accumulate in organisms, and 
cortcentrate in the food chain. PCBs are used in eiectrical equipmertt, prftnarly 
in capacitors and transformers, because they are eiectricaiiy nonconductive and 
stable at high temperatures. 

Regulations. The disposal of these compounds is regulated under the federal 
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which banned the manufecture and 
distribution of PCBs with the exception of PCBs used in enclosed systems. By 
definition. PCB equipment contains 500 parts per mUion (ppm) PCBs or rrKxe, 
whereas PCB-cortaminated equipment contains PCB concentrations greater 
than 50 ppm but less than 500 ppm, whie PCB-items contain from 5 to 49 ppm 
PCBs. The U.S. ERA regulates the removal and disposal of ail sources of PCBs 
containing 50 ppm or more; the regulations are more stringent for PCB 
equipment than for PCB-contantinated equipment The state regulates the 
disposition of PCB*items. 


3-80 


George AFB Dispose and Reuse FEIS 








Tabto9.J^ PMtieidA/FunglekIt/HarbichtoStorag* 
(PmI ManagMntnl and QoN Count Managtmonl) 


Name/Trade Name 


Pesticides 


Oiazinon 

1 gaVon 

Raygon (liquid) 

1 galon 

FlcamWWP 

1 gallon 

Carbaryl 

3 gallon 

Funolcides 


None 


Hflffateidfia 


Parmitol 25 E 

25 gallons 

BronicI 

4 gallons 

Round-up (liquid) 

5 gallons 

Oalapon 

50 pounds 

Weed AR 2-4-0 

5 gallons 

Round-up glyphosate 41% 

3 gallons 

2-4 0 

5 gallons 

Cutrine plus-copper 

4gallon8 


Sourca: U.S. Mr Foroc, 19Q0*. 


Cafifbmia reguOttons under Title 22, Chapter 30 of the OCRs are more stringent 
than the federal TSCA regulations. Additional state regulations are found in the 
California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.5. Within Caiifomia, fluids 
containing 5 ppm PCBs or more are regulated as a hazardous waste. 

Pnclosun Referanca. ITiera are six contaminated electrical devices at 
George AFB with PC8 concentrations between 50 and 499 ppm. These six 
contaminated electrical devices wBI be removed prior to base closure. 
Additionally, there are 68 transformers that contain 5 to 49 ppm PCBs; these 
transformers wfll remain in place arxl their locations wfli be disclosed to the new 
owners. 

Closure Baaeline. There wM be no federally regulated PCB-contaminated 
equipment on base at clo»ire. PCB items (the 68 items with 5 to 49 ppm of 
PCBs) wM remain in place and the new owners wOi be informed of their 
existance and locations. PCB items remaining after base closure wll be 
managed In compliance with state regulations. 

3.3.8 Radon 

Radon is a naturally occurring coloriess and odorless radioactive gas that is 
produced by radioactive decay of naturally occurring uranium. Radium, of 
which radon gas is a by-product, is found In high concentration in rocks 


George AFB Orsposa/ and Reuse FE/S 


3-81 








containing uranhjm. granita, shale, phosphate, and pitchblende. Atmospheric 
radon is diuted to insigitificant concentrations. Radon that Is present in sol, 
hoMrever, can enter a buMing through smal spaces and openings, 
accumulating h enclosed areas, such as basements. The cancer risk caused 
by exposiae, through the Inhalation of radon, is currently a topic of concern. 

Regulations. There are no federal or state starxiards regulatirtg radon 
exposure at the presera time. U.S. Air Force policy requires implementation of 
the Air Force Radon Assessment and Mitigation Program (RAMP) to determine 
levels of radon exposure of mlitary persormei and tt^r deperxlents. EPA has 
made testing recommendations for both residentiai structures and schools. 

For residentiai structures, using a 2- to 7-day charcoal canister test, a level 
b^een 4 and 20 picocuries per liter (pCi/l) should lead to additional screening 
within a few years. For levels of ^ to 200 pCi/l, additional confirmation 
sampling should be accomplished within a few months, if there is an excess of 
200 pCI/l, the structure should be immediately evacuated. Schools are to use a 
2-day charcoal canister, readings of 4 to 20 pCi/l require a 9-month school year 
survey. Table 3.3-7 summarizes the recommended radon surveys and action 
levels. 


Table 3.3>7. Recommended Radon Surveys and Mitigations 


Facflitv 

EPA Action Level 

Recommendation 

Residential 

4to20pCi/l 

Additional screening. 

Expose detector for 1 year. 

Reduce levels to below 4 pCi/l within 
a few years. 

Residentiai 

20to200pCi/l 

Perform follow-up measurements. 
Expose detectors for no more than 

3 months. 

Residential 

Above 200 pCi/l 

Perform follow-up measurements. 
Expose detectors for no more than 
one week. Immediately reduce 
radon levels. 


Two-Day Weekend Measurement 

School 

4to20 pCi/l 

Confirmatory 9-nKxith survey. 

Alpha track or ion chamber survey. 

School 

Greater than 20 pCi/l 

Diagnostic survey or mitigation. 


CongrMt has sat a national goal for indoor radon concantration of tha outdoor ambiant iavals of 
from0.2to0.7pCi/l. 

Souroa: U.S. EPA 1968. 


Preclosiov Reference. With the development of RAMP, the Air Force Is now 
able to evaluate the concentration of radon in femly housing units on military 
installations. If high concentrations of radon are detected, venting the gas is 
implemented according to RAMP recommendations. The initial radon screening 


3-82 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






sur^ It Q«orge AFB wis conducted by the Bioenvtoonrnental Engineering 
DMeion and coneieted of 30 aamplee taken from mlitary femly housing unite 
bebeeen December 1987 and February 1968. AM survey results were beiow 
ERA'S recommended mitigation ievei of 4 pCVI, thus, no further actions were 
deemed necessary (U.S. Air Force. 1989c). 

Cloaure Baseine. Based on the survey resuits, no further action is necessary. 
3.3.9 Medical/Blohazardoua Waste 

Regulationa. Currert fed^ staixlards do tx)t require regulation of medical 
waste; TMe 22. Artide 13 of the OCRs reguiates infectious wastes. 

Section 66845 offers four methods for treatment and disposai of such wastes: 

• incir>eration in a controiied-air muiti-chambered lrK:inerator which 
provides complete combustion of the waste to carbonized or 
mineralized a^. rendering infectious waste, non-infectious and 
disposable as norvhazardous waste 

• Burial at a Class I or Ciass II landfill 

• Discharge to sewage system If the waste is liquid or semliquid 

• Sterlization by heating in a steam sterilizer or other sterilization 
technique approved by the DHS, so It is rerxiered noninfectious. 

Precloeure Reference. George AFB has a 25-bed hospital that provides basic 
in- and out-patient care. All medical wastes and other contaminated materials 
are incinerated by a hospital pathological incinerator with secondary 
combustion for air pollution control. The incinerator is permitted by the San 
Bernardino CourXy Air Pollution Control District. The hospital generated 
12.700 pounds of waste in 1990. The base hospital laboratory autoclaves all 
biohazardous waste prior to disposal (Rodriguez, 1991). 

A number of photographic operations currently exist at George AFB. 

Table 3.3-8 lists the siver recovery units which treat photochemical wastes prior 
to discharge to the sewage system. 


Table 3.3-8. Silver Recovery Units 


Source 

Building No. 

Armament Recording Laboratory 

107 

Base Photo Laboratory 

350 

Dental X-Ray Processing 

1150 

Medical X-Ray Processing 

1155 

NorvDestructive Aircraft Maintenance Shop 

564 


George AFB Dispose! and Reuse FEIS 


3-83 







CkMura BaMfim. The hospital vvU be inactive and no biohazardous waatawl 
be geneiated at base doeive. Existing biohazardous and photochemicai waste 
wll be processed and removed prior to closure. 

3.4 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 

This section describes the affected environment for natural resources: sdsand 
geology, water resources, air quality, noise, bioiogicai resources, and cultural 
resources. 

3.4.1 Soile and Geology 

The ROI for sols is localized aiKl limited to George AFB. For geology, ttie ROI 
extends to neighboring aggregate deposits northeast of George AFB and the 
general tectonic framework tttat encompasses the Mojave Desert 

3.4.1.1 Soils. In general, sols at George AFB have formed on alluviai fan 
deposits from the nearby mountains. Sols generally consist of sand and loamy 
sand with iittie day. The formation of caliche layers in older sols hampers direct 
infltration of precipitation by acting as a partial barrier. The extent to which 
caliche layers occur is deperxient on weathering arxf degree of erosion loamy 
sand with little day. The formation of caliche layers in dder sols hampers direct 
infltration of precipitation by acting as a partial barrier. The extent to which 
caliche layers occur is dependent on weathering and degree of erosion. 

“Desert pavement” is a term often used to describe the overall surface sol 
condition in the ROI. Characteristics of desert pavement indude thin, residual 
concentrations of wind-pdlshed pebbles (SAIC, 1985). In areas where the 
topography slopes, the pavement impedes inffitration and promotes sheet flow 
arxl guHy erosion. The potential for sediment transfer by water or wind erosion 
differs among sol types and is dependent upon slope and whether or not the 
desert pavement acts as a protective cover. 

The Sol Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986) has 
mapped sols on and around George AFB. Most of the on-base sols consist of 
the Bryman loamy fine sand that forms on terraces and older alluvial deposits. 
This fine sand is susceptible to high wind erosion in unprotected areas, although 
water erosion has a slight impact The shrink-sweil potential is moderate and 
the overall strength is low. Typically, the surface layer consists of pale brown 
and light yellow loam wtth fine sarxi. The Bryman loamy fine sand, when 
irrigated, meets the sol requirements for prime farmland; however, the area 
surrounding the base is not irrigated and. thus, the land does not qualify as 
prime fermiand (see AO Form 1006, Appendix I). 

Arxjthercorrxnon sol unit In the ROI is the Mojave Variant loamy sand. The 
permeablity of this imit Is moderately low and runoff is medium. The sol is 


George AFB Disposd vid Reuse FEIS 






susceptible to slight \Mater erosion, but has a high potential for whid erosion In 
unprotected areas. Surtace layers consist of light brown, loamy sand undeilain 
by a reddish-pink subsol. 

The eastern section of the ROI, near the Mojave River, contains a vdder variety 
of sols. The Haplargids-Calciorthid Complex occurs mainly between flood 
plains of the Mojave River, on terrace escarpments, atxl on narrow aluvial fans 
and drakiageways. The permeablity of these sols is moderately low and the 
hazard of water erosion is moderately high. Wind erosion is rrKxlerate in 
unprotected areas. 

The eastern section of the ROI, near the Mojave River, contains a wider variety 
of sols. The Haplargids-Calciorthid Complex occurs mainly between flood 
plains of the Mojave River, on terrace escarpments, and on narrow alluviai tans 
and drainageways. The permeablity of these sols Is moderately low aixJ the 
hazard of water erosion is moderately high. Wind erosion is rrxxferate in 
unprotected areas. Cajon Sands occur predominantly along the southeastern 
boundary of the ROI. They exhibit high pemreablity and, therefore, iow water 
capacity. The hazard of water erosion is siight to moderate and wind erosion 
potential is high. 

Contamination was idemified in sol samples collected along the east edge of 
the flight line apron (IT Corporation, 1990). Contaminants and corx^entrations 
are identified in Section 3.3, Hazardous Materiais/Hazardous Waste 
Management 

3.4. 1.2 Physiography and Geology. George APB is situated in the Mojave 
Desert region of the Basin arxJ Range Physiographic Province. The desert is 
bounded on the north and northwest by the Gariock Fault and Tehachapi 
Mountains and by the San Gabriel arxl San Bernardino mountains to the south. 
Characteristic landforms of the region include alluvial tans, stream terraces, and 
playas. General elevations in the Mojave Desert range from 4,000 feet MSL in 
the mountain ranges to around 2,000 feet MSL in some of the dry take basins. 

The surtace elevation of George AFB is approximately 2,900 feet MSL Several 
faults are present in the region. Locally, the base lies in a wedge-shaped 
tectonic section that is underlain by geologic units ranging from Precambrtan to 
Recent in age (Bortugno and Spinier, 1986). 

George AFB is located on an extension of the Victorvilie Fan, which originates at 
the base of the San Gabriel Mountains and extends northward to the Mojave 
River (Montgomery, 1988a). Surficiai units at George AFB consist of alluvial 
deposits originating from nearby mountains during the past mliion years (SAIC, 
1985). Stream deposits, erosion, and other weathering factors have nKxJified 
the alluvial tans to form their present land surtace. 

Geologic units exposed in the region are generally grouped into consolidated 
rocks and unconsolidated deposits (Bader et al., 1958). Consolidated rocks of 

3 ^ 


George AFB Dispose and Reuse FEIS 




Tertiary age consist of coarw, conglomeratic sandstones that have poor 
permeaMity and water-bearing characteristics. Unconsolidated deposits, which 
comprise most of the desert floor, are of Quaternary age. These deposits are 
composed of materials ranging in size from coarse sands and gravels to sits 
and days. These units are typically permeable, porous, and have good water¬ 
bearing characteristics (Bader et ai., 1958). 

The older, cortsolidated depostts (Harold and Shoemaker formation) are 
underlain by a basement complex of nonwater-bearing igneous and 
metamorphic rocks. The basement rock is wefl-exposed in the San Gabriel 
Mountain range but becomes less evident north of the range. The units are also 
exposed In the isolated mountain ranges northeast of the base. Driling records 
indicate that the basement complex is approximately 600 fed below grourxf 
surface on base (Montgomery, 1988b). The Paleozoic-Mesozoic basement 
complex consists primarly of quartz monzonite arxl metamorphosed marine 
sediments, commonly occurring vdth quartz arxi microdine in granite 
pegmatites (Figure 3.4-1). 

Mineral and Natural Resources. The diverse topography and geologic 
features associated with the Mojave Desert region yield numerous mineral and 
natural resources. Scattered localities near the base have extracted minerals 
induding gold, slver, iron, tungsten, turquoise, zedite, barite, copper, and day. 
Currently, limestone is mined in the mountains northeast and southeast of the 
base. Sarxi and gravel are mined from alluvial fens and stream deposits near 
the base for use in the construction industry. Approximately 125 tons of sand 
and gravel per hour were being excavated from deposits located within 5 mies 
of the base in the 1960s (Goldman, 1968). 

Seismicity. George AFB is on a down-dropped block (Mojave Block) bounded 
by the San Andreas and Gartock feults, both of which have mainly horizontal 
movement Within the Mojave Block, numerous potentially active feults paraild 
the San Andreas FauiL The Heiendale Fault approximately 10 miles east of the 
base, has had movement within the last 11,000 years and is among the many 
active feults found within the regioa Most of the feults trerxf in a northwest- 
southeast directioa Most feults in the ROI cut Quaternary age formations and 
are considered potentially active (Montgomery, 1988b). The ROi is located in 
Seismic Zone 4 (International Conference of Bulding Officials, 1985). The 1982 
bulding code for on-base structures is determined by the proximity to main fault 
systems. Seismic Zone 4 is characterized by areas likely to sustain major 
damage from earthquakes, and corresponds to intensities of Vill or higher on 
the Modified MercaHi Scale. There is no known liquefaction potentiai on the 
installation; however, Davis et al. (1982) indicate that the airfield and 
surrounding region could experience very strong shocks, with damage such as 
felling chimneys and cracks In walls of ordinary masonry structures from an 
8.3 magnitude earthquake along the southern San Andreas Fault. 


3-86 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 











EXPLANATION 

I Q I Aluvium (Rsoant) 
I Qft I Older ANuviufn 
Wash OepoeitB 


Quartz MomsnHe 
^899fn0fM Coffiplox) 


nn 


0 1/4 1/2 


^ 1 ^ 


......i. GlacMTiUnil Boundary 

BaaeBoundanr 
=:== Abandoned Runway 


Source: CaNlomiaDMaon of Mima arrd Geology, 
San Bamartlno Quadrangle 12SO.OOO: 1963. 


Regional 
Geological Map 


Figure 3.4<1 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-87 


































3.4Ji Wattr Rmoutcm 


The surface and groundwater ROI generatty extends beyond the base boundary, 
encompassing areas that would be affected by chan(^ in resource usage. The 
ROi for groundwater includes aU of the Upper Mojave RK/er Basin from 
Heierxlale south to the San BemardiTK) Mountains. There are no coastal areas 
or wid and scenic rivers in the ROI. 

3.4.2.1 Surface Water. No pereimiai or intermittent streams occur on base. A 
smaH marvmade pond Is located on the base golf course. Oivbase rurx)ff 
nomtaNy collects in slight topographic lows or along streets during intense 
storms because the capacity of storm drains and collection systems is limited. 
Surface runoff travels north and northeast alor)g the airfield area and generally 
east toward the Mojave River in the main cantonment area. Thenearest 
100-year floodplain is in the Mr^ve River, which lies outside of, but adjacer' 
the northeastern portion of the base boundary. 

The principal Mojave River drainage basin covers an area of over 3,000 square 
mles (Subsurface Surveys, Inc., 1990) in the south-central portion of the 
Mojave Desert The river channel is about 12S mles long, has a gradient of 
approximately 19 feet per mie, and is located approximately one-quarter mie 
east of the base (Montgomery, 1988b). The Mojave RK/er acts as the principal 
source of recharge to the Upper Mojave RK/er GrourxJwater Basin. Watersheds 
in the mountain ranges south of the base contribute to the majority of the 
Mojave River’s stream flow. Heavy precipitation is the principal source of 
surfece water arxl is responsible for the formation of gullies and channels 
tributary to the Mojave RK/er. Surface flow (perennial) in the Mojave RK/er 
stream bed is observed at the Forks, the Upper and Lower Narrows near 
Victorvlle, Camp Cady, and Afton. Perennial flow at the Forks originates from 
the drainage area of Deep Creek; during dry periods, no surfece flow occurs. 
Between the Upper and Lower Narrows in Victorvlle, surface flow is generated 
from groundwater aquifer cortstrictions and causes groundwater exposure at 
the surface, as perenniai surfece flow In the Mojave RK/er Channel. 

Surface Water Quality. The quality of surtace water storm flow from the 
Mojave River is generally good. Tests Indicate that the water contains less than 
400 ppm of total dissolved solids (tds) (CH2M Hfll, 1982). Surface runoff from 
the base has not been tested arxf, thus, no conclusions can be made on the 
quality or the degree of contamination (Montgomery, 1988b). 

3.4.2.2 Surface Drainage. On-base surface flow generally runs north and 
northeast along the airfield and east towards the Mojave RK/er in the area of the 
maki cantonment The on-base storm drain system consists of pipes ranging in 
size from 12 to 60 inches (CH2M HU, 1982). The drainage system capacity is 
limited and, during periods of heavy precipitation, localized flooding occurs, 
especially in the main cantormrent and base housing areas (San Bernardino 


3-88 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




County. 1990a). Runoff water along tha eastern section of the bate Is 
transported through street gutters and pipelines to an outfal ditch that 
eventually flows to the Mojave River. Most of the runway and taxiway surface 
flow Is coHected by Nets arxJ conveyed In piping to an outfsN ditch that runs 
parallel to the eastern base boundary. Afl water from base storm drainage flows 
No the Mojave River. Rurvjff from the western portion of the base is directed 
northeast and eventu^y flows No the Mojave River north of the base. Runoff 
from the flighliine, Mustriai. and office areas is directed in a northern and 
eastern direction (CH2M Hll, 1982.) Because of high evaporation and 
percolation rates associated with the surrounding sols, runoff from normal 
raNaN seldom reaches the Mojave River. However, during abrxxmaNy intense 
rainfall, localized flooding may occur arxJ some rurKiff may reach the river. The 
base currently does not operate urxJer a National Pollution Discharge 
Elimination System (NPOES) permit, but Nends to apply for CaiMomia’s storm 
water general permit. 

3.4.2.3 Groundwater. George APB overlies the George subbasin of the Upper 
Mojave River Groundwater Basin (Subsurtace Surveys. Inc., 1990). 

Groundwater under George AFB appears to be concentrated in two main zones. 
The shallowest zone of groundwater occurs under perched or unconfined 
conditions and is discontinuous across much of the base. The uppermost zone 
is termed the Upper Aquifer by Montgomery (1988b). The other occurrence of 
groundwater, referred to as the Regional Aquifer, is below the Upper Aquifer in a 
reiativeiy permeable zone at an elevation approximately equal with the Mojave 
River ailuvium. Principal recharge to the Regional Aquifer and to the Mojave 
River Groundwater Basins (Upper, Middle, and Lower) is primarly accomplished 
through Mojave River urxlerflow (Murk, 1985). The Regional Aquifer is the zone 
from which the base and the city of Adelanto obtain their water. 

Several studies have concluded that the Upper Mojave River Basin is in a state 
of overdraft (more water is pumped out than is replenished). Studies conducted 
by the Califomia Department of Water Resources (CDWR)(1967) and Murk 
Engineers (1985) indicated that groundwater levels in the Upper Mojave River 
Basin declined more than feet from 1958 to 1981. The water table in the 
Hesperia Water District dropped 33 feet from 1953 to 1989. Although overdraft 
is certain, the degree of overdraft throughout the basin has not been firmly 
established. Table 3.4-1 Itets the estimated overdrafts reported by various 
investigators. 

According to the CDWR (1967) arxl Bader (1958), the majority of the water wells 
in the Upper Mojave Basin produce from groundwater zones 200 to 600 feet 
below the ground surface. The total amount of groundwater stored in the upper 
1,000 feet of the Upper Mojave Groundwater Basin Is estimated to be about 
41.5 mfflion acre feet (Subsurface Surveys, Inc., 1990). 


49*00 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





Tabte 3.4*1. EstimatadGroundwatarOvanbafls 


lnva8tigator(s) 

Overdraft 

Greater than but tess than 

Murk Engineers (1985) 

3,852 

24,522 af/yr 

Califomia Polytechnic University (1987) 

0 

24,500 af/yr 

COWR (Bulletin 84) (1967) 

0 

13,400 af/yr 

Mojave Water Agency* (1991) 

12,000 

30,000 af/yr 

Stetson (1974) 

22,000 

30,000 af/yr 


* Ptnonal communication. 
** a(/yr - Acra fact/yaar. 


Murk Engineers (1985) have completed the most detailed and recent 
investigation of groundwater conditions to date and their data conform to the 
average conditions reported by other investigators. Murk Engineers (1985) rfntii 
have, thus, been used for this analysis. 

According to Murk Engineers (1985), the Upper Mojave River Basin has the 
foiiowing characteristics; 

• Safe Yield 18,500 af/yr 

• Overdraft (1981 use Conditions) 26,500 af/yr 

• Average Annual Overdraft (over 23-year 24,500 af/yr 

period from 1958-1981) 

Safe yield is defined as that quarttity of water that can be withdrawn from the 
grourK^water aquifer without impairing the aquifer as a water source. When 
grouixJwater is extracted (consumed) at a rate less than the safe yield, there is a 
net inflow to the basin (rising water table). When groundwater is extracted from 
the basin at a rate that exceeds the safe yield, the basin is considered in 
overdraft corxlitions. 

Water demand (production) for the Upper Mojave Basin in 1990 was 124,100 
af/yr ^imie, 1990). Prelected water demand for the Upper Mc^ave Basin is 
estimated at 165,000 af/yr by the year 2010 (Pimie, 1990). Because some of the 
(IFOundwater withdrawn from die basin is returned through deep percolation 
due to irrigation, wastewater fikration plants, and lakes, the actual loss (through 
evaporation, etc.) of groundwater from the basin is assumed to be about 
45 percent of production (Pimie, 1990). Therefore, the annual average 
consumption Ooss of water) for the Upper Mojave Basin was estimated to be 
about 53,800 af/yr in 1990 and is projected to be about 74,500 af/yr (about 
45 percent of production) by 2010 (Pimie, 1990). From a regional perspective, 
this increase in demand, combined with the current overdraft condition, reqiAes 
decisions by local communities regarding additional water provisions for this 
regioa The MWA, organized by the state in 1960, operates as a local contract 
agency to supply water to the Mojave Desert region through the State Water 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




Proiact (SWP). Tha MWA bona of 30 cortractori in the state and. under to 
existing contract, has a maximum alocation of SWP water at a maximum of up 
to 50,800 af/yr for al regions under to Jurisdictioa However, because the 
projected demarxJ in 2)10 is 166,000 af/yr, the MWA and other local water 
districts wl have to identify additionai sources of water to meet the increasing 
demand by the year 2010. Based on PImIe (1900), water budget calculations 
estinrtated that the Upper Mojave Basin wB have to Import approximately 56,000 
af/yr by the year 2010. 

Lithologic logs and cross sections from past investigations characterize the 
Upper Aquifer as a heterogenous mbcture of alt and sand. Groundwater in this 
ar^jHer migrates downward through a zone of low permeablity. Tests 
performed on the Upper Aquifer indicate I has a moderately high average 
transmissivity of about 11,700 galons per day per foot (gpd/ft) and a reiativeiy 
low storage coefOdent of about 2x10'*. Data from numerous observation wells 
on base Irxilcate the Upper Aquifer is discontinuous and proTKXjnced vertical 
leakage into the Regional Aquifer was evident in tests conducted by 
Montgomery (1988b). 

The Regional Aquifer occurs below elevations of about 2,600 feet MSL (300 to 
450 feet below grourxlswlace on the west side of the base, becoming 
shaNowertotheeast). This aquifer consists of relatively coarse sands and 
gravels and is separated from the Upper Aquifer by intervals of low permeabllty 
day. The zone is approximatafy 300 feet thick and water flows under the 
influerx^e of horizontal (padlents (Montgomery, 1988b). Test results indicate the 
Regional Aquifer has a moderately high average transmissivity of 53,900 to 
60,500 gpd/ft and a reiativeiy low storage coefficient of 5 x 10*^ (Montgomery, 
1988b). 

Borings drilled by Lee and Ro (1984) on George AFB indicated that the alluvial 
fen deposits beneath George AFB become increasingly porous west of the 
MoJaveRiver. In general the aquifer characteristics are similar to those identified 
by Murk (1985) for the Upper Mojave River Basin. Lee and Ro (1984) indicated 
that the economical aquifers on base, with the best quality water, are present 
between depths of 300 and 450 feet below the ground surfece. 

Groundwater Quality. The mineraiogical composition of groundwater within 
the ROI varies greatly arxi is dependent upon gedogic conditions. The highest 
mineralization level is farthest from the source of recharge. Thequaiityof 
grourxjwater has been Investigated continuously since 1982. The most 
signflicant grourKiwater contamination in the ROI is the high TCE levels found 
within the Upper Aquifer in the Northeast Disposal Area on base. This aquifer is 
not a potable water source for the local area However, fl overlies the Regional 
Aquifer, which is the source of potable water for the base and surrounding 
communities and leakage from the Upper Aquifer to the Regional Aquifer is 
possible. The slowly moving plume has been identffied near the northeast 


GeorgB AFB Disposal and Reuse F&S 


341 





comtrafttwbMttndavranliywtwidsaffbaM. (San Btrrwnfino County. 

ApunyoncMiaitfamatMicwayatamlacuffanityInplacaandawiMng 
ER^ approval to baglnopanttion a . (SoeSaGtion3.3fbrdelaladinfonnation 
concarolng known ^ 

3.4S AirQuaMy 

Ak quality In a givan locatkn ia dascrlaed aa tha concantratkxi of various 
poAjtants In the atmoaphara, ganaraly expraasad in units of ppm or 
micrograms par cubic meter ^gkn^. Air quality la daterminad by the type and 
amount of polutanta amittad kao the atmosphere, the size and topography of 
the air baaki. and the pravaling mataoroioglcal condWona. Theaignificancaofa 
polutani concentration is daterminad by comparing it to federal and/or state 
ambient air quality standards. These standards represent the maximum 
aiiownble atmospheric concentrations that may occur and aril protect public 
hecith and welfare, with a reasonable margin of safety. The federal standards 
are established by the US. EPA and termed the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAOS). ThestatestandardsareestablishedbytheCalifbmiaAir 
Resources Board (ARB) and are termed the Califomia Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (CAAQS). The NAAOS and CAAOS are presented in Table 3.4-2. 

The main poiutants considered in this EIS are ozone (O3), carbon morraxide 
(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2). sulfur dksdde (SO2). and particulate matter less 
than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ). 

The existing air quality of the affected environment is defined by air quality data 
and emissions informatioa Air quality data are obtained by examining records 
from air quality monitoring stations makaained by the San Bernardino County 
Air PoHution Control District (SBCAPCD). Information on pollutant 
concentrations measured for short-term (24 hours or less) and long-term 
(annuaO averaging periods is extracted from the monitoring station data in order 
to characterize the existing air quality background of the area. Emission 
inventory Mbrmatior; for the affected environment is obtained from the ARB and 
George AFB. Inventory data are separated by pollutant and reported in tons per 
day in order to describe the baseline conditions of poliutant emissions in the 


Identifying the ROI for an air quality assessment requires knowledge of the 
poHutant types, source emission rates and release param^ers. the proximity 
relationships of project emission sources to other emission sources, and local 
and regional meteorologicai conditions. For inert poNutaras (aH poVutants other 
than ozone and Its precursors), the ROI is generally limited to an area extending 
a taw mies downwind from the source. 

The ROI for ozone may extend much farther downwind than the ROi for inert 
pdulants. Ozone is a secondary pollutant formed in the atmosphere by 
photochemical reacdons of previouaiy emitted pollutants or precursors. Ozone 

Qaorge AFB Disposal uxt Reuse FEIS 





Tabto3.4-2. NaliomlafidCaMfonilaAmblgf«Alr(kntty8laiidaRto 



CaWomia Snndatda^^^ 

-■ ^-■- 

raHOiMi QHnn 

- 

Polutanta 

MVraiQVIQ IWfW 

Prknary^ 

Sacondary^**^ 

daona 

1<hour 

0.00 ppm. 

(100^®) 

ai2ppm 

(23Bno/m^ 

Same aa primary atandard 

Carbon monoxMa 

Sbour 

1-hour 

till 

Oppm 

(lOmg/m'l 
aoppm 
(40 mg/m'*) 

- 

NRniQwi qwiucf 

Annual avaraga 

1-hour 

0.08 ppm® 

(470/ig/m'*) 

aossppnt 

(i00r*g/m'*) 

Same aa primary atatKfard 

SuHur dioxida 

Annual avaraga 

— 

(04»ppm) 

- 


24-hour 

0.08 ppm® 

(131 /rg/m'O 

386/ig/m^ 

(0.14 ppm) 

- 


Mour 

— 

- 

1.300 
(0.5 ppm) 


1-hour 

0.25 ppm 
(B55/<g/ml 

- 

- 

PMlO 

Annual 

24-hour 

ao/rg/mi® 

SO/tQtnT 

50ugAn^> 

iSO/ig/m 

Same aa primaty atandard 

Sulfaiaa 

24-hour 

2SMl/m^ 

- 

- 

Lead 

304lay 

l.S/<g/lm^ 

- 

- 


Quartatly 

- 

1.5/<g/m^ 

Same aa primary atandard 

Hydrogen auMda 

1-hour 

aosppnt 

(42/4g/m’*) 

- 

- 

VitTyl chlorida 

244wur 

0.010 ppm 
(28/*g/ltnT 

- 

- 


VWbWty 


W 


84raur (10 am to 6 
pm, PST) 


In aufHcianl amount to - - 

praduoa an axtinction 
oaaffieiant of 023 par km duo 
to partMaa wfian ttw ralativa 
humidity ia laaa ttMn 70%. 

ARBMathodV. 

II- ——— 

(a) CaWomiaatandarda for oaona,cartionmonQ)dda,auHurdioidda(1 hour), nitregandioxida, and pafticulalamallar(PMio) 
aravahiaathatatanottobaaxoaadad. Tha auNalaa, laad, hydrogan auMda, vinyl chtorMa, and vMbiiity raduckig parMaa 
atandarda ara not to ba aqualad or a x oaadad. 

(b) National atandarda, olharttMnoiona and thoaabaaad on annual avaragaa or annual arithmaticmaana, ara not to tw 
axoaadad mora than onoa a yaar. Thaosonaatandardiaattalnadwhanthaaxpactadnumbarofdayaparealandaryaar, 
maximum hourly awaragaoonoarrtr a ttonaabovathaatarrdard, la araial to or laaa than 1 . 

(e) Conca n tration a xpr aaaad fhit in unita In which It vraa promuigatad. Equivalamunitagi^lnpa r a nt ha a a a arabaaadona 
t afarancatamparaturaof28*Candarafatanoap r a a au r aof7a0mmofmarcury. All maaauramanta of air quality ara to ba 
corraetad to a rafaranoa tamparatura of 2S* C and a tafaranea praaaura of TOO mm of mareuty (1,013.2 mmibar); ppm 
inthiatablaraforatoppmbyvoluma,ormiGromolaaofpoHutantparmolaofgaa. 

(d) National Primary Standarda: Tholawoia of air quality naoaaaary, with an adaquala margin of aafaty to protaetthapubNe 
haailh. Each atalamuat attain Om primary atandarda no iatar than 3 yaaraaftarthatataia'BlmplamantKtlon plan ia 
wptovad by tha EPA. 

(a) Nnonal Saoondaty Standarda: Tha lavala of air quality naoaaaary to protact ttiapubliewaifara from any known or 

andeipalodadvaraaaffoota of a pollutant Each atalamuat attain tha aaoondary atandarda within a‘raaaonablatima’aflar 
ttia implamantalion plan la appnMad by tha EPA. 

At looalionawhata tha ataia atandarda nr ozona and/or auapandadparticuiatamattar ara violatad. National atandarda apply 


(0 

in 


TMa atatKiard la kitaiKlad n limit tha fraquaney and aavarity of viaibiHty bnpairmant dua to regional haza and la aquivalant 
to a lOmila nominal viauai range whan ralaliva humidity la laaa Own 70 paroant 


3-93 


QtorgeAFB Di^)osai and Reuse FEIS 





precursors are mainly reactive organic gases (ROG) in the form of 
hydrocartxm and nitrogen oxides (NOx). In the presence of solar radiation, the 
maximum effect of precursor emissiorts on ozone ieveis usuaNy occurs several 
hours after they are emitted and. therefore, many mies from the source. Ozone 
and its precursors transported from other regions can also combine focal 
emissfons to produce high local ozone concentrations. Ozone concentrations 
are generally the highest during the sununer months arfo coincide with periods 
of maximum insolatfon. Maidmum ozone concentrations tend to be regionally 
distributed, because precursor emissions are homogeneously dispersed in the 
atnx)sphere. 

For the purpose of air quality analysis, the ROI for emissions of ozone 
precursors from the project’s construction and operational activities would be 
the existing airshed surrourfoing George AFB, Le., the Southeast Desert Air 
Basin (SEOAB). Project emissions of ROG and NOx are, therefore, compared to 
emissfons generated within the SEDAB. (The SEDAB comprises essentially 
those portions of San Bernardino, Kern. Los Angeles, and Riverside counties 
east of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Tral, and all of Imperial County.) The 
ROI for emissiorrs of the Inert FX)llutants (CO, S02, and PMio) is limited to the 
more immediate area of George AFB. Project-related emissions of inert 
pollutants are, therefore, compared to the San Bernardino County portion of the 
SEOAB emissions as a means of assessing potential changes in air quality. 
Outlines of the SEDAB and the San Bemardirx) County portion of the SEDAB 
are shown in Figure 3.4-2. 

Regulations. The Federal Clean Air Act, as amended in August 1977 and 
October 1990, dictates that project emission sources must comply with the air 
quality starxlards 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 resulting from 
project emissions, both separately arxl combined with other surrounding 
sources, and (2) the maximum allowable emissions from the project A 
summary of relevant air quality reguiatfons is provided in Table 1.5-1. 

3.4.3.1 Regional Air Quality. According to the EPA guidelines, an area with air 
quality better than the NAAQS is designated as being in attainment; areas with 
worse air quality are classified as nonattainment areas. A nonattainment 
designation is given to a region if the primary NAAQS for any criteria pollutant is 
exceeded at any poitft fo the region for more than 3 days during a 3-year period. 
Pollutants In an area may be designated as unclassified when there is a lack of 
data for the EPA to form a basis of attainment status. The ARB also designates 
areas of the state as either in attainment or nonattainment of the CAAQS. An 
area is in nonattainmerftfor a pollutant if the CAAQS has been exceeded more 
than once in 3 years. Federal and state attainment designations are shown in 
Table 3.4-3 for the SEDAB. 


3-94 


George AFB Disposal attd Reuse FEIS 







Tabl«3.4^. Fadaraiand Stata Ambiant Air Quaiily Standard DaaIgnatlonaforthaSouthaaatDaaait AlrBaaki 


z z z z 



Z Z I Z 3 I Z 3 


< 3 <11 <11 


< 3 I < 3 I < 3 


< < <11 <11 


< < I < 3 I < 3 


< < <11 <11 


3 3 3 11 3 11 




3-96 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FBIS 





The federal standard for PMio was promulgated in July 1987. SiMcient PMio 
monitoiing data are not yet avalaUe to classify many areas of the country. EPA, 
therefore, designates areas according to the likelihood of violating the standard. 
Group 1 status is assigned to those areas having a 95 percent or better 
probablity of exceeding the standard, Group 2 to those areas having 20 to 
95 percent probablity, and Group 3 to areas with less than 20 percent 
probablity. These group dassiftcatlorrs wii be changed to 
attainment/nonattainment designations as sufficient monitoring data become 
avalable. 

Precloture Reference. The SBCAPCD currently operates air quality 
monitoring stations throughout San Bernardino County. Stations in the vicinity 
of George APB indude Victorvlle, Phelan, and Hesperia. Victorvlle rtvsnitors 
levels of O 3 , S02, PMia and lead: Phelan monitors CO, NOx, O 3 , and SO 2 ; 
Hesperia monitors all of the aforementioned pollutants. During the period 1967 
to 1989, the NAAQS for O 3 was exceeded less than 4 percent of the time, whie 
the more stringent CAAQS for O 3 was exceeded up to 16 percent of the time 
(Table 3.4-4). Annual and 24-hour state standards for PMio were exceeded in 
each of the years from 1987 to 1989, whereas the only exceedance of a national 
PMio standard occurred in Hesperia in 1989 (annual average). 

Despite the nonattainment status of the SEDAB for O 3 and PMio. air quality is 
generally good around George AFB. The main sources of air pollutants in the 
area are mining (particulate), cement production (NOx and particulate), and 
motor vehicles (hydrocarbons. NOx, and CO). However, additional air quality 
problems can be associated with pollutants transported from sources located 
outside the SEDAB area. 

Ozone is formed in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight, by a series of 
chemical reactions involving mainly NOx and reactive hydrocarbons. Ozone 
concentrations tend to have greater regional significance than other pollutants 
because their impact can be detected many miles from the source of precursor 
emissions. Air quality in and around George AFB is directly affected by Os 
transported in from the South Coast Air Basin and San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 
(ARB, 1989). In 1989, the Victorvaie air quality rrmnitoring station, about 5 mHes 
southeast of George ATO, recorded 26 days when ozone NAAQS were 
exceeded. Some of these exceedances were caused by transport Influence 
from the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins. 

Closure Baseline. It can be reasonably assumed that poiiutant concentrations 
after base closure would be simBar to, or somewhat less than, concentrations 
experienced under predosure conditions. This is because numerous emission 
sources would be eliminated by complete closure of the base (e.g., aircraft 
operations arxJ aerospace ground activity). The closure would also reduce the 
number of motor vehicles operating In the surrounding area. However, total 
emissions from the base are small in comparison to the basinwide emissions. 


George AFB Dlsposd and Reuse FEIS 


3-97 












and the overaR affact of closure it expacted to hava nagligKiia affacta on 
areawUa concandadons. 

3.4.3.2 Air Pollutant Emiaalon Sourcaa 

Predoaura Rafaranea. The most recant amission inventories for George AFB. 
the SEOAB, and the San Bernardino County portion of the SEDAB, are 
presented in Table 3.4-5. The emission inventory for George AFB Is 
representative of predosure conditions in 1988. The inventories for the SEDAB 
and the San Berrtardirx) County portion of the SEDAB represent 1987 data. The 
primary emission sources from the base include aircraft, motor vehicles, and 
aerospace ground equipment Surface coatings and fuel evaporation contribute 
a substantial amount of the total hydrocarbon emissions. In addition, aircraft 
ground operations, fire training operations, and heating/power production add a 
smaH portion to the total inventory. 


T^bjeJ^AiS^^^PracjosuraJmiMionJnvemoQ^^^ 


Source 

PMio 

SO 2 

CO 

ROG 

NOx 

George AFB 






Aircraft Rying Operations 

0.13 

0.06 

4.52 

1.18 

1.27 

Aircraft Ground Operations 

0.00 

0.01 

0.16 

0.05 

0.04 

Aerospace Ground Equipment 

0.03 

0.01 

0.40 

0.04 

0.41 

Heating and Power Production 


— 

0.01 

0.00 

- 

Motor Vehides (mlitary and civlian) 

0.03 

0.00 

1.36 

2.21 

0.19 

Fire Fighting Practice Pit 

0.00 


0.02 

0.01 

— 

Suitace Coating 



— 

0.07 

— 

Fuel Evaporation (gas station and JP-tank) 

- 

- 

- 

0.45 

- 

Subtotal 

0.19 

0.08 

6.47 

4.01 

1.91 

San Bernardino County 

100 

11 

190 

50 

134 

Southeast Desert Air Basin 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

150 

280 


NotM: N/A - Notapplicabtc. 

(a) U.S Air Foroa 1890a. 

(b) Califomia Emiasiom Invantory, ISST (ARB, 1990a). San Bamardino County invantory indudat amiasiona from that 
portion of tha county in tha Soutttaaat Oaaart Ak Baain only. 


Closure Basellrw. The emission inventory for George AFB after closure wM 
essentially be eliminated. The remaining emissions can be estimated by 
assuming that emissions other than those associated with aircraft, aerospace 
ground equipment, tire fighting, and heating/power generation are proportional 
to the change in on-base population. The ratio of the predosure base 
population (induding mlitary personnel, mlitary dependents, and civlian 
employees in 1988) to the base population after dosure (1993) is applied to 

3 ^ 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









each of the vehicle, surface coating, and fuel evaporation category emiseions in 
order to estimate closure emissions. Ernissions from the aircraft, aerospace 
ground equipment, artd fire fighting categories are eliminated completely. 
Heating plarfts and power generators are assumed to operate at 20 percent of 
the predosure capacity in order to fulfil minimum bidding heating and power 
requirements. Qosure baseline emissiorts are presented in Table 3.4^. 


Table 3.4-8. Cloeure Emlesion inverrtory (tone per day) 


Source 

PMio 

S 02 

CO 

ROG 

NOx 

Aircraft Rying Operations 

— 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Aircraft Ground Operations 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Aerospace Ground Equipment 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Heating and Power Production 

- 

- 

0.002 

0.001 

- 

Motor Vehicles (mHitary and civlian) 

0.000 

0.000 

0.001 

0.001 

0.000 

Rre Fighting Practice Pit 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Surface Coating 

- 

- 

- 

0.000 

- 

Fuel Evaporation (gas station arxi JP-tank) 

— 


— 

0.000 

— 

Total 

0.000 

0.000 

0.003 

0.002 

0.000 


Note: Emiaaions arc based on date from Tabte 3.4-5 SmMttte ratio of thoyev 19S3 baaa doaura population to year 1968 baaa 

population. 


3.4.4 Noise 

The ROI for noise sources at George AFB is limited to the Victor Valley portion 
of San Bernardino County. The area most affected by the base closure and 
reuse Is limited to the base property itself, the cities of Adelanto and Victorvlle, 
and adjacent unincorporated lands. 

The characteristics of sound include parameters such as amplitude, frequency, 
and duration with an extremely large range of amplitudes. The decibel (dB), a 
logarithmic unit that accounts for the large variatbns in amplitude, is the 
accepted standard unit measurement of sound. Table 3.4-7 presents examples 
of typical sound levels. Sourxi also varies with frequency or pitch. When 
measuring sound to determine its effects on a human population. A-weighted 
(dBA) sound levels are typically used to account for the response of the human 
ear. A-weighted sound levels represent the sound level according to a 
prescribed frequency response established by the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI Si .4-1983). 

Noise is usually defined as sound that is undesirable because it interferes with 
speech communication and hearing, is intense enough to damage hearing, or is 
otherwise annoying. Noise levels often change with' t; therefore, to compare 
ievels over different time periods, several descriptors were developed that take 
into account this time-varying nature. These descriptors are used to assess and 
correlate the various effects of noise on man and animals, including land-use 

George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-100 











Table 3.4-7. Comparative Sound Levels 


Common Outdoor Noise Level 
Noise Levels (dBA) 


Jet Flyover at 1000 ft 


110 


Gas Lawnmower at 3 ft 


100 

90 


Noisy Urban Daytime 

Diesel Truck at 50 ft 
Gas Lawnmower at 100 ft 

Commercial Area 
Heavy Traffic at 300 ft 


80 

70 

60 


50 


Quiet Urban Nighttime 
Quiet Suburban Nighttime 

Quiet Rural Nighttime 


40 

30 

20 


-10 

Soum: AogniKh. 1080. 


Common Indoor 
Noise Levels 

Rock Band 


Inside Subwray Train (New York) 


Food Blender at 3 ft 
Garbage Disposal at 3 ft 

Shouting at 3 ft 

Vacuum Cleaner at 10 ft 

Normal Speech at 3 ft 

Large Business Office 
Dishwasher Next Room 

Small Theater, Large Conference 
Room (Background) 

Library 

Bedroom at Night 
Concert Hall (Background) 

Broadcast and Recording Studio 


Threshold of Hearing 


George AFB Depose! and Reuse FEIS 








compatibllty, sleep irierferarice. annoyanctt, hearing k»s. speech 
and startle eflMs. One descriptor used to deacribe time-varying sound la the 
Sound Exposure Level (SEL)- The SEL value represents the A-«velghted sound 
level Integrated over the entire duration of the noise event and referenced to a 
duration of 1 secorxf. When an evert lasts longar than 1 second, the SEL value 
be higher than the highest souTMl level during ttw event 

The DNL was developed to evaluate the total community noise envirorwTvenL 
The DNL (sometimes abbreviated as Lon) lathe average A-welghled acoustical 
energy during a 24-hour period with a 10 dB adjustmert added to the nighttime 
levels (between 10 pm and 7 a.m.). This adjustmert Is an effort to account for 
the Increased sensitivity to nighttime noise everts. The DNL was developed by 
the EPAand is mandated by HUD, the FAA, and DOD. The noise descriptors 
used in this report are the DNL and SEL 

The DNL is an accepted unit for quantifying human annoyance to general 
environmental noise, which includes aircraft noise. The Federal Interagency 
Committee on Urban Noise developed land-use compattt)lity guidelines for 
noise in terms of DNL (USDOT, 1985). The Califbmia Department of Health. 
Office of Noise Cortroi, has also developed land use compatiblity guidelines. 
The Office of Noise Control guidelines give GO to 70 dB as the maximum 
normally acceptable level and 70 dB as the corxJidonaliy acceptable level for 
noise-sensitive receptors such as residences, transient lodging, churches, aixi 
schools. The San Bemardkx} County Noise Bement also provides larrd use 
guidelines. The County gives 60 dB as the acceptable external noise level for 
residential lands and 65 dB if noise reduction is incorporated and the interior 
level is below 45 dB. Table 3.4-8 provides FAA-recommerxIed DNL ranges for 
various larxJ use categories based upon the committee’s guidelines. The FAA 
guidelines were used in this study to determine noise impacts. 

Appendix J provides additional information about the measurement arxi 
prediction of noise. This appendix also provides more information on the units 
used in describing noise, as weN as information aboiA the effects of noise such 
as annoyance, sleep interference, speech interference, health effects, and 
effects on animals. 

3.4.4.1 Existing Noise Levels, typical noise sources in and around airfields 
usually include aircrafL surface traffic, and other human activities. Mlitary 
aircraft operations and surface traffic on local streets and highways are the 
existingprimarysourcesof noise in the vicinity of George AFB. InaIrport 
analyses, areas with DNL above 65 dBA are often considered in land-use 
compatiblity planning and impact assessment; therefore, the contours of DNL 
greater than 65 dBA are of particular interest 


3-102 


George AFB Disposai and BbusoFEIS 




Tabto 3.4-1. Land U—Compatlbmy GuMtOnt in Alrcmn Noi—E«po«uw Aws 


Th<<awi gtMl l om oonte>n« d lmW>aibtodonotcoiw<Hulftedwl d tt n nh M tllonawfnym»o<landoo<w»»dfayllw p n>Qrama 
MifiSBiAhte Of unoooooloblo undof fodofol. tiolo. of loool low. Tho fooDoniibttlv iof dolofniifiina Iho oooooloblo ond oofiniMlfalo loud 
uooo onQ viO fOM ro of iH iip DOlwown ipoQiiiw piDponiM ono opocsnio noioo oofnoiMi 1000 won no locoi ounofiooo* r aa oonfnonooBno 
undar Pwt 150 ara not imandad to autatHutp Manly daipnninMl land UPM for thoM daiarmhwd to ba appraprialp by leopi 
authorttiaa in raaponaa to loealy datarminad naada and vakiaa in achiawing noiaa oompatibla land uaaa. 


Land Use 

DM. 65-70 

DNL 70-75 

0NL75andabawa 

Raddantial, ottwr lhan mobHa homaa/lranaiant lodgings 

NLR raquirad^ 

NLR raquirad 

inoofT^pfltfbto 

Mobiia homo patica 

Inoompatibia 
fdJI raquirad^' 

Incompatibla 

Inoompalibia 

Transient Mgirtgs 

NLRraquirodI 

Inoompatibia 

PublaUaa 

NLRraquirad|*| 
NLR raquirad^ 



Schools, hoapitala, and nursing homes 

Inoompatibia 

Inoompatibia 

Churches, auditoriums, and oonoart hails 

NLR raquirad 

Inoompatibia 

Govommantal aarvicas 

Compatibla 

NLR raquirad 

CompatiMa^l 

Compatible^' 

NLR raquirad 

Transportation 

Compaliblo 

Compatiblajb) 

CompatiWa^^ 

Parking 

Compatibla 

Cowimarcial Uaa 




Offices, business and profaaalonal 

Compalibla 

NLR raquirad 
Compatibla^' 

fAR raquirad 
Compatibla'”' 

Whoiasaie and rotail - building matariala, hardware. 

Compatibla 

and farm aquipmant 




RataU trade • general 

Compalibla 

NLR raquirad 
Compatibla^^ 
NLR raquirad^' 

NLR raquirad 

Utilitias 

Compatibia 

Compatibla(b) 

NLR raquirad^' 

Communication 

Compatibla 

Marurfacturlng and Production 


Compatiblo^^ 

Compatibla^) 

Manufacturing, ganaral 

Compatibla 

Photographic and optical 

Compatibia 

NLR raquirad 

NLR raquirad 

Agriculture (except livastock) and forestry 

Compatibia 

Compatibia 

Compatibla 

Uvastock farming and breading 

Compatibla 

Compatibla 

Inoompatibia 

Mining and fishing, rasourca production and 

Compatibla 

Compatibla 

Compatibla 

extraction 




RacraaMotial 




Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports 

Compatibla 

Compatibla 

tncompatlbla 

Outdoor music shells, amphilhaatars 

Inoompatibia 

Incompatibla 

Incompatibls 

Nature exhibits and zoos 

Compatibla 

Inoompatibia 

Inoompatibia 

Amusomants, parks, resorts, and camps 

Compatibia 

Compatibia 

Inoompatibia 

Golf courses, riding stablas, and water recreation 

Compatibla 

Compatibla 

InoompaUbia 


noioo. 


ONL 

Compatibla: 


NLR 


Inoompatibia: 

0 ) 

(b) 

Sourcaa: 


Day^iight lound laval in dadbala. 

Ganar^, no apadal noiaa altanuating maiariaia an raquirad to acbiava an intarior noiaa laval of DNL 45 in 
habitabla apaoaa, or tha activity (wfw^ Moon or outdoon) would not ba aubjact to a significant advaraa 
affact by tfw outdoor noiaa laval. 

Noiaa Laval fMuction. NLR iauaad to danotatha total amount of noiaa tranamiaaionloaa in dadbala raquind to 
roduoa an axtarior noiaa laval in habitabla intarior apaoaa to DNL 45. In moat piaoaa, typical bulding construction 
automaiicailyprovidas an NLR of 20 dadbala. Tbarafon, H a structun is locaM in an araa axposad to aircraft noiaa 
of DNL 70, tfw intarior laval of ndaa would ba about DNL 45. I tba structun is locaM in an araa axpoaad to aircraft 
noiaa of DNL 70, tha intarior laval of noiaa would ba about DNL 50, ao an additional NLR of 5 dadbala would ba 
raquirad if not affordad by thanomul construction. This NLR can ba achiavad through tha usa of noiaa attenuating 
matariala in tha constniction of tha structure. 

Ganaraily, tha land use, whether in a structure or an outdoor activity, is considarsd to ba inoompatibia with tha outdoor 
noiaa axpoaura, even if special attenuating matariala ware to ba used in tha constnjction of tha building. 

Tha iaruf use is ganaraily inoompatibia and should only ba parmitM in areas of infill in axiatfng naighborhooda or 
where tha community datarminaa that tha usa must ba allowad. 

NLR raquirad In offioas or other areas with noiaa sansKiva aclivitias. 

Darivad from tho U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Aviation Rsgulabons 
(FAR) Part 150, 'Airport Noise Compalibiiity Planning,* Coda of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 1, Subchaptar 1, 
Part 150, Tabla 1, (January 18,1985, ravisad October 25,1989). 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-103 




Pradoaurt Itoftrtnet. Aircidt rK)i8e d George AFB occurs during akcraft 
engine warmup, maintenance and testing, taxiings, takeoffs. approMhee. and 
iandings. Noise contours for preciosure aircraft operations were taken from the 
doeureEiS (or George AFB. Information used in the ciosure study induded 
information on aircraft types; njnway use; runc^) locations; takeoff and landing 
flight tracks; aircraft altitude, speeds, and engine power settings; and nurntrar of 
daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) operations. The 
noise contours for predosure are shown in Rgure 3.4^. Only those contours 
equal to or above ONL 65 are shown. 

Surface vehide traffic noise ieveis for roadways in the vicintty of George AFB 
were analyzed using the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA’s) Highway 
Noise Model (FHWA, 1978). This model incorporates vehide mix. traffic vdume 
projections, and speed to gerterate DNL The noise levels are then preserved 
as a function of distance from tile centerline of the nearest road. Theresultsof 
the modeling for surface traffic are presented in Table 3.4-9. The actual 
distartces to the DNLs may be less than those presented in Table 3.4-9 because 
the screening effects of intervening buldings, terrain, arxi walls were not 
accounted for In the modeling. 


Table 3.4*9. Distance to DNL from Roadway Centeriine for the Preclosure Reference and Closure 

Baseline 


Distance (feet) 



No. of 

No. of 


No. of 

Roadway 

DNL 65 Residences DNL 70 

Residences 

DNL 75 

Residences 


Preclosure 


Air Base Road West 

140 

2 

50 

0 

* 

- 

Air Base Road East 

220 

4 

70 

0 

* 

- 

U.S.395 

180 

13 

60 

0 

30 

0 

El Mirage Road 

* 

- 

* 

- 

* 

- 

Heiendaie Road 

« 

- 

* 

- 

• 

- 

VMage Drive 

140 

2 

50 

0 

* 

- 

Shay Road 

* 

- 

* 

- 

* 

- 

Closure 

Ah’ Base Road West 

30 

0 

* 

• 

* 

• 

Air Base Road East 

40 

0 


- 

* 

- 

U.S.395 

220 

13 

70 

0 

30 

0 

B Mirage Road 

* 

- 

* 

- 

* 

- 

Heiendaie Road 

* 

- 

* 

- 

* 

- 

Vliage Drive 

* 

- 

* 

- 

* 

- 

Shay Road 

* 

- 

* 

- 

* 

- 


* Contain«d wttMn tfw roadway. 

** Numbar of houaaa batwaa n Air Baaa Road and powar Nnaa south of Oovis Siraat (approximataly 1.5 milat). 


3-104 


George AFB DisfXisalatd Reuse FEIS 








Preciosure Noise 
Contours 


an 

0 .75 1.5 3 




Figure 3.4-3 


George AFB Disposed and Reuse FEIS 


3-105 















Appendix J contains the data used In the surface tialfic analysis. Thesedala 
include AADTs,trafllcinb(afXl speeds. 

Cloeure Baeeine. The projected noise levels for the closure baseline were 
calcuisled using the traffic projections at base closure (ApperxfixJ). ThereeuMs 
of the rrwdeiing for the roadways analyzed are presented in Table 3.4-9. Again, 
the actual distancee to the DNU may be lees than those presented in the table 
because the nnodel doee not account for screening effects of Intenrening 
holdings, terrain, and wste. 

3.4.4JI Noise Senelt f ve Areas. The predosure ROi for George AFB includes 
noise-sensitive receptors such as resMentiai units, hospitals, classrooms, and 
parks that are within the DNLKdB contour. The contours from the F/na/ 
Environmer^ Impact Statement for the CtostuTB of George M Force Base 
indicate that there are 30,900 acres exposed to DNL 65 or greater in and around 
George AFB. This includes 17,000 acres with 5,000 residents in the region 
between DNL 65 artd 70, and 7,200 acres with 2,600 residents in the region 
between DNL 70 and 75. Section 3.2.3, Land Use and Aesthetics, describes 
larxl uses on and near the base. 

At closure it is assumed that there would be no aircraft operations and, 
therefore, there would be no areas impacted by aircraft noise. 

3.4.5 Biological Resources 

Biological resources include the native and naturalized plants and animals in the 
project area. For discussion purposes, these are divided into vegetation, wMiKe 
(including aquatic biota), threatened or endangered species, aixJ sensitive 
habitats. Human activities in the Immediate vicinity of George AFB have altered 
the natural environment primarly through urbanization. Some irrigated 
agriculture occurs along the Mojave River to the east of George AFB and a 
mining operation is located near Oro Grande. The remaining undeveloped 
areas are in a relatively undisturbed condition, although off road vehicle (ORV) 
use, road construction, and other human activities have resulted in scattered 
localized habitat alteration. 

The ROI used for discussions of the biological resources present and potential 
impacts on these resources is the base and the surrounding area within about 
5 mies of the base. This includes the area within which potential Impacts could 
occur and provides a basis for evaluating the level of impact 

The foBowing descriptions are based on literature information for the area, aerial 
photographs (dated November 1985), a February 1991 reconnaissance survey 
of the area outside the base, and a March 1991 field survey on the base. 


3-106 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






3.4.S.1 VtgMtion. George AFB is located on an alluvial mesa adjacent to the 
western bank of the Mojave River. The hot. dry dimate and lack of varied 
topography on the base and in the surrourKfing area have resulted in vegetation 
that is predominantly creosote bush scrub. This community is dominated by 
creosote bush {fjurea Mdentitta) and various other shrubs that occur as 
co-dominants, notably burro weed (/Ambrosia dumosa) and saltbush {fitrlplw 
spp.). The ephemeral drainages of the area support a variety of species, from 
typically upland species such as Mojave rubber rabbitbrush (Chry^>thamnus 
nauseosus ssp. mohavansis) and snakeweed {Gutianezia sarodiraa) to 
moisture-seeking species, such as muletat (Bacc/iar/s salicifolia) and cattal 
(Typha latifolla). The Mojave River is east of the base boundary and supports a 
broadleaved wirtter-deciduous community known as Mr^ave riparian forest, 
visually dominated by a canopy of Fremont cottonwoods {Populus framontil) 
and wBlows (Sallx spp.). 

The vegetation of the project area is shown in Figure 3.4-4. The categories 
include creosote bush scrub, Joshua tree woodland, riparian/wetiand, ruderai, 
urban/landscaped, and disturbed habitat. The riparian/wetland category 
includes the Mojave riparian forest, riparian scrub (dominated by mulefat and/or 
shrubby willows), freshwater marsh (primarily cattails and sedges), and sandy 
stream channels bordered by riparian vegetation. The ruderai category includes 
areas that have been temporarily disturbed, allowing weedy plant species (e.g., 
tumbleweeds, mustards) to colonize. For clarification purposes, two other 
categories are presented on the vegetation map. Non-vegetated areas that are 
paved (e.g., roads, parking lots, airfield, support fecUities), graded or filled, and 
covered with structures are dassified as disturbed habitat. Surface-mined areas 
are also classified as disturbed. On-base residential areas are classified as 
urban/landscaped (a mixture of disturbed and landscaped). Residential and 
commercial industrial areas in Adelanto, Oro Grande, and Mojave Heights are 
included in the urban/iandscaped category. 

Much of the on-base native vegetation has been disturbed. In some areas, it 
has been permanently replaced by base-related feiciiities and landscaping, 
whereas in others it has been temporarily disturbed, allowing large populations 
of tumbleweeds (Sa/so/a spp.) and other weeds to colonize and thrive. 
Approximately 454 acres have been landscaped, including playing fields, lawns, 
and the golf course. Buildings and pavement cover another 187 acres. 
Vegetation manipulation and maintenance (e.g., mowing, seeding, application of 
oil palliatives for dust control) take place over 2,125 acres. The remaining 
2,307 acres, primarily comprising creosote bush scrub, are not actively 
managed. Herbicides used for weed control include 2,4-D in lawn areas and 
2,4-D or dicambra for Russian thistles in large areas (U.S. Air Force, 1990a). 

Native vegetation remaining on the upland areas of the base is fairly uniform 
and consists mainly of creosote bush scrub, although the co-dominant species 
in this community vary on different areas of the base. The scrub on the western 


Gaorga AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-107 









EXPLANATION 



Creoaote Buab Send) 

O 

D 

Urban Aandacaped 



Oislurbed 

u 


Rudeni OH Road 

Joahua Trea Woodhnd — Raae Boundaiy 

RilsariaiVWalianda ==== Abandoned Runany 


Vegetation in the 
Vicinity of George AFB 


nj-i 

0 1/4 1/2 IMIe 




Figure 3.4-4 


3-108 


Qeorge AFB DisfnseJ and Reuse FEIS 




























and northern areas of the base and Its surrounding areas is dominated by 
creosote bush and burro \Meed. Occasional smal stands of almost pure burro 
weed occur on the western side of the base. Joshua trees (yticca brevffloMa) are 
common, particularly outside the base boundary just west of Helendaie Road. 
Other common associates in this area are Mojave rubber rabbitbn^ Mormon 
tea ilEphedra nwadensis), acKl cottorvthom {Tetradymia sp.). Tumbleweeds 
dominate some of the area that has been disturbed by runways and other base 
activity. The eastern side of the base is also dominated by creosote bush. 
Although burro weed is stU common, particularly in the northeast portion of the 
base, saltbush species (Amp/err confertUoUa, A potycarpa) are the prbicipal 
co-dominants. Panel cactus {Opuntia ramosissima). Mormon tea, spiny 
hopsage (Grayla apinosa), and cotton-thorn are prevalent. Several dense 
startds of tumbleweeds are present. In some low-lying areas in the southeast 
portion of the base, there are nearly pure formed stands of saltbush and Mojave 
rubber rabbitbrush. Creosote bush and saltbush dominate the undisturbed 
southern parts of the base, with occasional Joshua trees and cotton-thorn. 

Much of the southern area has been highly disturbed by base activities, which 
has given rise to large tumbleweed and mustard (Brassica geniculata) 
popuiatiorts. Grass and herbaceous species throughout the creosote bush 
scrub community include gaileta grass {Hilaria rigida), Indian ricegrass 
{Oryzopsis hymenoides), red brome {Bromus rubens), sandmat {Euphorbia 
potycarpa), and chia (Sa/v/a columbariae). 

Several ephemeral drainages occur on the base and In the area immediately 
adjacent to the base, generally following the slope of the mesa northward or 
running in an easterly direction toward the Mojave River. The drainage that 
flows northeast from the runway area to the river supports a limited amount of 
riparian vegetation (primarily mulefat) in association with upland species, such 
as Mojave rubber rabbitbrush, saltbush, and snakeweed. These washes do not 
form a true riparian association. In other drainages, particularty two east-flowing 
washes that originate near the residential section of the base, a more diverse 
riparian community that Includes cottonwoods. wHIows, cattails, and mulefat is 
found. 

Some areas of the base, such as the golf course and playing fields, have been 
landscaped. Non-native grasses cover these areas, and species such as pines, 
palms, aixl other comrium landscape trees and shrubs have also been planted 
(U.S. Air Force, 1990a). 

The Mojave River has been affected by upstream diversions and drought, birt it 
stHI supports a diverse community of trees and shrubs known as Mojave riparian 
forest On the floodplain near the Mojave River, Fremont cottonwoods form a 
relatively open, deciduous canopy beneath which grows many shrub species 
including Mojave rubber rabbitbrush, mulefat. Great Basin sagebrush (Artemisia 
tridentata), yerba santa (Eriodictyon trichocaty)^, California buckwheat 
(Eriogonum fasciculatum), and Torrey saltbush (Atripiex torreyi). Along the 







streambanks. bi^vM(Mi(SaUKgoodcHngll) and rad wiow (S. lawtg&ta) are 
the prominert spedee. whie common associates include mulefat. mugwort 
(Artemi^ dougtniana), sedge (Canx sp.), and deergrass (MuNanberf^ 
rigens). The non-native tamarisk (Tivnanbrspp.) is another common streamslde 
spec lew 

The area north of the t>ase between the Mojave River and U.S. Highway 396 is 
also within the altemative reuse planning area. Although creosote bush scrub is 
the dominant plant commuryty, Joshua trees are abundant in the western 
portions of the area. 

The Califomia Desert Native Piant Act (Food aixi Agriculture Code, 1986) gives 
special consideration to a number of species for their individual uniqueness 
and/or their contribution to the weii-being of the desert ecosystem. Species in 
the area receiving protection are all members of the femHIes Agavaceae 
Onduding Joshua trees) aixf Cactaceae Onduding choilas), arxl catdaw 
(Acac/a greggll). Removal of these species requires a permit issued by either 
the agricultural commissioner or the sheriff of the county in which they are 
growing. 

3.4.S.2 Wildlife Resources. WBdiife in the vidnity of George AFB indudes 
spedes associated with Mojave creosote scrub, Mojave riparian forest, and 
agricultural and urbanized areas. These habitats support a wide range of 
species induding several that are considered sensitive by state and federal 
governments (Section 3.4.S.3). WBdiife activity is highest in the undisturbed 
habitats and lowest in areas disturbed by Air Force activities, urbanization, and 
ORVuse. 

Common mammals of the George AFB vicinity indude black-taled jackrabbit 
(Lepus c^lfomlcus), coyote (Can/s latrans), Audubon cottontal (SyMIagus 
auduboniO, and Mt fax (\Mpas macrods). These species can be found in aR 
habitat types of the area with the exception of those with heavy human 
influence. The antelope ground squirrel (Anvnospermophilus leucurus), desert 
kangaroo rat (Dipodomys daawtf}, Merriam’s kangaroo rat (Dipodontys 
merrfamO, and desert pocket mouse (Perognathus penicillatus) occur away 
from trees in creosote scrub habitat with light, sandy sols. 

Rodent control takes place on the base, primarly on the golf course. Trapsare 
used for gophers, and diphacin bait is used for ground squirrels (U. S. Air Force, 
1990a). 

Birds present indude the common raven (Corvus corax), which frequents all 
habitat types. The homed lark (EremophUa ^peslris), loggerhead shrike (Lanlus 
ludadcianus), mourning dove (Zvtaida macroura), qual (Calllpepla sp.^, 
greater roadrunner (Geococcyx califomlanus), lesser nighthawk {Chordeiles 
acullpennia), arxi Say's phoebe (Sayom/s saya) can be found in creosote scrub 


3-110 


(aeorge AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






habits and light agricultural areas. The cactus wren fCan^orhyric/Nis 
brurmeicapUhJs) Is common in creosote scrub with a moderate arrxxjnt of 
cactus for nesting arxi protectioa The red-taled hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and 
American kestrel (Fa/co spaiverius) are likely to nest in the Mojave riparian 
forestand hunt over the desert scrub. The house finch ('Ca/podacus 
neontaxfcanus), common bam owl ^Tyto a/ba), and white-crowned sparrow 
(Zonotrich/a laucophiys) are associated with agricultural and urbanized areas in 
the vicinity. 

Resident reptles of the Mojave creosote scrub include the side-blotched lizard 
(Uta stansburiana), Cailfomia whiptal (Cnemidophorus tigrls), zebra tailed lizard 
(Calllsauris draconoidas), desert spiny lizard (Phiynosoma platyrhinos), 
western patch-nosed snake (Sah/adora haxalapis), rattlesnake (Crotatus spp.), 
and western shovel-nosed snake (Chlonactis occipitalis). The western fence 
lizard (Sceloporua occldentalis) is common to the urban and riparian areas, but 
not the desert scrub. 

Two species of amphibians may occur in Mojave creosote scrub: the western 
spadefoot (Scaphiopus hammondi) and the western toad (Bufo boreas). 

The Mojave riparian forest iocated just east of the boundary, is a paiticulariy 
important habitat for wOdlife in the area due to of the lack of water, trees, and 
dense scrub in the surrounding uplands. Many birds nest and shelter in the tail 
canopy of cottonwoods and willows whfle mammais and amphibians make 
homes in the riverbank and riparian urxlerstory. The forest is especially 
important to migrating birds. The greater diversity of plants and insects in the 
Mojave riparian forest provides a greater food base than the surrounding 
habitats, allowing for a higher density of wildlife. This habitat, however, is not 
pristine. George AFB is located west of the Mojave River, and aircraft from the 
base occasionally fly over the riparian corridor, generally above 1,000 feet AGL 
Developments along the eastern side of the river include the Southern Pacific 
Railroad, irrigated agriculture, mining operations, and several small towns. All of 
these contribute disturbances, particularly noise and human presence, that 
affect widlife use of the riparian habitat. 

Aquatic habitats in the high desert near George AFB are limited to ephemeral 
drainages (arroyos), the Mojave River (with perennial flow near the base), and a 
small reservoir between the river and the base. Streams with intermittent flow 
typically support a variety of aquatic insects (e.g., mosquitoes and various flies) 
and other species, such as frogs and toads, that need water for only part of their 
life cycle. A more diverse flora and fauna is generally present in perennial 
waters. Sixteen species of fish have been repotted in the Mojave River system 
(Moyle, 1976), and only one of these, the Mohave tui chub {Gila bicolor 
mohavensis), listed as endangered and discussed in Appendix K, is native to 
this system. Downstream of the Lower Narrows, in the vicinity of George AFB, 
few fish are expected to be present in the river. Mosquitofish (Gambusia affirtis) 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-111 


and arroyo chubs (Gila ofcutd) are the most likely species to be present Other 
fish species (primarly introduced game fish) may occur as transients during 
peak runoff periods. 

The small reservoir between the river and the base is likely to support a variety 
of aquatic invertebrates when water is present Amphibians may breed there as 
well. 

Aquatic biota are unlikely to be present in the ephemerai drainages on the base 
and in the area proposed for deveiopment of the intemationai airport, because 
water is present for only a short time. No evidence of locations that could hold 
standing or flowing water long enough for colonization by aquatic biota were 
found within these drainages during field sun/eys in February and March 1991. 
Only the drainage ditch along the east side of the cross-wind runway could 
possibly contain water long enough in wet years to suppo;? aquatic fauna. The 
small reservoir used for golf course irrigation probably supports an aquatic 
feiuna dominated by various life stages of aquatic insects (e.g., midge and fly 
larvae and dragonfly nymphs). 

3.4.S.3 Threatened and Endangered Species. A number of federally and 
state listed threatened, endangered, candidate, or special concern species are 
known to be present In the vicinity of George AFB (LSA, 1988; City of Adelanto, 
1990). The status and distribution of these species was determined through 
reference to the Califomia Natural Diversity Database, contacts with federal and 
state agencies, and a literature review. A letter was sent to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) requesting a list of species in the project area as 
required for initiation of informal consultation under Section 7 of the 
Endangered Species Act, as amended. Their reply indicates the number of 
species that could occur in the vicinity of George AFB. Threatened, 
endangered, and other species of concern that are or may be present on and 
near George AFB are listed and discussed in Appendix K. 

The primary species of concern in the ROI is the desert tortoise (Gopherus 
agassizil). The Mojave popidation of this species was federally listed as an 
endangered species in 1989 by emergency rule and as a threatened species by 
final rule In April 1990. It is also state-listed as threatened. The desert tortoise 
requires firm but not hard grourxi (such as the banks of washes or compacted 
sand) for construction of burrows. Mojave desert areas, with moderate shrub 
cover and relatively free of human disturbance, are probable habitats for the 
tortoise. A Bureau of Land Management (BLM) map of tortoise density shows 
the northern third of George AFB to be in a geographic area capable of 
supporting 20 to 50 tortoises per square mile (Western Mojave Land Tenure 
Adjustment Project, 1988). A recent biological survey (SAIC, 1990a) has shown 
that the desert tortoise inhabits portions of George AFB and its vicinity 
(Figure 3.4-5). A 304-acre area in the northeast comer of the base (and 
exterxfing outward past the base boundary) is expected to have high densities 

3-112 George AFB Di^osai and Reuse FEiS 










EXPLANATION 

Sunreygd 


Utwtivoyad 



No Tortoises 

jfli 

Presumed No Tortciaes 
(Unsuitafaie Habitait) 



Law DemiV 
(20-80 Torto i aea/Sq Mi) 

High Oenaty 

eSa^ (80>100 Tortn ac a/Sq Mi) 


run 


(D 


0 1/4 1/2 


IhHe 


IP 


Presumed Low Density 
(Suitable HabitaQ 


Desert Tortoise 
Distribution/Wetlands 

Riperianwettands Riparian Habitat 


- —— BaseBoundsry 

_Abandoned 

Runway 


Figure 3.4>5 


Geo/ge AFB IXsposat and Reuse FEIS 


3-113 


















































of desert tortoises (50 to 100/square mOe). Low densities were fourxl in 

730 acres, and the remainder of the area surveyed (1,130 acres) contained no 

tortoises. 

Species that are candidates for federal listing and that are likely to be present in 
the ROI are the Mohave ground squirrel (Spermophilus mohavensis). Barstow 
woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum mohavense), desert cymopterus (Cymopterus 
deserticola), Mojave monkey flower (Mimulus mohavensis), California 
red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytoni), southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys 
marmorata pallida), and the San Diego coast homed lizard (Phrynosoma 
coronatum blainvillei). The Mohave ground squirrel is state-listed as threatened, 
as is the Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). The red-legged frog, pond turtle, 
and homed lizard are also state-designated species of special concern, and the 
three plant species are on List 1B of the California Native Plant Society (i.e., 
rare, threatened, or endangered in Califomia and elsewhere). Other 
state-designated species of special concern expected or known to occur in the 
project area include golden eagle (Aguila chrysaetos), LeConte's thrasher 
(Toxostoma lecontei), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), summer tanager 
(Piranga rubra), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), short-eared owl (Asio 
flammeus), and Mojave buckwheat (Chorizanthe spinosa). 

3.4.5.4 Sensitive Habitats. Sensitive habitats include wetlands, plant 
communities that are unusual or of limited distribution, and important seasonal 
use areas for wildlife (e.g., migration routes, breeding areas, or crucial 
summer/winter habitat). In the vicinity of George AFB, wetlands and riparian 
woodlands associated with the Mojave River are the primary sensitive habitats. 
Aerial photographs of the base (dated November 23,1985) indicated the 
presence of a small pond just south of the base housing area and two short 
segments of drainages that required field survey to determine their wetland 
status. A field survey was conducted in March 1991 to verify the presence or 
absence of wetlands on the base and to determine the size of those present. 
Habitat for the desert tortoise has been discussed under Section 3.4.5.3. 
Wetlands and riparian areas in the project area are shown in Figure 3.4-5. 

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). Areas that are periodically wet but do not meet ail three 
criteria (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology) are not 
jurisdictional wetlands subject to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act 
and to the swampbuster provision of the Federal Food Security Act. Areas that 
have been disturbed or that are classified as problem area wetlands, however, 
may not meet all three criteria as a result of natural or man-induced reasons, yet 
are still considered wetlands. 


3-114 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







The routine orvstte method, plant community assessment procedure, was used 
for the two drainage channels adjacent to the housing area. The hydrophydc 
vegetation criterion was m^ (all dominants were obligate wetland species), and 
the wetland bourxiary was abrupt This (by Step 7 in the manual) eliminated the 
need for examining sols. Although the hydrology has been disturbed O-e., 
runoff has become concentrated by storm drains and enhanced due to lawn 
irrigation), the hydrology criterion was met and both are jurisdictional wetlands. 
For the drainage channel adjacent to the cross-wind runway, the same general 
methods were used, but this wetland came under the problem area wetland 
category because it is nvinmade (channelized), has sandy soils, and contains 
numerous upland plant species along with the wetland species. Considering 
the natural conditions present, this channel was determined to be a wetland 
(downstream to a break in topography) based on vegetation and hydrology 
indicators. The small porxf south of the housing area is managed for golf 
course irrigation and is not a jurisdictional wetland. 

The three wetland areas kJentiTied on base from the field survey all occur in 
natural (or altered) drainage pathways but owe their above-average water 
supply to runoff from base activity. Each area is less than 1 acre in size. The 
wetland northeast of the housing area is about 0.43 acres, the one east of the 
housing area is 0.02 acres, and the drainage channel near the runway is 
approximately 0.87 acres. The total acreage for these three wetland areas is 
approximately 1.32 acres. 

Filling of wetland areas totalling less than 10 acres does not require an 
individual Corps of Engineers (COE) permit, since this is an activity covered by 
the existing authorization of a nationwide permit. Filling of a wetland between 1 
and 10 acres requires prior notification to the COE, whereas filling of a wetlarxl 
under 1 acre does not However, notification of the COE is recommended even 
in those cases where filling of less than 1 acre is anticipated. 

Two of the wetlands are located just east of the base residential area 
(Figure 3.4-5), occurring at the end of culverts carrying residential runoff. 
Wetland vegetation In both would presumably die off If landscape Irrigation were 
discontinued. The northernmost and larger of the two is located at the 
upstream end of a riparian zone approximately 900 feet long. The wetiaixl is 
approximately 125 by ISO feet (0.43 acre) and is dominated by a dense stand of 
sandbar willow (Sa/fx exigua). The wetland contains a small stand of cattails 
that occurs near the outfall of the culvert and a large willow (probably Sa/dc 
gooddingii) in its center. The site likely receives water at irregular but frequent 
inten/ais, depending on the types and frequency of water use in the residential 
area. Riparian vegetation such as cottonwoods, mulefat, and tamarisk 
continues downstream from the wetland, although the area also contains 
upland species such as filaree (Erodium sp.) and English elm (Ulmus procera, a 
common landscape tree on the base). 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-115 







The second wetland is a very smaU area a few hundred feet to the south of the 
first one. again dominated by sandbar wilow with cattals near the outfeH of a 
residential drainage culvert The wetland is apprtsdmately 30 by 30 feet (0.02 
acre). Downstream, cottonwoods occur sparsely for about ISO feet with 
creosote and an escaped grass species from the residential area. Water flow at 
this site also appears to depertd on residential use. 

The largest of the three wetlaixls occurs in the northern area of the base in a 
disturbed drainage ditch near the east side of the crosswind runway. The 
wetland is divided by a culvert beneath one of the base roads. The wetland is 
approximately 475 feet long by 20 feet wide on the west side of the road, and 
approximately 1,420 feet long by 20 feet wide on the east side. Cattails and 
sedges, including ScIqMS and probably Cyperus, are the dominant species; 
tamarisk also occurs. The water source appears to be runcrff from the vicinity of 
the runway. The wetland erxls prior to another culvert, although the drainage 
continues northward without hydrophytic vegetation. Mulefat and rubber 
rabbhbrush are common along the channel north of the wetland area. A few 
long-dead cottonwoods occur near the northern base boundary, indicating a 
probable change in the area drainage patterns. 

The small reservoir is maintained for irrigation of the golf course. Although it 
supports cattails around the margin, this is not a jurisdictional wetland because 
it is a managed water supply. 

3.4.6 Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources consist of prehistoric and historic sites, structures, districts, 
artifects, or any other physical evidence of human activity considered iinportant 
to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, religious, traditional, or 
other reason. For the purposes of this EIS, paleontological remains are also 
included within the cultural resources category. 

The ROI for the analysis of cultural resources includes, minimally, all areas 
within George AFB boundari^, whether or not certain parcels would be subject 
to ground disturbance. The potential conveyance of federal property to a 
private party or norvfederal agency constitutes an undertaking, or a project that 
fells under the requirements of cultural resource legislative mandates, because 
any historic properties located on that property would cease to be protected by 
federal law. The ROI also includes those areas designated for potential 
acquisition urrder certain proposals that might be disturbed as a direct or 
indirect result of base reuse. These off-site areas would comprise an additional 
2,352 acres urxler the Proposed Action, and 8,353 acres under the international 
Airport Alternative. 

Numerous laws and regulations require federal agencies to consider the effects 
of a proposed project on cultural resources. These laws and regiJations 

3-116 George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







st^Miate a process tor compliance, define the responsiblities of the federal 
agency proposing the action, and prescribe the relationship among other 
involved agencies (e.g.. State Office of Historic Preservation, the Advisory 
CouncI on Historic Preservation). Compliance with requirements of these laws 
and regulations ideally Involves four basic steps: (1) identification of sigrtWcara 
cultural resources that could be affected by the Proposed Action or its 
alternatives, (2) assessment of the impacts or effects of these actions, 

(3) evaluation of significance of potential historic properties within the ROI, and 

(4) development and implementation of measures to eliminate or reduce 
adverse impacts. The primary law governing cultural resources in terms of their 
treatment in an environmental analysis is the National Historic Preservation Act 
(NHPA), which addresses the protection of historic and cultural properties. In 
addition, cultural resources, including paleontological remains, are covered by 
requirements of NEPA. 

All four steps mentioned above will be accomplished, as necessary, for on-base 
properties within the ROI. The Proposed Action and one alternative, however, 
have designated considerable off-base areas for acquisition in support of 
conceptual development plans. These parcels are privately owned and outside 
Air Force jurisdiction. Record and literature searches were conducted to 
identify these off-base properties in order to provide the decision-maker with as 
complete a profile as possible of cultural resources subject to potential impact 
under each of the reuse £dternatives. 

Only those potential historic properties determined to be significant under 
cultural resource legislation are subject to protection or consideration by a 
federal agency. According to National Register criteria (36 CFR 60.4), the 
quality of significance is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and 
objects that; 

• Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to 
the broad patterns of history 

• Are associated with the lives of persons significant in the past 

• Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 
construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic 
value; or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose 
components may lack individual distinction 

• Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in 
prehistory or history. 

To be listed in or considered eligible for listing in the National Register, a cultural 
resource must meet at least one of the above criteria and must possess integrity 
of location, design, setting, materials, feeling, and association. Integrity is 
defined as the authenticity of a property's historic identity, as evidenced by the 
survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or 
prehistoric occupation or use. If a resource retains the physical characteristics 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-117 



It possessed In the past. K has the capacity to convey Monnation about a 
culture or people, historical patterns, or architectural or engineering design and 
technology. SH^ifficant cultural resoiffces. either prehistoric or historic in age, 
are referred to as ‘historic properties.'' 

In compliance with the NHPA, the Air Force has conducted the Section 106 
consultation process. Record and literature searches were performed at the 
Archaeological Information Certter (San Bemardfoo County Museun), the 
National Archives (Pacific Soitthwest Region), and at George AFB. Results are 
discussed under the appropriate resource category. 

3.4.6.1 Archaeological Resources. Numerous cultural resource surveys have 
been conducted on George AFB and In its immediate environs. The most 
recent was performed in November 1990 in support of base ctosure (SAIC, 
1990b). The survey area encompassed approximately 3,500 acres, and covered 
all areas not subject to present development or major disturbance. Oetaled 
descriptions of the methods, cuiturai context, findings, recommendations, arrd 
related topics are fourxf in Archaeological Survey and Inventory of George Air 
Force Base, California (SAIC, 1990b). This document is Irrcorporated by 
reference, and is summarized herein for purposes of the analyst. 

Three archaeological sites (one prehistoric, one historic, and one of unknown 
temporal affiliation) were reccxded during the 1990 survey. In addition, 

13 isolated finds were located. The archaeological sites consisted of; 

• A low-density prehistoric lithic scatter 

• A rock cairn (unknown temporal affiliation) 

• An historic trash dump (circa 1930s). 

No archaeological sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 
(NRHP) were identified during the survey. The California State Historic 
Preservation Officer (SHPO), In their letter of May 28,1991, concurred with 
these findings. 

The potential for buried archeological deposits is high along the floodplain and 
first terrace of the Mojave River. Known significant resources He just outside the 
boundary of areas designated for ptttentlal acquisition. Disclosure of specific 
locations of cultural resources is prohibited in public documents by 
43CFR7-18a. 

3.4.6.2 Historic Structures and Resources. No evidence of pre-military 
historic sites or structures has been identified on George AFB. The base, 
however, was established during Work! War II, and could reflect the historical 
development of that era, specifically as it relates to the training of mlitary flight 
crews. 


3-118 


George AFB DIspostJ and Reuse FEIS 





Because there is a potential for historical sK^tiflcance. World War II buUiiigs 
were evaluated to determine whether or not they could be considered eiigK)le 
lortheNRHR Resists of that effort are found in the draft Geo^A/r force 
Base, Calltomla, World War // BuHdlngs/FaclUties Architectural and Historical 
Evaluation (SAIC and Hathaway Associates. 1991). This document Is hereby 
Incorporated by referertce and is sununarized in this EIS for purposes of 
analysis. 

Four historic structures were thought to be potentially significant following the 
initial evaluation of George AFB faclities. Upon further investigation, however, 
the Air Force determined that these properties were not eligible for irx:lusion In 
the NRHR The SHPO concurred with this determination in their letter dated 
August?, 1991. 

The potential for historic structures and buried historic properties exists in 
off-base parcels designated for acquisition. Evidence was provided through the 
records search (Archaedogicai information Center, 1991), which examined 
historic maps arxJ related material. The existence and nature of these sites can 
only be determined foitowing a reconnaissance survey to be accomplished by 
the new user prior to reuse development of these areas. 

3.4.8.3 Native American Resources. Consultation was initiated with the 
Native American Heritage Commission to ascertain whether or not any Native 
American group or individual has concern with or can Identify sacred areas 
within the George AFB environs. This process has produced negative results. 
Therefore, it is assumed that no area of interest to Native Americans exists 
within the ROi. 

3.4.6.4 Paleontological Resources. No significant paleontological resources 
have been identified or recorded in the George AFB environs. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


3-119 




THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


3-120 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




CHAPTER 4 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 










ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 


4.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter discusses the potential environmental impacts associated with the 
Proposed Action and alternatives. To provide the context in which poter^ial 
envirorvnental impacts may occur, discussions of poterttiai changes to the iocai 
communities, including popuiation, land use and aesth^ics. transportation, and 
community and public utlity services are included in this EIS. In addition, 
issues related to current and hiture management of hazardous materials arxJ 
wastes are discussed. Impacts to the physical and natural environment are 
evaluated for geology and sols, water resources, air quality, noise, biologicai 
resources, and culturai resources. These Impacts may occur as a direct result 
of disposal and reuse activities or as an indirect result caused by changes within 
the local communities. Cumulative impacts and possible mitigation measures 
to minimize or eliminate the adverse environmental impacts are also presented. 

Cumulative impacts result from “Ihe incremental impact of the action when 
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actioru 
regardless of what agency undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts 
can result from individualy mirK>r but coilectiveiy significant actions taking place 
over a period of time" (CEQ. 1978). Cumulative impacts are discussed by 
resource in this chapter. 

Means of mitigating adverse environmental impacts that may result from 
implementation of the Proposed Action and alternatives are discussed as 
required by NEPA. Potential mitigation measures depend upon the particular 
resource affected. In general, however, mitigation measures are defined in CEQ 
regulations as actions that include: 

(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking an action or certain 
aspect of the action 

(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action 
and its implenientation 

(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabflitating, or restoring the 
affected envkonmertt 

(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and 
maintenance operations during the life of the action 

(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute 
resources or environments. 

A discussion of the effectiveness of mitigation measures is included for those 
resource areas where it is applicable, as in the case of replacement of wildlife 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4*1 





habitat, for example. Where appropriate, an addition to the text regarding the 
probablity of success associated wMi a particular mMgation has been made. 

4.2 LOCAL COMMUNITY 

This section discusses potential effects on local communities as a result of 
disposal and reuse of George AFB. 

4.2.1 Community Setting 

Socioeconomic effects wii be addressed only to the extent that they pertain to 
the biophysical environment A complete assessment of socioeconomic effects 
is presented in the Socioeconomic Impact Analysis Study. Employment and 
population generated by the impiementation of the Proposed Action and each 
aitemative are discussed herein. The closure baseline projects employment 
levels of 50 direct and 18 irxlirect Jobs for the year 1993 to remain constant 
through 2013 for the No-Action Aitenutive. Victor Valley population estimates 
for the closure baseline and post-closure are 196,200 for 1993 and 285,500 for 
2013. This represents an increase of approximately 89,300, or 46 percent. 

Future reuse of the base is uncertain in its scope, activities, arxi timing. This EIS 
addresses these uncertainties by evaluating aitemative reuse scenarios 
intended to encompass the full range of reasonably foreseeable reuses and 
their environmental impacts. 

This analysis recognizes the potential for community impacts arising from 
‘announcement effects” stemming from information regarding the base's 
closure or reuse. Such announcements may impact the affected communities’ 
perceptions and, in turn, could have Important local economic effects. An 
example would be the fo-migration of people anticipating employment under 
one of the reuse options. If it were later announced that the No-Action 
Alternative was chosen, many of the newcomers would leave the area to seek 
employment elsewhere. Such an effect could result in an initial, temporary 
increase in popidatlon followed by a decline in population as people leave the 
area. 

Alternatives are defined for this analysis on the basis of (1) plans of local 
communities and interested IrKlMduals, (2) general land use planning 
considerations, and (3) Air Forr^ generated plans to provide a broad range of 
reuse options. Reuse scenarios considered in this EIS must be sufficiently 
detaHed to permit environmental analysis. Initial concepts and plans are taken 
as starting points for scenarios to be analyzed. Available information on any 
reuse aitemative is then supplemented with economic, demographic, 
transportation, and other planning data to provide a reuse scenario for analysis. 
Appendix F describes this scenario development process. 


4-2 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




4.2.1.1 PropoMd AetkMi. FtJconvsrsiofioIGsorgeAFBpropertyforcMUan 
use is estimated to ocotf over appraximately 20 years. The redevelopment of 
this property into civlian aviatloonrelated, industrial, and commercial uses would 
cause many changes in the local communities. 

It is estimated that the redevelopment activities at George AFB urtder the 
Proposed Action would generate approximately 25,400 direct and 25,700 
indirect jobs by the year 2013. Figure 4.2-1 provides a comparison of total 
employment as a result of bnplementation of the Proposed Action and other 
alternatives. Direct jobs would be located in Adelanto and Victorvlle upon 
disposition of George Ara property, whereas indirect jobs would be created 
throughout the ROI. 

Population impacts in the Victor Valley area under the Proposed Action are 
estimated to reach approximately 26,600 in 2013. The long-term population 
change associated with the Proposed Action represents a 9*percent increase 
over projected 2013 post-closure estimates. Figure 4.2-1 also provides a 
comparison of population Inmigration under the Proposed Action and other 
alternatives. The majority of Inmigrants are expected to locate in the Victor 
Valiey. The communities likely to experience the largest increases in population 
are Victorville, Adelanto, Hesperia, and Apple Valley. Base redevelopment as a 
result of the Proposed Action would generate positive economic benefits of 
increased employment and earnings in the region. 

4.2.1.2 International Airport Alternative. The level of economic activity under 
this alternative would be greater than those reported for the Proposed Action. It 
is projected that redevelopment of George AFB would generate nearly 54,800 
direct and 50,500 indirect jobs In the ROI by the year 2013. These employment 
figures are considerably higher than those projected for the Proposed Action. 

The Victor Valley population impact under this alternative is projected to reach 
approximately 56,700 in 2013. This represents an approximately 20-percent 
increase over projected 2013 post-closure estimates. 

4.2.1.3 Commercial Airport with Residentiai Alternative. It is projected that 
redevelopment of George AFB under this alternative would generate 
approximately 13,000 direct jobs and 15,200 indirect jobs in the ROI by the year 
2013. 

The Victor Valley population impact under this alternative is projected to reach 
14,100 in the year 2013. This represents an approximately 5-percent increase 
over projected 2013 post-closure estimates. 

4.2.1.4 General Aviation Center Alternative. Redevelopment activities 
associated with this alternative are expected to generate approximately 8,000 
direct and 7,700 indirect jobs in the ROI by the year 2013. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-3 







360.000 


300,000 


250,000 

1 

200,000 

! 

160,000 


100,000 


50,000 


0 ^ 


160,000 


140,000 


120.000 

1 

100,000 

o 

80,000 

CL 

& 

60,000 


40,000 


20,000 


0 






EXPLANATION 

Comparison of 

1 NoAction 

Alternatives-Victor 

mmmmmmmm PTOpOSOd ACHOO 

Valley Population and 

m m m m kilefnational Airport 

Non-Aviation 

Commercial Airport 

.m'.m General Aviation Center 

Employment Effect 

Predoaure 

Rgure 4.2-1 



George AFB Disposs^ and Reuse FEIS 















The Victor \^ey population impact of this alternative is projected to reach 
approximately 8.500 In the year 2013. This represents an appraximately 
3-percent Increase over projected 2013 post-closure estimates. 

4.2.1.5 Non-Aviation Alternative. Redevelopment activities associated with 
this alternative are e>4)ected to generate approximately 8,600 direct and 5,200 
indirect Jobs in the ROI by the year 2013. 

The Victor Valley population impact this alternative is projected to reach 12,500 
In the year 2013. This represents an approximately 4-percent increase over the 
projected 2013 post-dosure estimate. 

4.2.1.8 Other Land Use Concepts. Full conversion of George AFB property 
for civilian use wW rxit occur under the federal property transfers and 
Independent land use concepts. These transfers and land use concepts would 
be initiated on an individual basis and not as part of any integrated reuse 
alternatives. The potential effects of federal transfers and iixtepervient land use 
coru;epts will be discussed in relation to their effects on the Proposed Action 
and/or other reuse alternatives. Only alternatives for which impacts exist are 
cited, the remainder have Insignificant or no impacts. 

U.S. Department of Justice. The proposed FCC could directly employ 1,000 
persons. The complex coidd house between 2,000 and 2,750 inmates. This 
proposal would reduce total direct employment if implemented in conjunction 
with either the Proposed Action or the International Airport Alternative (2,480 
jobs). The FCC would reduce industrial development. This proposal would 
increase job opportunities by approximately 8 percent if implemented in 
conjunction with either the Commercial Airport with Residential, the General 
Aviation Center, or the NorvAviation alternatives by reducing residential 
development 

U.S. Department of Interior. This proposal would generate approximately 
5 direct jobs and reduce business park usage if implemented in conjunction 
with the International Airport Alternative. Commercial usage would be reduced 
if implemented in conjunction with the Proposed Action. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development No direct jobs would 
be generated by this proposal and approximately 150 people would be housed. 
This proposal would result in a net reduction of 677 direct industrial jobs if 
implemented in conjunction with the Proposed Action and 1,700 direct jobs in 
conjunction with the Intwnatioital Airport Alternative. 

U.S. Department of Education. This proposal would result in 102 direct jobs 
and a n^ reduction of 578 commercial jobs if implemented in conjunction with 
the Proposed Action. A net reduction of 45 business park jobs would occur if 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-5 





the U.S. Department of Education proposal was implemenced In conjunction 
with the International Airport Alternative. 

San Bernardino County Work Furlough Program. This proposal could result 
in a reduced demand tor residentiai opportimitles because of pros^nity to the 
inmates. No significant change in empioymenl or population levels are 
expected from the implementation of this proposed reuse. 

Medical Facilities. Use of the base hospital by one of several private medical 
facilities would cause an Increase of 60 orvsite jobs. No significant change In 
employment or population levels are expected from the Implementation of this 
proposed reuse. 

4.2.1.7 No-Action Alternative. Under the No-Action Alternative, only 
caretaker status activities would occur at the base. It is estimated that the 
caretaker activities at George AFB will maintain approximately 50 direct and 18 
secoTKlary jobs in the Victor Valley and elsewhere in San Bernardino and 
Riverside counties through the year 2013. This represents no increase 
compared to closure coixlitions because the No-Action Alternative requires no 
additional jobs beyond those required at closure. There will be no net increase 
in population under the No-Action Alternative. 

4.2.2 Land Use and Aesthetics 

This section discusses the Proposed Action and alternatives relative to land use 
and zoning to determine potential impacts in terms of land use and aesthetics. 
Land use compatibility with aircraft noise is discussed in Section 4.4.4. 

Figures are included in this section that depict the impacted land uses for the 
Proposed Action and the sAematives. Table 4.2-1 presents the residential area 
in acres and the residentiai population affected by air traffic noise from the 
Proposed Action and alternatives by each representative year. 

4.2.2.1 Proposed Action 

Land Use. The land uses associated with implementation of the Proposed 
Action are generally consistent with the existing land uses for the cities of 
Adelanto and Victorvlle, with a few exceptions (Figure 4.2-2). The proposed 
industrial larxi use west of the airfield would be incompatible with Adeianto's 
residential development adjacent to the west base boundary. Within San 
Bernardino County, one ofi-base residence aixi related structures would have to 
be purchased to accommodate the expansion of the odsting north-south airport 
runway to the north. The remaining land to be acquired tor the airport 
expansion is vacarrt, undisturbed desert lands. 


4-6 


George AFB Disposat and Reuse FEIS 







Tabit 4.2*1. Residential Land Use Noise Exposure for the George AFB Development Plans 


Year Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Approximate Population 

Total Acres Within Noise Exposed 65 DNL Range and 

Contour 65 DNL Range Greater 

1993 Proposed Action* 

552 

0 

International Airport Alternative 

0 

0 

Commercial Airport with 



Residential Alternative* 

551 

0 

General Aviation Alternative 

13 

0 

1998 Proposed Action 

751 

0 

International Airport Alternative 

4,758 

64 

Commercial Airport with 



Residential Alternative 

750 

0 

General Aviation Alternative 

36 

0 

2003 Proposed Action 

836 

0 

International Airport Alternative 

8,149 

293 

Commercial Airport with 



Residential Alternative 

837 

0 

General Aviation Alternative 

69 

0 

2013 Proposed Action 

920 

0 

International Airport Alternative 

5,696 

128 

Commercial Airport with 



Residential Alternative 

920 

0 

General Aviation Alternative 

117 

0 


*Only airline training operations would be conducted in this year. 


Once an airport layout plan has been approved for the Proposed Action, a study 
will need to be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 150. The FAR Part 150 
study implements portions of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement 
Act of 1979. The impacts identified in the FAR Part 150 study may require 
mitigation to reduce adverse effects of airfield operations on surrounding land 
uses or protect future land uses from conflicts. 

Zoning. The Proposed Action is generally consistent with the residential and 
industrial zoning presently in place in the cities of Adelanto and Victorville 
regulating areas surrounding George AFB property, with three exceptions. 
Presently the land within the city of Adelanto to the east of the north end of the 
north-south runway is zoned manufacturing/industrial (M/I) and would thus need 
to be rezoned to airport development park for runway expansion to the east. In 
addition the city of Adeianto’s zoning sphere of influence coincides with the 
expansion to the north and Adelanto, through its zoning powers could control 
the expansion of the airport. The existing residential zoned land in the city of 
Adelanto due west of the south end of the diagonal runway, north of Brockman 


George AFB Di^osal and Reuse FEIS 







EXPLANATION 



Land Use Conflicts- 

Land Use ConMat 

1^1 Industial 

(2) Residenfal* 

Proposed Action 

jBSS Zoning Conftot 

■JH hsMulionar 
■SI (Maioal) 

PuMo/Reorealian 


Q| AirMd 

m Inaliliiiionar 
■il (Educalion) 

AgiioiiMare* 


AviaMon Si^^port 

jHpH ConwMraiii 
■9 (OIMBumemPmfi 

O Vacant Land* 


PlTI 

0 1/4 1/2 IMte 

• Noise Contaur 

• NolAnioaUe 

8lopes>19% 

— BaseBoundan/ 

==== /UMndoned Runway 

Figura 4.2-2 


Qeoige AFB tXspoaal and Reuse FEIS 


4-8 


















Avenue, would conflict writtithftpropoMdakport flight paths. Thepropoeed 
aviation support ianduM south of Air Base Roed.vvithin the dty of Adeianto, is 
presently zoned M/I and would thus need to be rezoned. The Proposed Z^tion 
wii generate reduced noise contours from preclosure. Therefore, the zoning 
impacted by these contour changes can be modWed by the Jurisdictions 
surrounding the base. 

General PIsns. The Proposed Action is consistent with the dty of Adeianto’s 
interim Qenerai Plan (The Planning Center, 19B0a) since the entire area to the 
west and north of George APB is proposed as an ADD. in addition, the area to 
the south of the base, within the dty of Adelarto, is proposed for M/i reuse 
district, which wouid be competSile zoning for the anticipated noise impacts 
associated with the abport operations. 

The Proposed Action is consistent with the dty of VIctorvlie's Generai Plan 
(Cotton, Beiand and Associate, inc., 1988) since industriai (business park) is 
proposed south of Air Base Road and the adjacent iand within the city of 
Vidorvlie is proposed for compatibie tight industriai uses. From midway 
between Air Base Road and Turner Road on the east side of George /^FB, the 
proposed iand use is rural residentiai (2-5 dwelling units per acre) which is 
compatible with the proposed on-base public recreation reuse on the eastern 
portion of the base. 

The Proposed Action is Inconsistent with the San Bernardino County General 
Plan (1989). The land within the county’s Jurisdiction to the north is proposed 
for low density residential. With the expansion to the north of the airport, the 
plan would need to be modified to include airport uses. However, the Generai 
Plan land uses to the east of the base In the county’s Jurisdiction is consistent, 
since this is proposed agricuitural use. 

Aesthetics. On-base adverse effects on features of medium visual sensitivity 
are not expected as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action. No 
visual effects to the golf course are expected because its reuse would continue 
in the same activity and ttie surrourxiing area would remain as open space. 
Within the city of Adelartto, the implementation of the Proposed Action would 
cause minor off-base visual effects because most of the new developmertt 
would be readly visible from surrounding major roads and highways, such as 
U.S. 395, Air Base Road, and Shay Road. There would be no aesthetic impacts 
to the city of Victorvlle. 


Cumulative Impacts. There would be no cumulative impacts to iand use and 
aesthetics. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures may be implemented by the city of 
Adeianto and San Bernardino County to minimize off-base impacts resulting 
from the Proposed Action. The currer4 inhabitants of the off-base residence 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-9 








located near the north-south runway would need to be relocated accordirrg to 
the applicable federal arxl state relocation statutes. The city of Adelanto and 
county of San Bernardino wSI need to revise zoning regulations and the airfield 
safety areas. These safety areas need to be modified to reflect new FAA 
requirements. Architectural design standards and larxiscaping requirements 
can be implemented to minimize the visual impacts of on-base industrial uses, 
especially regarding the residential area adjacent to the west base boundary 
located within the city of Adelanto. 

4.2.2.2 International Airport Alternative 

Land Use. The overall impacts related to land use especially in the city of 
Adelanto would be significantly greater than under the Proposed Action, 
because it includes the acquisition of approximately 8,350 acres of off-base 
property, which includes urban and rural development in the city of Adelanto. 
This property, to be used for the development of an international airport, is 
about 3-1/2 times the amount of off-base property to be acquired under the 
Proposed Action. It will change the character of Adelanto and vicinity. The one 
major impact of the international airport will be the relocation of significant 
portions of Adelanto’s popuiation and related commercial facilities. 

The on-base land use conflicts caused by implementation of this alterrutive 
would include the existing residential area that would be converted to 
commercial reuse (i.e., hotel park). However, the off-base land use impacts 
under the International Airport Alternative would be greater than those of the 
Proposed Action since a large number of existing inhabitated structures will 
need to be acquired with the residents being relocated. The acquisition of 
approximately 1,000 acres southwest of George AFB (bounded by Air Base 
Road on the south, U.S. 395 on the west, El Mirage Road on the north, and the 
west base boundary) will require the purchase of approximately 400 acres of 
urban development that currently include 458 residences. In addition, this area 
contains 2 apartment complexes, 23 commercial establishments, 4 churches, 
and 2 government facilities that would need to be acquired aixf demolished. 

The acquisition of approximately 7,350 acres northwest of George AFB 
(bounded by El Mirage Road, U.S. 395, Tesoro Road, Emerald Road, and the 
northwest base boundary) woirid require the purchase of 15 houses and 16 
modular houses. In addition, an automobile wrecking yard and a horse ranch 
would have to be acquired. The remainder of the privately owned desert land is 
presently vacant. 

A major portion of the residential development in Adelanto to the southwest of 
crosswind Runway 03/21 would be impacted by the 65 DNL noise contour 
associated with the airport operations (see Table 4.2-1). This area is generally 
single femUy residences with some multi-family residences and commercial 
uses along U.S. 395. 


4-10 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







Zoning. The International Airport Ahemative is inconsistent wkh Adolanto’s 
presertt zoning in the area between U.S. 395 and base property north of Air 
Base Road. This land is currently zoned for reskJerttial industrial, and 
commercial uses, however, this would be bisignificant in that the zoning could 
be revised for airport development as indicated in Adeianto’s Interim General 
Pian (The Planning Center, 1990a). This alternative would also be faiconsistent 
with Adelanto's zoning in an area from Adelanto Road east 5 mies arxl from 
0.5 mie south of Rancho Road on the south to one half mie north of Air Base 
Road on the north side. This area is witNn the 65 DNL contour, and is presently 
zoned for residential uses (see Table 4.2-1). Figives 4.2-3 through 4.2-5 depict 
the land uses Impacted by airport associated noise. 

General Plans. The General Plan impacts of the International Airport 
Alternative are the same as for the Proposed Action (Section 4.2.2.1, General 
Pian). 

Aesthetics. The on-base aesthetic effects caused by implementation of the 
International Airport Alternative would be the same as for the Proposed Action. 
The off-base aesthetic effects within the city of Adelanto would be especially 
visible from existing U.S. 395, because the western boundary of the new 
international airport terminal and related faculties would adjoin the highway. 

This area is currently either residential, with some commercial uses, or open 
desert land. Once the airport is developed, the area along U.S. 395 would 
become urbanized with parking, buildings, and the typical related 
appurtenances such as street lights and directional signals to the east of the 
highway. The significant aesthetic impact will be the urbanization of essentially 
vacant desert lands that will occur within the city of Adelanto as a result of the 
international airport. 

Cumulative Impacts. There would be no cumulative impacts to land use and 
aesthetics. 

Mitigation Measures. No on-base mitigation measures would be required 
under the International Airport Alternative. The off-base mitigation measures in 
the city of Adelanto required for implementation of this alternative would be 
substantial. The current inhabitants in the off-base residential areas and 
businesses would have to be relocated according to the applicable federal and 
state relocation statutes. The city of Adelanto will need to enact zoning to 
regidate development within the off-base airfield safety zones resulting from the 
65 DNL noise contours. In addition, Adelanto's existing residential/commercial 
zoning for the area west of the base to U.S. 395 would have to be revised to 
accommodate airport development. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-11 






EXPLANATION 



Land Use Conlict 


IndusMal 



fc w tMwn i i 

(Eduoitfon) 


Land Use Conflicts- 
International Airport 


Zoning Conliot 13 Awrton ConnwraM AltOmative (1998) 



Airfield 


Industrial* 

Dusineis Parit 

(2) 


Aviafion Sufiport 


Inaliluionar 

(Mednal) 



ResdenM 

PuMk/Rocraaion 


nn 


0 17503800 7000 Feel 




... Base Bomdaiy 
— Noiae Contow 
• Not AppioaUe 


Figure 4.2-3 


4-12 


Geoiye AFB Dteposai and Reuse FEIS 


























EXPL ANATION 

Land Uw Coiliot 

Zoning Conliot 


MuMul 
IndiMbW AvMon 


(EduonKon) 


Land Use Conflicts- 
International Airport 
Alternative (2003) 



AMaM 


Indurtnl- 
BuiineM Pak 



R w i d a nl i a l 



AvMKon Sigjport 


InoUtuionM* 

(MedmA 



0 17803S00 7P00 Foot 




PuUMRooiMlion 
B«eBomS«y 
Noiw Contour 
NotApfdNMUe 


Pigurv 4.2-4 


Georgo AFB Di^sal and Rauaa FEIS 


4-13 

























THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


4-14 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





EXPLANATION 


Und UaeConliot 


Zoning Coniiol 


Airfield 


Avialian Support 


bidustial 

Induatiai AMafion 

bidualriil- 

BwinewPvk 

fiiafit u fiormf 

(MoSoaO 


bnfiWiGnal 

(Eduoalion) 

Commeioiil 


ReaidentM 


Pubfic/Recreation 


Land Use Conflicts- 
International Airport 
Alternative (2013) 


0 17503500 7000 Feel 


— Baee Boundsy 

. . Noise Contour 

* Not AppfioiUe 


Figure 4.2-5 


George AFB DiaposeJ and Reuse FEIS 
























4.2.2.3 ComnMrclal Airport with RMldwMial Allamativ* 

LandUM. The on-base land uses associated with the Commercial Airport with 
Residential Alternative are consistent with the land uses adjacent to the base in 
the cities of Adeianto and Victorvlie, with the exception of the proposed 
on-base industrial land use west of the airfield. This Industrial use would be 
incompatible with Adelanto’s residential development that is adjacent to the 
west base boundary, north from Air Base Road to Brockman Avenue. 

Zoning. This alternative is generally consistent with existing zoning in the city of 
Adeianto except for the proposed irxfustiial use within the city boundary (in the 
southwest cdmer of the base) that would conflict with the currently zoned 
OS-PL (Figure 4.2-6). This area would need to be rezoned for industrial use 
before this development couki occur. The city of Adeianto and county of San 
Bernardino would need to revise zoning regulations within the airfield safety 
areas. 

General Plans. The Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative is 
consistent with the city of Adeianto’s Interim General Plan (The Planning Center, 
1990a) to the north, however, to the south the proposed on-base residential 
area south of Air Base Road would be adjacent to land designated for industrial 
uses. This alternative is inconsistent with the San Bernardino County General 
Plan (1990c) since the plan identifies rural living north of the base. This area 
would include lands impacted at the north end of the north-south runway, by 
65 DNL (see Table 4.2-1). This alternative is also inconsistent with the city of 
Victorville's General Plan (CtMon, Beland and Associate, Inc., 1988) in that their 
plan identifies industrial uses adjacent to George AFB south of Air Base Road 
on the south and east sides. On base the land use is residential and, therefore, 
it would be surrounded by industrial uses. The San Bernardino County ALUC 
would need to modify the Airport Hazards portion of the General Plan because 
of the reduced noise footprint in the area at the north end of the north-south 
runway that is within county jurisdiction. 

Aesthetics. The Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative is not expected 
to have any on-base adverse effects on features of medium visual sensitivity. 
Some impact to features of low visual sensitivity within the city of Adeianto are 
anticipated, because of the proximity of the industrial and residential areas. 

Cumulative Impacts. There would be no cumulative impacts to land use and 
aesthetics. 

Mitigation Measures. The city of Adeianto and county of San Bernardino 
would need to modify zoning to regulate development within the new/revised 
airfield safety areas and noise contours to mitigate this impact. Architectural 
design standards and landscaping requirements would have to be implemented 
in the city of Adeianto, to minimize the visual impacts of the on-base industrial 


4-16 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-17 






















uses, which are dose to the off-base residential area to the west The city of 
VictorvUe would either need to revise the General Plan (Cotton, Beiand, and 
Associate, Inc., 1988) to compatible i»es adjacent to tiie base or would need to 
insure that screening be provided between the industrial and proposed orv4)ase 
residential uses. 

4.2.2.4 General Aviation Center AKemative 

Land Use. The land uses associated with implementation of the General 
Aviation Center Alternative are generally consistent with the existing larxi uses 
since on-base land uses would be similar to predosure uses. The effects of this 
alternative on the surrounding iarxi use would also be similar to the Comr.nercial 
Airport with Residential Alternative. 

The major difference between the General Aviation Center Alternative and the 
other alternatives is that the reuses are greatly reduced. All reuse development 
proposed is on base in existing developed areas with open space areas for 
which redevelopment is not proposed. The only exception is a small portion of 
the southwestern comer of the base, which will be reused for a storage area for 
aircraft (aviation support). This proposed aviation support land use would be 
incompatible with Adelanto's residential development that is adjacent to the 
west base boundary and would require visual separation by a fence or 
landscaping (Figure 4.2-7). 

Zoning. The General Aviation Center Alternative is generally consistent with 
the residential and industrial zoning presently in place in the cities of Adeianto 
and Victorville and San Bernardino County regulating areas surrounding George 
AFB property. The only conflict is with Adelanto’s zoning due west the south 
end of the crosswind runway. The proposed on-base use is aviation support 
whereas the adjacent land in Adeianto is zoned single family residential (R-1) 
and multifamily residential (R-3). 

General Plans. The General Aviation Center Airport would greatly reduce 
noise contours as compared to the other airport plans. No contour of 65 DNL 
would occur outside of the airfield. Therefore, current restrictions pertaining to 
noise impacts could be modified to allow residential development with the 
aviation safety areas as identified in the San Bernardino County General Plan 
(1989). 

Aesthetics. On-base adverse effects on features of medium-visual sensitivity 
are not expected as a result of implementation of the General Aviation Center 
Alternative. The on-base areas that are undeveloped will generally remain as 
undeveloped land. No visual effects to the golf course are expected because its 
reuse would continue in the same activity and the surrounding area would again 
remain undeveloped. 


4-18 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







EXPLANATION 

Land Use ConfVot 

Zonins Conlici 


bxliistial* 

Insfkifanal (Mednal) 


Read o n t i a l 

PUbMReoreslion 


Land Use Confiicts- 
General Aviation Center 
Alternative 



Airfield 


kiaHjIional (Eduoatkm) 



A^ictitture* 


Aviaticn Su|ipait 


Cofntnsniiai 


o 


VaoantLand 


nn 

0 750 1800 3000 Feet 




Noise Contour 
Not Applioafale 


Siopes>1S% 

Base Boundary 
==== Abarrdoned Ruwwiy 


Figure 4.2>7 


George AFB Dfaposat and Reuse FEIS 


4-19 


























The knplomeiitation of the General Aviation Csnlar Alternative 
minor off-base visual effects because there is a very limited new development 
that vvould not be readly visfcie from surrouncflng rnaior roads arid highNvays. 
such as US. 396, Air Base Road, and Shay Road. 

Cumulative Impada. There would be no curniialiveirnpacts to land use and 
aesthetics. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures may be implemented by the city of 
Adeianto to minimize off-base Impacts resulting from the General Aviation 
Center Alternative. ArcNtectiuei design standards and landscaping 
requirements can be implemented to minimize the visual impacts of on-base 
aviation support land use west of the airfield to the adjacent residential area in 
the city of Adeianto. 

4.2.2.S Non-Aviation Alternative 

Land Use. Because the atefieid would not be operational under the 
Non-Aviation Alternative, Industrial and residential land uses can be expanded 
on base. The airfield would be converted for industrial uses, utilizing the 
existing runways and aprons for parking and open-air storage yards. The 
development of residential uses In the vacant areas of the base would 
essentially become residential In character. Adjacent residential areas would be 
impacted by the elimination of the adverse effects of airfield operations 
(Figure 4.2-8). 

Zoning. The planned Non-Aviation Alternative is generally consistent with 
zoning, with the exception of the proposed residential development within the 
boundaries of the city of Adeianto. This area, in the southwest comer of the 
base, is currently zoned OS-PL and would need to be rezoned for residential 
development. 

General Plans. The Non-Aviation Alternative on base residential use is 
consistent with the San Bernardino County General Plan (1990c) in that rural 
living (RL-S) residential uses are shown north of the base with the exception 
being the on-base industriai use on the east and north boundary of the base 
from Desoto Avenue south to El Mirage Road that adjoins the off-base RL-5 
district. 

This alternative is inconsistent with the city of Adeianto’s interim General Plan 
(The Planning Center, 1990a) in that it identifies airport development district to 
the north and east of the base. Adjacent to this area the land use on base is to 
be residential. The other inconsistency with Adeianto’s plan is the industrial use 
south of Air Base Road that is adjacent to on-base residential uses. 


4-20 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 














EXPLANATION 



General Plan Conlict 



Zoning Conlict 



Airfield* 



Aviation Supporf 



nj-1 


0 7501500 3000 Feet 




Industial 

kntitiioral (Medical) 
Insttilioml (Educatian) 
Conmeioial 


<Z) 


ij 


© 



Residential 
PubikyRecfeation 
Apiculture* 
Vacant Land 
Slopes>15% 


Land Use Conflicts- 

Non-Aviation 

Alternative 


Base Boundary 

• Not Apficafale =rz= Abandoned Runway FigUf© 4.2-8 
George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-21 


El Evado Road 

































































































































































































































Aesthetics. The Non-Aviation Alternative is not expected to result in any 
adverse effects on features of medium visual sensitivity. 

Portions of the on-base industrial development would be visible from the 
proposed residential areas, where adjacent, and would need to be visually 
screened to avoid undesirable views. However, overall, the Non-Aviation 
Alternative is not expected to significantly affect the visual and aesthetic quality 
of the base. Some open portions of the base, especially the areas south of Air 
Base Road and northwest of the cantonment, would be developed. They would, 
therefore, be transformed from open space to an urban environment. 

Cumulative Impacts. There would be no cumulative impacts to land use and 
aesthetics. 

Mitigation Measures. Minor mitigation measures may be implemented for the 
Non-Aviation Alternative. Where industrial zoning is adjacent to the base in the 
cities of Adeianto and Victorville, measures will need to be taken to visually 
screen views from the residences into the industrial areas. The city of Adeianto 
would need to rezone that portion of the base presentiy for residential use. The 
cities of Adeianto and VictorvUle would need to revise their General Plans to be 
compatible with the proposed on-base uses. 

4.2.2.6 Other Land Use Concepts. Impacts of each proposed federal 
transfer and other independent land use concepts are evaluated for 
compatibility with land use plans and regulations, impacts to on- and off-base 
land uses, and general land use trends in the region. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Land Use and Zoning. The proposed transfer would necessitate a change in 
category from vacant or industrial use to institutional. The new land use would 
be compatible with Adelanto's manufacturing/industrial zoning to the east. 
Victorville adjoins the base to the south and west. The Victorville General Plan 
(Cotton, Beland and Associate, Inc., 1988) indicates the proposed zoning to be 
light industrial, and thus compatible with an FFC. 

Aesthetics. This federal transfer is not expected to have any adverse effects on 
any visually sensitive areas. 

U.S. Department of Interior 

Land Use and Zoning. This would result in no change from current land use 
and would be consistent with local zoning and land use. 

Aesthetics. Transfer of the base recreational facilities will have no significant 
impact on aesthetics. 


4-22 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










U.8. IHpartimiii of Ufoiwportotion 

Land Um and Zonino. This reuse woiddba compatible with land use and 
zoning asaoctated wth the implementation of the Proposed Action or 
aKernatives. except for the NoivAwiation Alternative. The garage would be 
compatUe because it would be located in either aviation support business 
park, or commerce reuse areas. However. It would not be con^ratfole in the 
Non-Aviation Alternative because It would be located witNn the kistitutionai 
area. In the short term, the garage codd probably be accommodated in the 
institutional area, because the Institutional reuse would develop over a longer 
time period. 

Aesthetics. The transfer of the Automotive Hobby Shop to the U.S. DOT wi 
not result in significant visual impacts. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Land Use and Zoning. This transfer would be consistent with all proposed 
uses except for those associated with the Proposed Action and the International 
Airport Alternative. Although the schools could be retained in either of these 
plans, there are no residential reuses proposed. Therefore, the schools would 
be isolated in an incompatible commercial or business park development San 
Bernardino County requests three or more unspecified existing foclities. 
Potential reuse would be compatible with land use and zoning In the local area 

Aesthetics. The transfer of existing faclities to the Adelanto School District or 
San Bernardino County would not result in significant visual impacts because 
the use of these foclities would not change significantiy. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Land Use and Zoning. The continued use of (Alaska Circle Community) as 
housing would have no effect on current land uses. The limited number of units 
(60 residences) would, frawever, be isolated from other reskfentiai areas under 
the land uses associated with the Proposed Action and the Intemationai Airport 
Alternative. Demolition of the residential units is proposed under each of these 
reuse alternatives. 

Aesthetics. No new construction is proposed for this transfer and, therefore, 
no significant visual impacts are anticipated. 

San Bernardino County Work Furlough Program 

Land Use and Zoning. This proposal would be compatible with land use under 
ail reuse plans accept the Proposed Action and the intemationai Airport 
Alternative. Within these two plans there are no provisions for any type of 


George AFB Disfx>sal and Reuse FEIS 


4-23 







residentlai reuse. Howrever, In the short tenn, the International AinxNt 
Alternative would retain the residential areas and. therefore, this reuse vrtxid 
Mtiaily be compatible. The renwining atterrtathres retain the dorrnllories, which 
could be used for the San Bernardino County Work Furlou(^ Program. 

Aesthetica. Reuse for inmate housing is proposed for the dormitories. No 
substantial chartge in function or new construction is proposed; therefore, no 
significant visual impacts are anticipated. 

Medicai Facilities 

Land Use and Zoning. This reuse would be compatible with land uses 
associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives, because it would not 
result in a change from current larKi uses. 

AestheUcs. Conveyance of ttw base hospital would have no significant visual 
or aesthetic impacts. 

4.2.2.? No-Action Alternative 

Land Use. The No-Actlon Alternative would cause no physical changes in 
on-base land use. Functionally, there would be no use of base land or facilities. 
DMT personnel would continue to maintain the buildings and grounds. 

Because the federal government wouid retain ownership of the base under the 
No-Action Alternative, the property would remain outside the jurisdiction of the 
local communities and the county. The No-Action Alternative would have 
beneficial effects with respect to off-base land use. Residential areas southwest 
of the base, which are currently exposed to high noise levels from airfield 
activities, would no longer »(perience noise Impacts. 

The No-Action Alternative would not affect the ultimate requirement to 
remediate hazardous waste sites on base, but it would reduce the urgency of 
cleanup. As long as the sites were stabOized and did not present a danger to 
off-base areas and natural rFtsources, remediation could be delayed. 

Zoning. As long as the base remained unused, there would be no apparent 
conflict with local zoning or land uses. 

General Plans. Permanent base closure, however, would be inconsistent with 
local rei»e plans. 

Aesthetics. The No-Action Alternative is not expected to significantiy affect the 
visual and aesthetic quality the base or the surrounding area. Some 
larfo scaped portions of the base would receive iess intensive maintenance. 

The ateence of human activity on the base would enhance and accelerate the 
return to natural conditions in some areas. 


4-24 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEr 








CufiHiiiliv* Impacts. The No-ActkmAttwnatlvewouklhaya no cumulative 
impacta on land use and aesthetics. 

Mitigation Measures. There would be no land use impacts as a resiA of the 
No-Action Alternative. Therefore, no mitigation measures would be required. 

4.2.3 Tiranaportation 

The effects of the Proposed Action and altematives on each comportent of the 
transportation system are presented in this section. Mitigation measures are 
suggested for those components likely to experience substarttial and adverse 
changes under any or aN of these alternatives. 

Project-generated effects of the various altematives on road traffic were 
assessed by estimating the number of trips generated from on-site employment 
and residential use prelected tor each reuse alternative. Non-project generated 
trips were calculated from changes in the Victor Valley area population 
associated with each alternative. Taklrn] into account total trips aixi 
road-segment capacity, LOS changes on key road segments were computed for 
each alterrtative (see Table 3.2-1 for definitions). Changes in work and, 
therefore, travel patterns, were derived by assigning workers to, or removing 
workers from, the most direct commuting routes. 

The reuse of George AFB under the Proposed Action and each of the 
altematives (except No-Action) would lead to increased use of local roads and 
highways, especially in the vicinity of Adelanto and Victorvflle. Traffic volumes 
on community roadways would continue to increase through the year 2013. Air 
Base Road is the only roadway that currently provides direct access onto 
George AFB (by way of the Main (aate and the Housing (Sate). For analytical 
purposes ki this study. Air Base Road is divided into two parts: Air Base Road 
East arxJ Air Base Road West. Traffic from the base to Victorville and 1-15 would 
use Air Base Road East, and traffic from the base to Adelanto would use Air 
Base Road . (^instruction arxf renovation of on-site facilities are projected 
to take piai ’ thr:^ughout the study period. Effects of construction worker traffic 
have been adoed to the effects of traffic generated by potential on-base 
operations workers and visitors to the base area. U.S. 395 and Village Drive are 
also important to base generated traffic because they provide direct 
connections to Air Base Road. 

Changes in the volume of peak-hour traffic on key community roads that are not 
the result of project-generated traffic are assumed to be consistent with 
changes prelected for Victor Valley population without the project U.S. 395 
would have the greatest non-project-generated traffic because it would start 
with a greater baseline volume in the year 1993. It would operate at LOS D even 
without base-generated traffic. It would have a peak-hour volume of about 
1,770 vehicles by the year 2013, not including project-generated traffic. 


George AFB Di^xtsal and Reuse FEIS 


4-25 












The airspace analysis examines the type and level of aircraft operations 
projected for the Proposed Action arxf Alternatives and compares them to hoMv 
the airspace was conflgiaed and used under the predosure reference. The 
same constrairSs and considerations were assumed as «dsted during 
predosure, such as terrain, runway configurations, and other airport and airway 
traffic. Fun use of the R-2S08 airspace complex by DOD would continue. Both 
the Proposed Action arxi the Interralional Airport Alternative assumed the 
continued avalablity of radar coverage for the base to ens(«e optimum safety 
arxi efficiency of air traffic corard operations. The impact analysis considers 
the relationship of the projected aircraft operations to the operational capacity 
of the airport using criteria that have been established by the FAAfor 
determining airport service vdumes. Potential effects on airspace use were 
assessed, based on the extent to which the Proposed Action or alternatives 
coukf (1) require modifications to the airspace structure or air traffic control 
systems arxf/or faciities; (2) restrict limit or otherwise delay other air traffic in 
the region; or (3) encroach on dher airspace areas and uses. 

The FAA is ultimateiy responsible for evaluating the specific effects the reuse of 
an airport wHI have on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by 
aircraft. Such a study is based on details from the airport proponent’s Airport 
Master Plan and consists of an airspace analysis, a flight safety review, and a 
review of the potential effect of the proposal on air traffic contrd and air 
navigational fecilities. Once this study is completed, the FAA can then 
determine the actual requirements for facOities, terminal and enroute airspace, 
and instrument flight procedures. 

The Southern Califomia Association d Governments (SCAG) recently 
completed the Southern Califomia Aviation System Study Update (SCAG, 1991). 
This study indicates that air passenger demand in Los Angeles, Orange, 
Riverside, and San Bernardino counties will exceed 88 MAP in the year 2000. 
The constrained capacity (air space, noise, and ground access restraints on 
airport capacity) of existing drports in those counties wfll be only 63.3 MAR 
This means that up to 24.7 MAP wOl have to be accommodated at new airports 
in the region. Therefore, reuse of George AFB for air passenger service under 
any of the aviation alternatives would be able to absorb part of the projected 
«<cess demand with minimal effect on passenger loads at existing airports. 

It is assumed here that the effects of the alternative reuses of George AFB on 
ridership at the Victorville AMTRAK station wM change (increase) in proportion 
to population changes induced by each alternative. 

4.2.3.1 Proposed Action 

Roadways. In addition to Air Base Road East. Air Base Road West. U.S. 395, 
arxl Vaiage Drive, three other roadways are assumed to provide future access to 
the base area. They are Shay Road to the east, Helendale Road to the rK)rth, 


4-26 


George AFB Dispose/ and Reuse FEIS 










andBllMr■g•Ro•dtoth•w^••t(sMFiour•3^•8). It it profMlad that only 
•bout 2S paicart of the base-generated traffic under the Propostd Action woiM 
use the latter three roads. 

The roadways ktoraNied for this study as key community roads and the 
percentage of base-generated traffic they are projected to carry tfe: AirBase 
Road East (33). Air Base Road West (IS), U.S. 396 (8), Viage Drive (19). Shay 
Road (10). B Mirage Road (10), and Heiendale Road (5). The City of VictorvBe 
General Plan Ckcuiation Map proposes that Amethyst/Cobalt Road be Improved 
tomajorarterialstatusvvithlOOfeetof right-of-way (City of VictorvBe, 1990). 
This road would provide direct access to Air Base Road arfo the Main Gate area 
from the south and would relieve considerable traffic congestion on Air Base 
Road and VRage Drive. 

Traffic generation for a variety of land uses has been analyzed for the Proposed 
Actfort The major generator would be the 11,850 office park employees 
projected to use about 612 acres of land on the base by the year 2013. Other 
land uses include conrunercial aviation (about 1 mllion passengers annually), 
gerreral aviation (approximately 22,200 flights annually), aviation support, golf 
course (20 employees), and parks and vacant land (30 employees). 

Effects of Project Generated Traffic on Key Community Roads. The number 
of daly trips generated by each type of proposed land use. in addition to 
construction workers, was estimated based upon Proposed Action projections 
for number of passengers, general aviation flights, employees, and dwelling 
units, depending upon the particuiar land use proposed. Table 4.2-2 shows the 
distribution of the AADT generated by the Proposed Action operations and 
cortstruction workers on each of the key community roads for each of the study 
years through the year 2013. In the peak construction year of 2003, only about 
3.1 percent of the traffic would be generated by construction workers. In 
making these projections it was assumed that Air Base Road, U.S. 395, arfo 
VMage Drive would be used in the same proportions that they are currently used 
by persons generating trips at George AFB. Assumptions made for the 
percentage of base-generated traffic that would use each of the defined key 
community roads are dted previously. 

The most importara key community road would be Air Base Road East, which 
would carry about 31,600 daly trips generated by the Proposed Action by 2013. 
Ahr Base Road West would receive about 14,400 trips, U.S. 395 about 7,700 
trips, VBage Drive abcxjt 18,200 trips. Shay Road about 9,600, B Mirage Road 
about 9,600, and Heiendale Road about 4,800 trips that year. By the year 2013, 
the Proposed Action is projected to generate about 95,900 trips daly. This is 
about 5.3 times the approximately 18,000 trips generated by the base in 1990 
(Victor Valley EcorKxnic Development Authority, 1990b), and substantially 
higher than the estimated caretaker status of about 180 trips per day (50 DMT 
employees at 3.6 trips per day each). 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-27 





Tabto4^2. PrqiMlion of AnmialAvtrag* Dally Traffic (AAOT) on Kay Comimintty Roads 
Ganaralad by tha Proposad Action (Operations and Conatniction Woriiara) 


Roadway 

1993*” 

1998 


2013 

Air Bass Road East 

Oparadons 

90 

10,304 

20,788 

31,483 

Conatruedon 

0 

6S0 

673 

164 

ToM 

90 

10,964 

21,461 

31,647 

Air Base Road West 

Operations 

SO 

4,684 

9,449 

14,311 

Construction 

0 

29S 

306 

7S 

Totai 

SO 

4,979 

9,7SS 

14,386 

U.S.39S 

Operations 

20 

2,498 

S.040 

7,632 

Construction 

0 

1S8 

163 

40 

Totai 

20 

2,6S6 

S.203 

7,672 

Vliage Drive 

Operations 

20 

S,933 

11,969 

18,127 

Construction 

0 

374 

387 

94 

Totai 

20 

6,307 

12,3S6 

18,221 

Shay Road 

Operations 

0 

3,123 

6,299 

9,S40 

Construction 

0 

197 

204 

SO 

Totai 

0 

3,320 

6,S03 

9,690 

B Mirage Road 

Operations 

0 

3,123 

6,299 

9,S40 

Construction 

0 

197 

204 

SO 

Totai 

0 

3,320 

6,S03 

9,S90 

Helendaie Road 

Operations 

0 

1,661 

3,1 SO 

4,770 

Construction 

0 

98 

102 

2S 

Totai 

0 

1,6S9 

3,2S2 

4,796 

Totais 

Operations 

180 

31,226 

62,994 

9S,403 

Construction 

0 

1,969 

2,039 

498 

Totai 

180 

33.19S 

66,033 

96,901 










Figitfes 4.2-9a and b show project- and non-project-generated peak-hour traffic 
for the years 1990,1993,1998,2003, and 2013 (the latter four being the project 
study years) for each of the seven key community roads. Air Base Road East 
and U.S. 395 would realize the greatest peak-hour traffic loads. Those two 
roadways would realize peak-hour traffic of aboiA 4,500 aral 2,700 vehides 
respectively by the year 2013. These loads are tar in excess of present capacity 
arxf would require improvements and widening to accomrrKxtete the anticipated 
peak-hour traffic. 

Summary of Effects on Key Community Roads. Figures 4.2-9a and b also 
show the projected LOS for each key community road. Air Base Road East 
would be most affected by the Proposed Action. To avoid tailing to LOS F, It 
would be necessary to widen Air Base Road East to 4 lartes by 1999. Air Base 
Road West and U.S. 395 would have to be widened to 4 lanes by the years 2012 
and 2001, respectively. No Improvements would be required to maintain LOS E 
or better on the other key community roads. 

Effects on Key On-base Roads. It is assumed for the Proposed Action that 
existing on-base roads would remain in place and that additional roads would 
be constructed to accommodate new land uses west of the airport, and south of 
Air Base Road. It is apparent from the Proposed Action land use map that the 
majority of the traffic generated by industrial uses would use orvbase roads that 
are not yet built. Peak-hour traffic generated by office park, aviation support, 
residential, and other minor uses would use existing on-base roads. The 
distribution of this traffic is projected to be similar to that of the present time. 

In 1994, the first year of operation, Cory Boulevard's peak-hour volume would 
reach 880 under the Proposed Action; its LOS would be level D. With its 
four-lane section, however. Phantom Street would maintain an acceptable LOS 
of A through the year 2013, when its peak-hour volume would reach only about 
780. 

Airport Capacity. Aviation activities identified under the Proposed Action 
indude air passenger service, corporate and private flying (general aviation), 
and other related aviation activities, such as aircraft maintenance and airline 
training. These operations couid indude a variety of aircraft ranging from 
helicopters and small, single engine propeller-type aircraft to large, passenger 
jets, such as B-747s and OC-IOs. The projected number of flight operations 
and the fleet mix associated with the Proposed Action are shown in Table 4.2-3. 
FAA starxlards (FAA, 1983) were utilized to determine the Annual Service 
Volume (ASV), as a reasonable estimate of the airport’s operational capacity 
based on the existing runway configuration, fleet mix, weather conditions, etc., 
that would be encountered in 1 year. Projected operations were then compared 
to the ASV to determine if the airport capacity can meet forecasted demands. 
Under the Proposed Action, the ASV would range from approximately 
265,000 operations in 1993 to 215,000 operations by the year 2013. This 
reduction is attributable to the variety of aircraft operating at the airport in later 


George AFB Dispose/ and Reuse FEIS 


4-29 








PradodUM 


1903 

MtBm* 

RoadEaal 

1900 


2003 


2013 


ProdOMM 


1093 

AirBaM 

RoadWaat 

1903 


2003 


2013 


Pradosim 


1003 

U.S.395 

1008 


2003 


2013 


Practoauia 


1903 

Vilaga Drive 

1900 


2003 


2013 

i 




EXPLANATION 

Non-ProjacIGsfMfaladTraflc 
Y/y^ PrejactGanaratadTnfIc 

I I c«P«*y 

[ J Futm CafMcKy 


Peak-Hour Traffic 
Volumes on Key 
Community Roads- 
Proposed Action 


Rgure 4.2-9a 


4-30 


Geofge^B DispossJ end Reuse FEIS 
















































EXPLANATION 

Peak-Hour Traffic 

Non-RroiKiGMwnladTfalle 

Volumes on Key 

Community Roads- 

Y//Ji PrajKlGMwnMTiiflle 

Proposed Action 

1 1 C«P«»y 

[ J PubmCapac^ 

Hgure 4.2-9b 


Georgo AFB Dispoeai and ReusB FEIS 


4-31 















Tabto 4.2-3. ProisciMl AvMtonForacMl'PropoMd Actton 


Aveiaga Annual Operations 



1993 

1996 


2013 

Aviation Category 

Air Passenger 

0 

18,200 

21,300 

23,100 

Aircraft Maintenance 

0 

1,600 

2,600 

4,000 

Airline Training 

10,000 

10,000 

10,000 

10,000 

General Avia^ 

0 

23,800 

30,800 

38,900 

Total Operations 

10,000 

53,600 

64,700 

76,000 

Fleet Mix (Percent of Total Operationt) 

Helicopter 

0 

2 

2 

3 

Piston Engine 

0 

40 

42 

44 

Turboprop 

0 

31 

29 

23 

Narrow Body Jet 

0 

8 

11 

16 

Wide Body Jet 

100 

19 

16 

14 


Soutm: P&D TMhftologiM, 1990. 


years, which could increase ttone spacing inteivals for mnway operations. 
Because forecasted operations represent only about 35 percent of the ASV by 
2013, no capacity constraints wouid be expected. 

Airspace/AIr lieffic. TheProposed Action arxf this analysis assume that the 
same type of radar coverage and navigational aids would be provided for the 
airport as existed prior to base closure, in order to maintain an equivalent level 
of terminal ATC services for the reuse ai^ation activities. However, the 
continuation of such coverage arxf services wouid depend on whether the 
existing radar system is retained or replaced, with a remote link established to 
the Edwards FAA RAPCON fedKy. A VOR navigational aid with DME would also 
have to replace the mlitary TACAN system, which is not compatible with civi 
airborne equipment The existing ILS is compatible with cMI aircraft 
instrumentation and could either be retained or replaced to maintain this 
approach capability. The decision to Install these radar and navigational 
systems would depend on operational needs and avalablity of funds, as 
determined by the FAA arxl airport development authority. 

Airspace requirements urxier the Proposed Action should be the same as those 
In effect under the predosure baseline (see Figure 3.2-12), with the airspace 
designated as the Ground Controiied Approach Area permanently absorbed by 
the Edwards FAA RAPCON. The Proposed Action identifies a requirement for a 
control tower which, along with navigational aids, would require that an airport 
traffic area, control zone, and transition area be established to provide 
protective airspace for airport traffic and Instrument flight procedures. 

Figure 4.2-10 llustrates a vertical profle of the airspace structure for the George 
AFB ROI and those elements that could potentially constrain or be constrained 
by reuse aviation activities. The Edwards FAA RAPCON controls airspace over 
George AFB at 13,000 feet MSL and below, including the V12 and V386 ainways. 


4-32 


George AFB Disposal and Bouse FEIS 











George AFB 
Airspace Environment 
within Region of 
infiuence 



Figure 4.2-10 


George AFB Dispose and Reuse FEIS 


4-33 


















on which traffic transits at attitudes of 8,000 feet MSL and above. The Los 
Angeies ARTCC harxlies enroute traffic above this airspace above 13,000 feet 
MSL The FAA RAPCON is also responsible for military flight operations within 
the full lateral and vertical limits of the R-2508 Complex airspace. The airspace 
of R-2515 is delegated by FAA RAPCON to Edwards Military Radar Unit for 
control of all flight operations within R-2515. Air traffic control would, therefore, 
require sufficient maneuvering airspace to separate and sequence simultaneous 
instrument arrivals and departures at George AFB without conflicting with other 
airspace uses. 

Civil aircraft approaching or departing George AFB could be routed to remain 
3 nm south of the Complex 1 Charlie MOA and R-2515 boundaries when this 
airspace is active. Based on predosure experience with mOitary cargo aircraft 
(C-5s and C-141s), large air-carrier type aircraft could be routed directly to the 
airport (visual approach) or to an ILS approach commencing 8 to 10 miles north 
of Runway 17 wKhout encroaching on R-2515 airspace. Aircraft departures 
could also be routed via starxlard instrument procedures (SIPs) or as otherwise 
directed by Edwards FAA RAPCON to remain dear of this airspace. 

Figure 4.2-11 illustrates the potential instrument arrival and departure flight 
tracks for Runway 17, which is used nearly 75 percent of the year because of 
prevailing wind directions. Edwards FAA RAPCON could generally provide 
individual aircraft handling for the level of operations projected under the 
Proposed Action, as traffic workload permitted. 

VOR/DME instrument approach procedures, similar to the predosure low 
TACAN procedures depicted on Figures 3.2-14 and 3.2-15, may be viable for 
Runway 17/35 with hdding patterns and arcing flight tracks that would not affect 
other airspace uses in the ROi. The FAA is responsible for designing artd flight 
checking such procedures and would have to examine alternatives that could 
minimize conflict with these other airspace uses. These published procedures 
are required for use when the air traffic contrd radar system is inoperative and 
can assist in expediting the traffic flow and alleviate airspace congestion, as 
necessary, during peak traffic operations. Aircraft remaining in a rectangular 
radar traffic pattern for successive ILS approaches, such as for airline training, 
could remain within 10 nm of the airfield, which was accomplished in predosure 
conditions for military practice approaches (see Figure 3.2-13). VFR operations, 
which would primarily indude the general aviation aircraft, would normally fly 
directly to arxi from the airfield. 

The number of annual operations projected by the year 2013 represents nearly 
a 50-percent increase over predosure military operations. However, about half 
of these projected operations may be conducted by general aviation aircraft, 
which would place less demand on the ATC and airspace systems than did the 
military operations. While additional airspace could be used compared to the 
dosure baseline, it would appear that these operations could be 
accommodated within the ROI. It is also not likely that the Proposed Action 


4-34 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







RESmCiraMEA 

IMSIt 



EXPLANATION Projected Instrument 

Military Operations Area Arrival find Departure 

Restricted Area Routes for Runway 17 

• Arrival Routes 
• - > Departure Routes 


2.5 


10 Nautical Miles 




Figure 4J2-11 


Geofge AFB DisposaJ and Reuse FEIS 


4-35 













would affect or be affected by the doeure and reuse of Norton AFB and 
associated aircraft realignmert actions at March AFB due to the manner In 
which the FAA has segregated Its ATC airspace jurisdiction of the FAA’s Radar 
Approach Control at Orttario Akport, which does not overlap the ATC airspace 
allocated to the Edwards FAA RAPCON. 

It should be noted that If the existing or a replacement radar system Is not 
provided as assumed for the Proposed Action, the ATC capacity for harxJling 
Instrument aircraft operations at George AFB would be greatly reduced. Other 
FAA radar antenrta systems in the region do not provide coverage below 4,500 
feet MSL in the Victor Valley area. Therefore, non-radar ATC procedures would 
be required for operations below 4,500 feet MSL. which would increase the 
sequencing and separation standards that would have to be applied by the 
Edwards FAA RAPCON. SimOarty, if no navigational aid capabllty was provided 
for the base, this airfield could be restricted to VFR operations only, which is not 
normaiiy conducive to air carrier operationai requirements. 

Air Transportation. The commercial airport identified under the Proposed 
Action wouid have a iong-term (year 2013) passenger volume of approximately 
1 MAP, with capabilities of handiing up to 15 MAP although passenger volume 
could increase substantiaily beyond the 2013 study horizon. This passenger 
volume represents approximately 19 percent of the 1990 passenger traffic 
through Ontario International Airport (5.4 MAP), and 8 percent of the lortg-term 
projected traffic at Ontario (12 MAP). 

The SCAG recently completed forecasts of air passenger demand in Southern 
California for the years 2000 and 2010 (SCAG, 1991). Regional total air 
passenger demand was projected at approximately 90 MAP in the year 2000 
arxl 118 MAP in the year 2010. These forecasts are substantiaily greater than 
the 58.7 MAP total of 1988. The commercial airport identified under the 
Proposed Action would meet part of this unsatisfied demand for air travel. 

Other regional airports are expected to continue operating at or above capacity. 
Air cargo shipments through the commercial airport under the Proposed Action 
can be expected to help meet the growing demand for air freight capacity 
projected by SCAG through the year 2010 (SCAG, 1991). 

The existing private airports in the Victor Valley may not suffer a loss of 
patronage with the introduction of general aviation at the George AFB airport 
because, unless accommodations are better and/or fees are less, private aircraft 
owners would have little reason to leave the airport they are now using. As new 
private aircraft are introduced to the Victor Valley, their owners might be more 
inclined to use the new facOities at the George AFB airport The Proposed 
Action assumes that about 120 general aviation aircraft coidd be expected to be 
based at George AFB by the year 2013 (P & D Technologies, 1990). Based on 
standard ratios, they would produce about 60 flights (departures) per day. 


4-36 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








Railroad Drantportatlon. With the introduction of Industrial uses at George 
AFB, the existing ral spur right-of-way extending east from the base about 
2 miles to the Union Pacific/AT&SF line could be wcpected to be reconstructed 
to accommodate freight traffic. Deperxling upon the type of Industrial uses 
developed at the base, the ral spur could be expected to serve one to five trains 
per week. The freight that could be developed by the Proposed Action would 
be very small compared to the total amount that presently uses the Union 
Pacific/AT&SF line in that area. 

Ridership on the AMTRAK system out of Vlctorvlle is expected to increase in 
proportion to population increases in the Victor Valley. Under these 
circumstances, with the Proposed Action, annual ridership stf the Victorvlle 
AMTRAK station would increase by about 58.4 percent from 4,600 to about 
7,300 by the year 2013. 

Cumulative Impacts. The proposed realignment of U.S. 395 would have the 
mitigating effect of reducing roadway congestion and improving LOS. Air Force 
base closure and realignment activities in the region (Norton, March, and 
Edwards AFBs) are not expected to have an impact on traffic generation in the 
Victor Valley area. 

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures would be required for any of the 
transportation components. 

4.2.3.2 International Airport Alternative 

Roadways. In addition to Air Base Road East, Air Base Road West, U.S. 395, 
and Village Drive, two other roadways are assumed to provide future access to 
the base area. They are Desert Rower and El Mirage roads to the west (see 
Figure 2.3-1). Based on land use arrangements, it is projected that about 
50 percent of the project-generated traffic under the International Airport 
Alternative would use Desert Rower and El Mirage roads. 

The roadways identified for this study as key community roads arxi the 
percentage of base-generated traffic they are projected to carry are: Air Base 
Road East (10), Air Base Road West (5), U.S. 395 (33), Village Drive (12), Desert 
Rower Road (20), and El Mirage Road (20). The City of VictorvOle General Plan 
Circulation Map proposes that Amethyst/Cobalt Road be improved to major 
arterial status with 100 feet of right-of-way (City of Victorville, 1990). This road 
would provide direct access to Air Base Road and the Main Gate area from the 
south and would take considerable congestion off Air Base Road and Viiiage 
Di1v9. 

Traffic generation for five types of land uses has been analyzed for the 
International Airport Alternative. The most important traffic generators would be 
the nearly 530 acres of hotel park area that could support nearly 26,000 resort 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-37 











hotel rooms, and the airport terminal on the west side of the prefect area, vvtth 
Its projected 25 MAP by the year 2013. Between them, these two land uses 
would generate over 210,000 daly trips by the year 2013. 

Effects of Project Generated IVaftic on Key Community Roads. The number 
of daly trips generated by each type of proposed land use. in addition to 
construction workers, was estimated for the operations period based upon the 
International Airport Alternative projections for number of passengers, hotel 
roonts, and acres of office/business park. Table 4.2-4 shows the distribtAion of 
the AAOT generated by the intematiorud Airport Alternative operations and 
construction workers on each of the key community roads and for each of the 
study years through the year 2013. In the peak construction year (2013) only 
about 1.3 percent of the traffic would be generated by construction workers. In 
making these projections it was assumed that Air Base Road. U.S. 395, and 
VOIage Drive would be used in the same proportions that they are curreittly used 
by persons generating trips at George AFB. 

Desert Rower and El Mirage roads would carry about 62,200 daly trips each 
generated by this alternative by 2013. Air Base Road East would receive about 
31,500 trips. Air Base Road West about 15,700 trips, U.S. 395 about 101,200 
trips, and VHIage Drive about 37,200 trips that year. By the year 2013, the 
International Airport Altemative is projected to generate about 310.100 trips 
daily (including non-project generated traffic). This is about 17 times the 
approximately 18,000 trips generated by the base in 1990 (WEDA, 1990b), and 
substantially higher than the estimated caretaker status of about 180 trips per 
day (50 DMT employees at 3.6 trips per day each). 

Figures 4.2-12a and b show project- and non-project-generated peak-hour 
traffic for the years 1990,1993,1998,2003, and 2013, for each of the key 
community roads. U.S. 395 would have a peak-hour traffic volume of about 
13,600 by the year 2013. By that year U.S. 395 is expected to achieve freeway 
status. Desert Rower and El Mirage roads woi^d reaiize the next greatest 
peak-hour traffic loads. Those two roadways would realize peak-hour traffic of 
about 7,200 vehicles each by die year 2013. These loads far exceed their 
present capacity and improvements and widening would be required to 
accommodate anticipated peak-hour traffic. 

Summary of Effects on Key Community Roads. Figures 4.2-12a and b also 
show the projected LOS for each key community road. To avoid falling to 
LOS F. it would be necessary to widen Air Base Road East to 4 lanes by the year 
2000, and Air Base Road West to 4 lanes by 2013. U.S. 395 would have to be 
widened to 4 lanes by 1995, to 6 lanes by 2002. and 8 lanes by 2009 to avoid 
LOS F. El Mirage Road and Desert Rower Road would have to be wid^ied to 
4 lanes by the year 1997, and 6 lanes by 2013. No improvements would be 
required to maintain LOS E or better on the other key community roads. 


4-38 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




Tabl«4.2-4. Pro|«etion of Annual AvaragaOaUy Traffic (AAOT) on Kay CofiununilyRoada 
Ganaratad by tha Inlamational Airport Allamatlva (Oparationa and Conatruetlon Worfcara) 


Roadway 

1903’^ 

1998 


2013 


Air Base Road East 


Operations 

90 

14,400 

17,154 

30,614 

Construction 

0 

S3S 

47 

903 

Total 

90 

14,93S 

17,201 

31,517 

Air Base Road West 

Operations 

SO 

7.200 

8,577 

15,307 

Construction 

0 

233 

21 

393 

Total 

SO 

7.433 

8,598 

15,700 

U.S.395 

Operations 

20 

47.S20 

56,608 

101,028 

Construction 

0 

116 

10 

196 

Total 

20 

47,636 

56,618 

101,224 

Vliage Drive 

Operations 

20 

17,280 

20,585 

36,737 

Construction 

0 

279 

25 

471 

Total 

20 

17,S59 

20,610 

37.208 

B Mirage Road 

Operations 

0 

28,800 

34,308 

61,229 

Construction 

0 

582 

51 

981 

Total 

0 

29,382 

34,359 

62,210 

Desert Rower Road 

Operations 

0 

28,800 

34,308 

61,229 

Cmstruction 

0 

582 

51 

981 

Total 

0 

29,382 

34,359 

62,210 

Totals 

Operations 

180 

144,000 

171,540 

306,144 

Construction 

0 

2,327 

205 

3,925 

Total 

180 

146,327 

171,745 

310,069 




Ail Of these effects assume that no form of public transportation would be 
avalable to potentiai airline passengers. The city of Adeianto's HDIA plan 
assumes that the airport w8l remain relatively small untH the SST becomes 
avalable to the high desert Construction of that line would considerably 
reduce roadway use in the Victorvlle/Adelanto area. Operations of the SST are 
now tentatively scheduled for the year 2000. The Adelanto plan proposes three 
to four trains per hour h order to accommodate the needs of an International 
Airport The Super Speed Train Commission originally conceived a direct 
.Kxvstop train between southern Califomia and Las Vegas, but has also 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-39 















EXPLANATION 

Non-PraiKlG«MtsMTnflc 
Y//A PnpciQMMtMlTrallc 

I I c«P«iiy 

^ ^ Fulm Capadly 


Peak-Hour Traffic 
Volumes on Key 
Community Roads- 
Intematlonal Airport 
AHematlve 


Hgure 4.2-12a 


4-40 


GeotgaAFB Dispose and Reuse FBS 



















































EXPLANATION 

Non-Pnyd Gnirlid Tt«Wc 
Y//){ PrapdGcmnMdTnAc 

I I Cap«% 

[ ^ Fukn Capadlir 


Peak-Hour Traffic 
Volumes on Key 
Community Roads- 
Internatlonal Airport 
AHematlve 


Rgure 4.2-12b 


GeoigeAFB Disposal and FieuseFEIS 


4-41 































considered minbTHjm ii«erim stops that would acconunodate poter^ travelers 
to Las Vegas from the San Bernardino. Victor Valley, and Palmdale areas. 

Assuming that four trains per hour used a terminal at a His^ Desert International 
Airport, with 1,000 passengers on each train, these 4,000 passengers would 
reduce the peak-hour volumes by about 2,500 vehicles. This would reduce the 
projected peak-hour traffic generated by this alternative by about 7 percent 

Effects on Key 0n4Mse Roads. It is assumed for the International Airport 
Alternative that all existing orvbase roads would ultimately be replaced and that 
new roads would be constructed to accommodate new laixl uses east and west 
oftheairport It is not apparent from the HDIA Plan map what new roadways 
would be bult, and therefore no analysis of those future orvbase traffic 
coixlitions has been made. As International Airport plans mature and specific 
larxl uses are defined, a comprehensive on-base traffic analysis should be made 
to assure adequate traffic movement within the complex. 

Airport Capacity. Aviation activities identified under this alternative include air 
passenger service, air cargo, corporate and private flying (general aviation), and 
aircraft maintenance. These operations could include a variety of aircraft types 
ranging from helicopters and small, single-engine propeller aircraft to large, 
cargo/passenger jets such as B-747s and DC-1 Os. The projected number of 
flight operations arxl the fleet mix associated with this alternative are shown in 
Table 4.2-5. Planned airfield expansion would include separation of the existing 
runways and construction of an additional new runway parallel to each of them. 
Based on these projections, the fleet mix and the new runway configuration, the 
ASV for each of the projected years would range from approximately 275,000 
operations in 1998 to 355,000 operations by the year 2013. This increase is 
attributable to the parallel runways that would be added in later years which 
would increase the capacity of the four runways to accommodate more aircraft 
operations. The projected annual operations by 2013 exceeds the ASV capacity 
by 47 percent, which could result in air traffic delays and airport constraints 
using the proposed runway configuration. 

Alrapace/AIr Traffic. The international Airport Alternative and this analysis 
assume that the same type of radar coverage would be provided for the airport, 
as existed prior to base closure, in order to support the high number of aircraft 
operations proposed under this alternative. Because this alternative includes 
the need for additional runways, it also identifies a requiremerrt for added 
navigational aids arxl instrument approach procedures to these runways. 
However, as discussed for the Proposed Action, the retention of radar coverage 
arxl installation of navigational aid systems for reuse would deperxl on 
operational needs and avaflabillty of funds, as determined by an irnlepth FAA 
study after the airport proponent’s completion of an Airport Master Plan. 


4-42 


George AFB Disposd and Reuse FEIS 







Tabl«4JM. Profaclad Aviation Foracaal • hilanwlioml Airpoft AMamativ* 




Avaraga Annual Operations 



1993 

1906 

2003 

2013 

Aviation Category 

AirPassangar 

0 

80,000 

200,000 

525,000 

Air Cargo 

0 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

Aircraft Maintenance 

0 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

General Aviation 

0 

19,400 

58,400 

137,300 

Total Operations 

0 

103,400 

264,400 

670,300 

Fleet Mix (Percent of Totai Oparationa) 

Helicopter 

0 

2 

2 

2 

Piston Engine 

0 

16 

18 

17 

Turboprop 

0 

25 

25 

2 

Narrow Body Jet 

0 

56 

54 

45 

Wide Body Jet 

0 

1 

1 

34 


Souroa: Baaadon toracMtafrom P&OTaohnolooiMMMlCaHnm. 


Airspace requirements for this alternative would be initially the same as those in 
effect under the predoswe reference (see Figure 3.2-12) during the earlier years 
of the International Airport operation. This alterriative Ideritifies a requhrernerit 
for a control tower which, along with navigational aids, would require that an 
airport traffic area, control zone, and transition area be established to provide 
protective airspace for airport traffic and instrument flight procedures. 


As airport growth continues, the existing airspace structure, as depicted in 
Figures 3.2-12 and 4.2-10, may not be sufficient to accommodate the higher 
volume air carrier operations projected for the later years. Simlar high-density 
operations at other major airports such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, and 
New York utlize a network of starxlard terminal arrival routes (STARs) and SIPs 
to funnel air traffic into and out of the airport environment with minimal direct 
handling by ATC agendas. These routes procedurally separate all traffic for the 
active runways and normafly extend beyond the immediate area of the airport 
Because Runway 17 is the primary landing runway at George AFB, based on 
prevalbig wind dkactions, STARs to this runway may require more airspace to 
the north to effectively dign and sequence successive arrivals to the proposed 
paraiiel runways. This could, therefore, require additional maneuvering airspace 
in the southern portion of R-2515 at altitudes below 15,000 feet MSL 

Departure operations could be conducted from the Runway 21 parallels with 
routes separating east and west bound traffic departures so that they do not 
conflict with arrival routes to Runway 17. The traffic flow into and out of the 
akport could be affected If stronger wind conditions forced this flow to land and 
takeoff to the north (Runway 35) or the northeast (Runway 03). Because of the 
high terrain surrounding the southern and eastern areas of the base, fewer 
options would be avalable for routing traffic tc/from these runways. Asaresuft, 
landing/takeoff intervals would increase, causing potential airport delays and 


George AFB I^sposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-43 












requiring the use of 'How comroi” measures for other aircraft destined for the 
airport 

Instrument approach procedures predicated on VOR, DME, and ILS faclities 
would have to be designed by the FAA for radar out contingencies, as well as 
for possible use when arriving aircraft have to be placed into holding patterns 
near the airport. Such procedures may be simBar to those used predosure 
conditions (see Figures 3.2-14 and 3.2-15) or could utlize a 'tear drop” profle, 
which begins over the airport and terminates with a descending oirtbound and 
Inbound track to the landing runway. The amount of protective airspace 
required to contain these instrument approaches could further infringe on other 
airspace uses in the region. The FAA would be ultimateiy responsible for 
designing these procedures and assessing potential effects on these other uses. 

The number of annual operations projected by the year 2013 would be an 
increase of nearly 13 times the number of preclosure military operations. About 
20 percent of these projected operations may be conducted under VFR by 
general aviation, which would place less demand on the ATC and airspace 
systems than did the military aircraft. However, considering the overall high 
number of IFR operations and d^e additional airspace required to support 
airport arrival and departure routes, this alternative has the potential to limit or 
delay air traffic in the region and encroach on other airspace uses. Aircraft 
operations during peak hour traffic periods could saturate the ATC system and 
therefore limit or delay arrivals and departures and constrain enroute traffic as 
the International Airport traffic is being funneied to and from the airway 
structure. Arrival and departure routes for Edwards AFB, China Lake Naval 
Weapons Center, Palmdale Airport, and the R-2508 complex could also be 
affected since they may have to be adjusted to segregate those operations from 
international airport traffic, it is not likely that this airport would have a direct 
effect on ATC airspace serving Norton AFB, March AFB, and Ontario A!^ ^ air 

traffic. However, an indirect impact could occur if operations from these 
respective locations are delayed from entering the regional enroute traffic flow 
as a result of air traffic generated by the International airport. VFR operations at 
the small public and private airports in the vicinity could continue to function 
without adverse effects although their ease of access may be limited by more 
stringent airspace controls and associated ATC communications requirements. 

The potential encroachment of this Alternative on R-2515 airspace would have 
an impact on DOD's overall use of the R-2508 complex. Present and planned 
future test and training programs require full use of this complex and any toss of 
its airspace to accommodate the international airport's operations could 
jeopardiz3 these programs. 

As noted in the Proposed Action, the ATC capacity for handling instrument 
aircraft operations at George AFB would be greatly reduced if the existing radar 
sunreBlance system is not retained or replaced, and interfaced to an air traffic 

George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





control fadity. Simlaily, wtthout the avalablity of navigational aids for the 
airport, this airfield may not be corKiudve for air carrier operations. 

Air 'Tiransportation. The intemationtd airport would hancfie approximately 
25 MAP by the year 2013, wtth expansion capablities of up to 50 MAR This 
passenger volume is nearly five times that of the 5.4 MAP harxlied by Ortario 
International Airport in 1990, and more than twice the 12 MAP volume projected 
at Ontario In the long terra 

SCAG has forecast regional total air passenger demand at 118 MAP In the year 
2010. Total air passenger volume through presently operating airports was 
estimated by SCAG to be constrained by airspace, ground noise, and ground 
access at approximately 63 MAP in the long term (SCAG. 1991). 

Consequently, by the horizon year used in this study (2013), about 55 MAP 
(118 MAP demand less 63 MAP capacity) in air travel demand woiM go unmet 
under SCAG's forecast without new airport development. Other regional 
airports consequently are expected to continue operating at or above capacity if 
the International Airport Alternative is implemented. Air cargo shipments 
through the international airport would help meet the growing demand for air 
freight capacity projected by SCAG (1991). 

Railroad Transportation. With no industrial uses proposed for the International 
Airport Altemative, there would be no need for the reconstruction of a raD line on 
the existing rail right-of-way between the base and the Union Pacific/AT&SF line 
about 2 mies to the east. If reconstructed, however, it could be used to bring 
construction materials to the base during heavy terminal and runway 
construction periods. 

Ridership on the AMTRAK system out of Victorville is expected to increase in 
proportion to population irfcreases in the Victor Valley. Under this alternative, 
annual ridership at the Victorvflie AMTRAK station would increase by about 
73.7 percent from 4,600 to about 8,000 by the year 2013. 

Cumulative impacts. This altemative, coupled with other future airport growth 
and development planned for southern California, could place additional 
demands on airspace use that may not be able to be fully accommodated. The 
international Airport concept could be accommodated if deemed necessary by 
market demands, however it would likely be at the expense of other airspace 
uses in the area with a particular direct impact on DOD missions within the 
R-2508 Complex. The true extent of any impacts resulting from this alternative 
could not be fully defined until a formal airport proposal is submitted to the FAA 
arxi a comprehensive airspace analysis is conducted which would consider the 
cumulative effects of all regional airspace/airport actions. If implemented, the 
International Airport could be a key factor in determining how airspace in this 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-45 






southern Callfbmia region is aligned in the figure and what effects would be 
permitted to have on other akrspace uses. 

The SST would have the long-term effect of mitigating traffic impacts if It is 
implemented in conjurtction wtth the International Airport Alternative (a 
projected 7 percent reduction in peak-hour traffic volume). 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures for airspace impacts could not be 
fuUy determined unti completion of an FAA analysis. The findirtgs and 
recommendations of such analysis, coupled with future use of technoioj^cai 
advances such as a microwave landing system (which can allow an off-set or 
angled approach to a runway), may help reduce the actual impacts the 
International Airport could have on the airspace environment Although planned 
improvements and upgrades for the ATC and navigational systems, urKier the 
National Airspace System Plan, will enhance the safety and efficiency of 
airspace use, they are not expected to substantially increase airport/airspace 
capacity. While the impacts identified in this analysis are conceptual in nature, 
any planned airport growth for George AFB that could affect airspace use in the 
R-2S08 Complex should generate eariy interaction between the FAA, DOD, and 
the appropriate airport development authority to ensure the mutual beneficial 
use of airspace. It is the FAA's purpose to pursue the most effective means 
available in making airspace use as compatible as possible for all users. 

4.2.3.3 Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative 

Roadways. In addition to Air Base Road East, Air Base Road West, U.S. 395, 
arxl Village Drive, four other roadways are assumed to provide future access to 
the base area. They are Shay Road to the east, Helendale Road to the north, 
and B Mirage Road and Crippen Avenue to the west (see Figure 3.2-8). It is 
projected that only about 25 percent of the base-generated traffic under this 
alternative would use the latter four roads. 

The roadways identified for this study as key community roads, arxl the 
percentage of base-generated traffic they are projected to carry are: Air Base 
Road East (33). Air Base Road West (15), U.S. 395 (8). Vdlage Drive (19). Shay 
Road (10), B Mirage Road (5). Crippen Avenue (5) and Helendale Rrjad (5). 

The City of Victorville General Plan Circulation Map proposes that 
Amethyst/Cobalt Road be improved to major arterial status with 100 feet of 
right-of-way (City of Victorvilie, 1990). This road would provide direct access to 
Air Base Road and the Main Gate area from the south and would take 
considerable pressure from Air Base Road and Village Drive. 

Traffic generation for a variety of land uses has been analyzed for this 
alternative. The major generator would be the 8,200 dwelling units proposed on 
nearly 2,000 acres of base land by the year 2013. Other land uses include 
commercial aviation (about 1 MAP), general aviation (about 38,900 flights 


4-46 


George AFB DIspoxI and Reuse FEIS 









Tabto 4.2-e. Prqiaction of Annual Avaraga Daily Tratfie (AADT) on Kay Community Roada 
Ganaratad by tho Commarciai Airport wiUi RaakJantlai Aitamativa (Oparationa and 

Conatruction Workara) 

Roadway 19g3^** 1998 2003 _ ZQIJL 


Air Base Road East 


Operations 

90 

24,803 

33,S29 

48,387 

Construction 

0 

140 

163 

0 

Total 

90 

24,943 

33,688 

48,387 

Air Base Road West 

Operations 

SO 

11,274 

1S,239 

21,994 

Construction 

0 

64 

74 

0 

Total 

SO 

11,338 

1S,313 

21,994 

U.S.395 

Operations 

20 

6,013 

8,127 

11,730 

Construction 

0 

34 

39 

0 

Total 

20 

6,047 

8,166 

11,730 

VOIage Drive 

Operations 

20 

14,281 

19,302 

27,859 

Construction 

0 

81 

94 

0 

Total 

20 

14,362 

19,396 

27,859 

Shay Road 

Operations 

0 

7,S16 

10,1S9 

14,663 

Construction 

0 

43 

49 

0 

Total 

0 

7,SS9 

10,208 

14,663 

Crippen Avenue 

Operations 

0 

3.7S8 

S,080 

7,331 

Construction 

0 

21 

2S 

0 

T(^ 

0 

3,779 

S,105 

7,331 

Ei Mirage Road 

Operations 

0 

3,7S8 

S,080 

7,331 

Construction 

0 

21 

25 

0 

Total 

0 

3,779 

5,105 

7,331 

Helendaie Road 

Operations 

0 

3,7S8 

5,080 

7,331 

Construction 

0 

21 

25 

0 

Total 

0 

3,779 

5,105 

7,331 

Totals 

Operations 

180 

7S,161 

101,592 

146,626 

Constructkm 

0 

42S 

494 

0 

Total 

180 

7S,S86 

102,086 

146,626 


Tiosr^^nsspMir^iM^mSnnMm 


4-48 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






annual^, aviation support (about 2,000 amployaes), commercial ratal uses 
(about 280,000 square feet of ioor apace), cdege (about 700 students), high 
school (about 1,160 students), hospital (60 employees), and parks and vacant 
land (20 employees). 

Eftocis of Project Generated Ufaflic on Key Community Roads. The number 
of daly trips generated by each type of proposed land use. In addition to 
construction workers, was estimated for the operations period based upon the 
Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative projectiorts for number of 
passengers, general aviation filf^Ss, empfoysee, students, and dweling units, 
depending upon the particuiar land use proposed. Table 4.2-6 shows the 
distribution of the AADT generated by this alternative’s operations and 
construction workers on each of the key community roads and for each of the 
study years through the year 2013. inthepeakconstructionyearof 2003, only 
about 0.5 percent of the traffic would be generated by construction traffic. In 
making these projections it was assumed that Air Base Road. U.S. 395, and 
Wage Drive would be used in the same proportions that they are currerffiy used 
by persons generating trips at George AFB. 

The most Important key community road would be Air Base Road East, which 
would carry about 48,400 daly trips generated by this alternative by 2013. Air 
Base Road West would receive about 22,000 tripe. U.S. 395 about 11,700 trips, 
Vllage Drive about 27,900 trips, Shay Road aboirt 14,700, Crippen Avenue 
about 7,300, B Mirage Rosd aboift 7,300. and Helendale Road about 7,300 trips 
that year. By year 2013, this alternative is projected to generate a total of 
about 146,600 trips daly. This is about eight times the approximately 18,000 
trips generated by the base in 1990 (WEDA, 1990), arxi substantially higher 
than the estimated caretaker status of about 180 trips per day (50 DMT 
employees at 3.6 trips per day each). 

Figures 4.2-13a and b show project- and non-proJect-generated peak-hour 
traffic for the years 1990,1993,1998,2003, and 2013, for each of the key 
community roads. Air Base Road East and Wage Drive would realize the 
greatest peak-hour traffic loads because they would carry project-generated 
traffic. Those two roadways would realize peak-hour traffic of about 5,800 and 
3,200 vehides respectively by the year 2013. 

Summary of Effects on Key Community Roads. Figures 4.2-13a and b also 
show the projected LOS for each key community road. Air Base Road East 
would be most affected by this alternative. To avoid foiling to LOS F, it would be 
necessary to widen Air Base Road East to 4 lanes by the year 1996. Air Base 
Road West and U.S. 395 would have to be widened to 4 lanes by the years 2006 
and 1998, respectively. No improvements would be required to maintain LOS E 
or better on the other key community roads. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-47 







EXPLANATION 

.] tiinn IWilTii ^--* TmMm 

I < ^ I non I'refMiiavfMfnKi ifsiic 

Pta|KlQ«wnlMlTraMc 

I I ctp«*jr 

f ^ Fulurs CapacMy 


Peak-Hour Traffic 
Volumes on Key 
Community Roads - 
Commercial Airport with 
Residential Alternative 


Figure 4^-13a 


GeotgeAFB [Xsposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-49 





















































V^McIm Pur Hour 


Lovol tt Sofvloo 



EXPLANATION 


Non ITOJKI (MfWfVQQ ffWIC 


Propel GmamlBd Tnflie 


I I Ctp«% 

^ J Futm CapacNr 


Peak-Hour Traffic 
Volumes on Key 
Community Roads • 
Commercial Airport with 
Residential Alternative 


ngure 4.2-13b 



GeoigeAFBDisfJosal and Reuse FEIS 































Eftacts on Key On-baM Roads, n is assumed for the Commerdal Airport with 
Residentiai Aitemative that most existing on-base roads wii remain in place and 
that addKionai roads wIi be constructed to accommodate new iand uses west 
oftheairport and south of Air Base Road, it is apparent from this alternative's 
laixf use map that the majority of the traffic generated by industrial uses would 
use on-base roads that are not yet buflt. Peak-hour traffic generated by 
commercial, aviation support, residential, arxi other mirK)r uses would use 
existing ort-base roads. The distribution of this traffic is projected to be simlar 
to that at present. In 1994, the first year of operation. Cory Boulevard’s 
peak-hour volume would reach about 1,530 under this aitemative; its LOS would 
be an unacceptable level E. With its four-lane section, however. Phantom Street 
wll maintain an acceptable LOS of B through the year 2013, when its peak-hour 
volume would reach only about 1,200. 

Airport Capacity. Airport capacity for this aitemative woukf be the same as 
that of the Proposed Action. 

Airspace/Air Traffic. There would be no changes to the air traffic and airspace 
use analysis discussed for the Proposed Action. 

Air Transportation. Air passenger volumes under the Commercial Airport with 
Residential Aitemative are projected to be the same as for the Proposed Action. 
Air transportation impacts of this aitemative consequently would be simHar to 
those of the Proposed Action. 

Railroad Transportation. With the introduction of industrial uses at George 
APB, the effects on ral freight transportation in the area would be the same as 
those discussed for the Proposed Action. 

Ridership on the AMTRAK system out of Victorviiie is expected to increase in 
proportion to population increases in the Victor Valley. Under this aitemative, 
annual ridership at the Victorviiie AMTRAK station would increase by about 
52.1 percent from 4,660 to about 7,000 by the year 2013. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts under this aitemative wodd be the 
same as those for the Proposed Action. 

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures would be required for any of the 
transportation components. 

4.2.3.4 General Aviation Center Aitemative 

Roadways. In addition to Air Base Road East, Air Base Road West. U.S. 395, 
and Village Drive, two other roadways are assumed to provide future access to 
the base area. They are Shay Road to the east and Crippen Avenue to the west 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-51 







(see Figure 3.2-8). It is projected that only about IS percertt of the 
base-generated traffic under the Proposed Action would use the latter two roads. 

The roadways identified for this study as key community roads and the 
percentage of base-gerwrated traffic they are prelected to carry are: Air Base 
Road East (35), Air Base Road West (20), U.S. 395 (10), Vllage Drive (20), Shay 
Road (5), arxf Crippen Avenue (10). The City of VictorvUe Generai Plan 
Circuiation Map proposes that Amethyst/Cobalt Road be improved to major 
arterial status with 100 feet of right-of-way (City of Victorvlle, 1990). This road 
would provide direct access to Air Base Road and the Main Gate area from the 
south arKi would relieve pressure from Air Base Road and Vfliage Drive. 

Traffic generation for a variety of iarKf uses has been analyzed for the Proposed 
Action. The major generator would be the 1,030,000 square feet of 
commercial-retaB floor space projected to use about 280 acres of land on the 
base by the year 2013. Ofoer land uses include aviation support (about 
3,200 employees), residential (about i.lOO units), generai aviation (about 
50,000 flights annually), elementary school (about 1,200 students), golf course 
(20 employees), and parks and vacant land (200 employees). 

Effects of Project Generated Traffic on Key Community Roads. The number 
of daily trips generated by each type of proposed land use, in addition to 
construction workers, was estimated based upon Proposed Action projections 
for number of students, generai aviation flights, employees, and dwelling units, 
depending upon the paiticidar land use proposed. Table 4.2-7 shows the 
distribution of the AAOT generated by the Generai Aviation Center Alternative 
operations and construction workers on each of the key community roads for 
each of the study years through the year 2013. In the peak construction year of 
2003, only about 0.1 percent of the traffic woi^d be generated by construction 
workers. The most important key community road would be Air Base Road 
East, which would carry about 33,600 daily trips generated by this alternative by 
2013. Air Base Road West would receive about 19,200 trips, U.S. 395 about 
9,600 trips. Village Drive about 19,200 trips, Shay Road about 4,800, and 
Crippen Avenue about 9,600 trips that year. By the year 2013, the General 
Aviation Center Alternative is projected to generate about 96,100 trips daily. 

This is about 5.3 times the approximately 18,000 trips generated by the base in 
1990 (WEDA, 1990), and substantially higher than the estimated caretaker 
status of about 180 trips per day (50 DMT employees at 3.6 trips per day each). 

Figure 4.2-14a and b show project- and non-project-generated peak-hour traffic 
for the years 1990,1993,1998,2003, and 2013 (the latter four being the project 
study years) for each of the key community roads. Air Base Road East would 
have the greatest peak-hour traffic loads. It would realize peak-hour traffic of 
about 3,030 vehicles by the year 2013. This is far in excess of its present 


4-52 


George AFB Disposal end Reuse FEIS 






Tabto4.2>7. Pro|«elioii(rfAnnutiAvtrag«D«OyTnflic(AAD1)onKtyComfminllyRoMlt 
GMMratMl by tlw Gamral Aviailon C«nltr AKamatlvt (Op«rationt and Conatniction Woifcars) 



Air Base Rood East 

Operations 

90 

27,769 

33,582 

33,626 

Construction 

0 

11 

35 

0 

Totirf 

90 

27,780 

33,617 

33,626 

Air Base Road West 

Operttions 

SO 

15,868 

19,190 

19,215 

Construction 

0 

6 

20 

0 

Totii 

SO 

15,874 

19,210 

19,215 

U.S.395 

Operations 

20 

7,934 

9,595 

9,607 

Construction 

0 

3 

10 

0 

Total 

20 

7,937 

9,605 

9,607 

VUage Drive 

Operations 

20 

15,868 

19,187 

19,215 

Construction 

0 

6 

20 

0 

Total 

20 

15,874 

19,207 

19,215 

Shay Road 

Operations 

0 

3,967 

4,797 

4,804 

Construction 

0 

2 

5 

0 

Total 

0 

3,969 

4,802 

4,804 

Crippen Avenue 

Operations 

0 

7,934 

9,595 

9,607 

Construction 

0 

3 

10 

0 

Totiri 

0 

7,937 

9,605 

9,607 


Tot^ 





Operations 

180 

79,340 

95,946 

96,074 

Construction 

0 

31 

100 

0 

Total 

180 

79,471 

96,046 

96,074 



capacity and improvemants and widening wouid be required to accomnnodate 
the anticipated peak hour traffic. 

Summary of Effecta on Key Community Roads. Figures 4.2-14a and b also 
show the projected LOS for each key community road. To avoid falling to 
LOS F, it would be necessary to widen Air Base Road East to 4 lanes by the year 
1996, and U.S. 395 would have to be widened to 4 lanes by the year 1997. No 


George AFB Di^iosal and Reuse FBIS 


4-53 







LgvgI of Sofvloo 

Road 

V WGIOT noila 

WMwul «Mh 

OAdMinQ OMnli^ 



Piadoaua 


1983 

AirBM* 

RiMdEMt 

1996 


2003 


2013 


PlOdCNHIlO 


1999 

AirBas* 

RoadWMt 

1996 


2009 


2013 


PlBClMHUa 


1993 

U.S.395 

1996 


2003 


2013 


Prodosiffo 


1993 

Vilaga Drive 

1998 


2003 


2013 

1 



EXPLANATION 

Noo-Prat«a O etwf 1 i d Tfrtlc 
X/yX PioiwiGMMniadTnne 
I I ciip«*y 

[*'*] FMmCapw«y 


Peak-Hour Traffic 
Volumes on Key 
Community Roads- 
General Aviation Center 
Alternative 


Figure 4.2-14a 


4-54 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 














































EXPLANATION 

^ " [ Non-ProjKtGanaral8dTfaflc 

Y//X PrapciCmniM Traffic 

I I C«l»e*V 

^ J Fulura Capadly 


Peak-Hour Traffic 
Volumes on Key 
Community Roads- 
General Aviation Center 
Altemative 


Hgure 4.2-14b 


GeorgoAFB Disposal and Reuse FEtS 


4-S5 














Improvements would be required to maintain LOS E or better on the other key 
community roads. 

Effects on Key Oivbase Roads. It is assumed for this alternative that existing 
on-base roads would remain in place and that additioral roads would be 
constructed to accommodate new land uses west of the airport, and south of 
Air Base Road. It is apparent from the General Aviation Center Alternative land 
use map that the majority of the traffic generated by aviation support uses 
would use roads that are not yet buBt Traffic ger>erated by the other uses would 
use existing orvbase roads. The distribution of this traffic is projected to be 
similar to that at present. In 1994, the first year of operation, Cory Boulevard's 
peak-hour volume would reach about 800 under this alternative; its LOS would 
be D. With its four-lane section, however. Phantom Street would maintain an 
acceptable LOS of A through the year 2013, when its peak-hour volume would 
reach only about 780. 

Airport Capacity. Aviation activities associated with this aitemative primarily 
focus on air show and experimental aircraft demonstrations, corporate and 
private aviation, and aircraft maintenance. These operations could include a 
variety of aircraft ranging from small single- and midti-engine propeller aircraft 
(general aviation) to large cargo and air passenger-type aircraft (maintenance/ 
overhaul). The types of general aviation aircraft may also indude various 
vintage and experimental airplanes that would be a part of the air show and 
demonstration activities. The projected number of flight operations arxf the fleet 
mix associated with this alternative are shown in Table 4.2-8. Based on these 
projections and continued use of the existing runway configuration, the ASV 
through the year 2003 would be 200,000 operations. In ail cases, the projected 
number of operations would not exceed 20 percent of the service volume. 


Table 4.2-8. Projected Aviation Forecast • General Aviation Center Aitemative 


Average Annual Operations 


1993 

1998 

2003 

2013 

Aviation Category 

Aircraft Maintenance 

500 

1,600 

2,600 

4,000 

General Aviation 

12,000 

27,000 

35,000 

50,000 

Totd Operations 

12,500 

28,600 

37,600 

54,000 

Rest Mix (Percent of Total Operations) 

Piston Engine 

80 

80 

80 

80 

Turboprop 

8 

8 

8 

8 

Narrow Body Jet 

10 

10 

10 

10 

Wide Body Jet 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Source: Derived from P&O Techrwtogiee Porecests and Qine, 1990. 


4-56 George AFB Dispose and Reuse FEIS 








Airepact/Air Tlrafflc. The type and level of aircfaft operations MentJfled for the 
General Aviation Center are rwrmaUy conducted urxler visual flight rules and 
would not necessarfly require radar, control tower, and navigatkxial aid services. 
A contractor-operated cortfroi tower may be assumed, however, to monitor ak 
show activities and maintain separation standards between non-participating 
airport traffic. The need for navigationai aid arxi Instrument approach 
procedures would be contingent on future activities and the requirement for 
such capabBity, as determined by the airport sponsor and validated by the FAA. 

Airspace requirements under this aitematK/e may be less than those in effect 
under the predosure baseline. An airport traffic area would only be established 
to protect airport operations if a control tower is implemented. A control zone 
and transition area need be established only if instrument approach procedures 
were developed for the airport. Most air show operations and demonstrations 
would normally be conducted within the local airport environment. Most other 
gerteral-aviation traffic would transit directly to and from the airfield in visual 
flight conditions. Some corporate aircraft and the iarger types shuttled to the 
base for maintenance may utilize ATC radar sen/ices; however, they would likely 
not exceed 10 to IS operations a day and would not pose any constraints on 
other airspace uses in the ROI. 

The number of annual operations projected by the year 2013 is nearly the same 
as those that occurred during preciosure military operations. However, 
considering the type of aircraff Involved with this alternative and their 
predominant use of visual flight procedures, there would be much less demand 
on the ATC and airspace systems. Based on the assumptions previously 
discussed and information presently available, it does not appear that the 
General Aviation Center would cause any impacts that would limit or delay other 
air traffic in the area or encroach on other airspace uses. 

Air Transportation. Implementation of the General Aviation Center Alternative 
would provide no commercial air passenger or air cargo service to meet 
projected regional demands. The existing private airports in the Victor Valley 
may not suffer a loss of patronage with the introduction of general aviation at 
the George AFB airport because, unless accommodations are closer or better 
or fees are lower, private aircraft owners would have little reason to leave the 
airport they are now using. As new private aircraft are introduced to the Victor 
Valley, their owners might be more inclined to use the new facilities at the 
George AFB airport. This alternative assumes that there would be about 
140 flights (departures) per day by 2013. Based on standard ratios, there would 
be about 300 aircraft based there. 

Railroad Transportation. Without the introduction of industrial uses at George 
AFB, the existing rail spur right-of-way extending east from the base about 
2 mOes to the Union PacrR(VAT&SF line would not be expected to be 
reconstructed. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-57 





RUership on the AMTRAK sy^em out of Victoivlle is expected to increase in 
proportion to popuiation increase in the Victor VaUey. Urxjer these 
circumstances, with the General Avtation Center Alternative, aniuial rid«ahip at 
the Victorvlle AMTRAK station would increase by about 5.7 percent from 4,600 
to about 4,860 by the year 2013. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts under this alternative would be the 
same as those for the Proposed Action. 

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures would be required for any of the 
transportation components. 

4.2.3.S Non-Aviation AHemative 

Roadways, in addition to Air Base Road East, Air Base Road West, U.S. 395, 
and Viliage Drive, four other roadways are assumed to provide future access to 
the base area. They are Shay Road to the east, Heiervlaie Road to the north, 
and B Mirage and Crippen roads to the west. It is anticipated that about 
57 percent of the base-generated traffic under the Non-Aviation Alternative 
would use Air Base and Crippen roads (see Rgure 3.2-8). 

The roadways identified for this study as key community roads, and the 
percentage of project-generated traffic thjy are projected to carry, are: Air Base 
Road East (28), Air Base Road West (13), U.S. 395 (7), Viliage Drive (16), Shay 
Road (5), Crippen Avenue (16), Ei Mirage (10), and Helendale roads (5). The 
City of Victorville General Plan Circulation Map proposes that Amethyst/Cobalt 
Road be improved to major arterial status with 100 feet of right-of-way (City of 
Victorvflie, 1990). This road would provide direct access to Air Base Road and 
the Main Gate area from the south and would take considerable pressure off Air 
Base Road and Village Drive. 

Traffic generation for a variety of land uses has been analyzed for the 
Non-Aviation Alternative. The major generator would be the proposed 13,150 
residential units developed in the project by the year 2013. Other land uses 
indude commercial retaO uses (218,000 square feet of floor space), business 
park (4,680 employees), high school students (about 1,160), college students 
(about 8,400), hospital (60 employees), golf course (20 employees), parks and 
open space (about 30 employees). 

Effects of Project Generated Traffic on Key Community Roads. The number 
of daOy trips generated by each type of proposed land use, in addition to 
construction workers, was estimated for the operations period based upon 
Non-Aviation Alternative projections for number of employees, students, square 
feet of retal area, and dwelling units, depending upon the particular land use 
proposed. Table 4.2-9 shows the distribution of the AADT generated by the 
Non-Aviation Alternative operations and construction workers on each of the 


4-58 


George AFB Di^X)sal and Reuse FEIS 





TaM* 4^9. Profaction of Annual Avaraga Daily Traffic (AADT) on Kay Community Roada 
Ganaratad by tha Non^viation Altamativa (Oparattona and Constructton Woricars) 

Roadway 1993**^ 1998 _ _ 2003 2Q.13 


Air Base Road East 


Operations 

90 

17,001 

29,853 

51,761 

Construction 

0 

90 

90 

186 

Total 

90 

17,091 

29,943 

51,947 

Air Bi^ Road West 

Operations 

50 

7,893 

13,860 

24,032 

Corrstructlon 

0 

42 

42 

87 

Total 

50 

7,935 

13,902 

24,119 

U.S.395 

Operations 

20 

4,250 

7,463 

12,940 

Construction 

0 

22 

22 

47 

Total 

20 

4,277 

7,485 

12,987 

Village Drive 

Operations 

20 

9,715 

17,059 

29,578 

Construction 

0 

51 

51 

107 

Total 

20 

9,766 

17,110 

29,685 

Shay Road 

Operations 

0 

3,036 

5,331 

9,243 

Construction 

0 

16 

16 

33 

Total 

0 

3,052 

5,347 

9,276 

El Mirage 

Operations 

0 

6,072 

10,662 

18,486 

Construction 

0 

32 

32 

67 

Total 

0 

6,104 

10,694 

18,553 

Crippen Avenue 

Operations 

0 

9,715 

13,024 

29,834 

Construction 

0 

83 

83 

107 

Total 

0 

9,798 

13,107 

29,941 

Helendale 

Operations 

0 

3,036 

4,070 

9,243 

Construction 

0 

16 

16 

33 

Total 

0 

3,052 

4,086 

9,276 

Totals 

Operations 

180 

60,718 

101,322 

185,117 

Construction 

0 

352 

352 

667 

Total 

160 

61,070 

101,674 

185,784 




George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-59 







key community roads for each of the study years through the year 2013. In the 
peak construction year, 2013, only about 0.3 percent of the traffic would be 
generated by construction workers, in making these projections it was 
assumed that Air Base Road, U.S. 395, and VOIage Drive would be used in the 
same proportions that they are currently used by persons generatirtg trips at 
George AFB. Assumptioris made for the percentage of project-generated traffic 
that would use each of the defined key community roads are noted above. 

The most important key community road would be Air Base Road East, which 
would carry about 51,900 daBy trips generated by the Non-Aviation Alternative 
by 2013. Air Base Road West would receive about 24,100 trips, U.S. 395 about 
13,000 trips. Village Drive about 29,700 trips, Shay Road about 9,300 trips, El 
Mirage Road about 18,600, Crippen Avenue about 29,900 trips, and Helendaie 
Road about 9,300 trips that year. By the year 2013, this alternative is projected 
to generate about 185,800 trips daBy. This is about ten times the approximately 
18,000 trips generated by the base in 1990 (WEDA, 1990), and substantially 
higher than the estimated caretaker status of about 180 trips per day (50 
caretaker employees at 3.6 trips per day each). 

Figures 4.2-15a and b show Non-Aviation Alternative project- and non-project- 
generated peak-hour traffic for the years 1990,1993,1998,2003, and 2013, for 
each of the key community roads. Air Base Road East would realize the 
greatest peak-hour traffic loads because it would carry project-generated traffic 
of about 5,500 vehicles in 2013. Village Drive and Crippen Road would each 
realize peak-hour traffic of about 3,000 and 2,900 vehicles respectively, by the 
year 2013. 

Summary of Effects on Key Community Roads. Figures 4.2-15a and b also 
show the projected peak-hour volume and LOS for each key community road. 
To avoid failing to LOS F, it would be necessary to widen Air Base Road East to 
four lanes by the year 1998, Air Base Road West by 2007, U.S. 395 by 1999, 
and Crippen Road by the year 2005. No improvements would be required to 
maintain LOS E or better on the other key community roads. 

Effects on Key On-base Roads. It is assumed for the Non-Aviation Alternative 
that existing on-base roads would remain in place and that additional roads 
would be constructed to accommodate new land uses on the western part of 
the base, and south of Air Base Road. It is apparent from the Non-Aviation 
Alternative land use map that the majority of the traffic generated by uses in 
these areas would use roads that are not yet built. Peak-hour traffic generated 
by industrial, commercial, business park, some residential, and other minor 
uses would use existing on-base roads. The distribution of this traffic is 
projected to be simBar to that at present. In 1994, the first year of operation, 
Cory Boulevard's peak-hour volume will reach 900 under the Non-Aviation 
Alternative; its LOS would be level D. With its four-lane section, however. 


4-60 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









LmsI €t Swic# 

rVQSa 

VahlclM Par Hour 

vnnoul wwi 

wwan^ 



Piadoaure 


1903 

AirBaaa 

RoadEaat 

1993 


am 


aoi3 


Ptadoaura 


1993 

AirBoso 

FlowlWast 

1993 


am 


3013 


Pradoaura 


im 

U.&395 

1903 


am 


aoi3 


Pradoaura 


1993 

Vilaga Drive 

1903 


am 


aoi3 

1 





msf. 




S5ssm^ 




^£^^jrA 

W^WJTa 







EXPLANATION 


r " j Non-PiajM(G«wriiad Traffic 


Y//a P>Qi>ctGamraM Traffic 
I I Capacily 

[ J Rilura Capadly 


Peak-Hour Traffic 
Volumes on Key 
Community Roads- 
Non-Avlation 
Alternative 


Rgure 4^-15a 


GeajjBAFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-61 













































EXPLANATION 

Non-ProjKtG«fMral8dTraflc 
PiojMt GsmnM Traffic 

I I Ca|»e«y 


Peak-Hour Traffic 
Volumes on Key 
Community Roads- 
Non-Aviation 
Alternative 


^ J FMura CapacHy 


Rgure 4.2-15b 


4-62 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






























Phantom Street would maintain an acceptable LOS at A through the year 2013 
when Its peak-hour volume would reach only aboia 800. 

Airspace/Air Daffle. The use of George AFB for non-avlatlon purposes could 
have a beneficial effect on air traffic and airspace in the ROI by eliminating a 
contributing source of aviation activities in the area. Airspace actions 
associated with this alternative would be as specifically addressed in the 
Nt^-Action Alternative (Section 4.2.3.7). 

Air lifansportatlon. Implementation of the Non-Aviation Alternative would 
provide no commercial air passenger or air cargo service to meet projected 
regional demands. 

Railroad TIransportation. With the Introduction c >trial uses at George 
AFB, the existing ral spur right-of-way extending ea. rom the base about 
2 mies to the Union Pacific/AT&SF line could be expected to be reconstructed 
to accommodate freight traffic. Depending upon the type of industrial uses 
developed at the base, the raB spur could be expected to serve one to five trains 
per week. The freight that could be developed by the Non-Aviation Altemative 
would be very small compared to the total amount that pres^^ntly uses the Union 
Pacific/AT&SF line in that area. 

Ridership on the AMH^ system out of N/ictorvBle is expected to increase in 
proportion to population increases in the Victor Valley. Under this alternative 
annual ridership at the Victorville AMTRAK station would increase by about 
51.3 percent from the f^ojected approximately 4,600 in 1991 to about 6,950 by 
the year 2013. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts under this altemative would be the 
same as those for the Proposed Action. 

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures would be required for any of the 
transportation components. 

4.2.3.6 Other Land Use Concepts. Transportation effects are discussed in this 
section for each proposed federal transfer and independent land use concept 
(Section 2.3.5). The analysis considers the impact of the implementation of 
each of these plans in conjunction with the Proposed Action or alternatives. 

The net change in traffic generated is presented. This analysis concentrates 
only on roadway transportation because these alternatives wfll not affect 
airspace, air, or raB transportation. 

U.S. Department of Justice. The Federal BOP request for use of 850 acres of 
George AFB south of Air Base Road would employ about 1,000 persons, who 
would generate about 4.030 daily trips. For the Proposed Action, the AADT and 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






peak^Mur traffic VMMid be reduced by about 7.1 percent; for the International 
Airport Aitematlye, about 7.6 percent; for the CommercW Airport vvkh 
Residential Aitemative, about 17.6 percent; \wlth the NorvAviation Alternative, 

21.3 percent; and with the General Aviation Center Aitemative. AAOT would be 
increased by about 2.7 percent 

U.S. Department of Interior. This transfer would result in the reduction of 
AADT and peak-hour traffic volume by about 0.2 percent for the International 
Airport Aitemative. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmenL For the Proposed 
Action there would be a reduction of AAOT and peak-hour traffic volume of 
about 0.7 percent; arxi for the International Airport Aitemative, about 1.4 percent 

U.S. Department of Education. This transfer would affect traffic impacts for 
two alternatives. FortheProposed Action there would be a reduction of AAOT 
and peak-hour traffic volume of about 0.8 percent; and for the International 
Airport Aitemative, about 0.2 percent 

San Bernardino County Work Furlough Program. Employee-generated 
traffic changes would be simBar to those under the BOP proposal. For the 
Proposed Action, there would be a reduction of AADT and peak-hour traffic 
volume of 2.2 percent; for the International Airport Aitemative, there would be a 
reduction of 0.1 percent. 

Medical Facilitlee. Reuse would most likely ental conversion to an out-patient 
clinic, special purpose, or medical teaching faclity. Employee-generated traffic 
changes would be similar to those under the BOP proposed. For the Proposed 
Action, the AAOT and prak-hour traffic volume would be reduced by 
1.2 percent; under the Intemationai Airport Aitemative, they would be reduced 
by 1.3 percent 

4.2.3.7 No-Action Aitemative. In the absence of any reuse of the base urxler 
the No-Action Aitemative, orvbase roads would no longer be used except by a 
50-person DMT using primarily Cory Boulevard. Ail on-base roads would 
operate at LOS A. 

Traffic on key community roads would increase in proportion to the area's 
population without the traffic generated by any reuse of the base. U.S. 395, 
which is currently impacted at LOS E (1,300 vehicles) during peak hour traffic, is 
projected to have a peak hour volume of 1,770 vehicles by the year 2013. This 
wll require widening of the highway to maintain design capacity standards and 
to avoid LOS F. Ail other key community roads are not projected to be 
impacted by traffic in the area. 


4-64 


George AFB Disposal vtd Reuse FEIS 









Air«pac«/Air Itraffic. As discussed for the dosim baseline, airspace actions 
foNtMving the closure of George AFB would Indude revocation of the George 
AFB control zone, canceHation of the George AFB ATA, arvl the discontinuance 
of George AFB's GCA radar traffic area airspace. Cancellation of the George 
AFB contrd zone and ATA wodd not adverseiy affect terminal or enroute 
airspace management in the area. The dosure of George AFB would also result 
in the cancellation of all the existing published instrument procedures for the 
airfield, which would eliminate the need for protecting the airspace associated 
with these procedures. 

Total dosure of George would eliminate all aircraft operations, present or 
future, that would use the airspace associated wtth the airfield traffic pattern arxf 
the transitioning of aircraft between the airfield arxf the enroute airspace system. 
Enroute air traffic that currently transits the airspace associated with George 
AFB flight activity wouid not be affected by the airbase dosure. 

Closure of George AFB’s GCA radar facOity should not adversely affect airspace 
management in the George ROi. Removai of the radar wouid delete air traffic 
contrd radar coverage below 4,500 feet MSL in the area now served by this 
faclity. However, there would be no significant need for terminal radar services 
because there are no other active civi or military airports in this area that have 
published instrument approach procedures. Additionally, the George GCA 
radar does not provide any vital ATC services to aircraft operating on any of the 
federal enroute airways that transit the area. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts under this alternative would be the 
same as for the Proposed Action. 

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures would be required under this 
alternative. 

4.2.4 UtilHiee 

Direct and indirect changes in future utility demand for each alternative were 
estimated based on historic, predosure, and per-capita average daily use on 
George AFB and in the Victor Valley. These Actors were applied to projections 
of numbers of future residents and employees associated with each of the 
alternatives. 

For each utility, the changes in land use associated with the Proposed Action 
and alternatives would likely create the need for changes in the existing 
distribution and collection systems at George AFB, including modifications to 
on-base water pumping and treatment facilities, wastewater collection systems, 
service providers for solid waste disposal, and distribution systems for electricity 
and natural gas. Utility corridors wouid likely be required and new service 
entrances with metering may be needed on existing facilities. The full extent of 

4 ^ 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








thes* changes, howe^^. cannot presently be antic^Mted because only 
co n cept u al plans of future development cwrently exist for the ste. 


For each of the reuse alternatives analyzed in this section, the foUovrfng 
assumptions were made: 

• The fitture site developers would undertake any corrective actions 
necessary to comply with WWRA ordinances including modffications 
to the exiting oivbase wastewater collection system and construction 
of pre-treatment fedities if necessary, and wastewater flows from the 
site woutd remain connected tothe WWRA interceptor system and 
treatment facIMes. 

• The site of George AFB would be serviced by local utlity purveyors. 

• The specific Infrastructural Improvements required and the associated 
costs of such improvements would be borne directly or indirectly by the 
fikure site developer(s). 

• On site demand impacts are expected to be small relative to the utility 
provider's service area demand projections. Consequently, 
project-related usage was included in the total demand and not further 
differentiated by location. 


Prior to the announcement of the closure of George AFB, the base was planning 
to make infrastructural changes to the water supply system to generally 
upgrade the existing system and accommodate additional demand predicted 
through 2010. A1984 report identified the long-term on-base requirement for an 
additional 2.5 MGO in average daly demand by the year 2010. It also 
recognized the need for the base to establish water rights of the existing Mojave 
River wells. The report indicated that in 1960 the base and the city of Adeianto 
were jointly issued water rights from the Califomia Department of Water 
Resources to pump up to 3.34 cfs from the existing river wells, although both 
historic usage and productive capacity of the wells was and remains In excess 
of the water rights granted (Lee and Ro, 1984). 

This report discussed four potential alternative plans for providing additional 
water to the base. The plans were as follows: 

• Develop 14 on-base wells to replace existing river wells. 

• Develop 7 on-base wells to augment existing river wells and purchase 4 
of the 7 river weHs from the city of Adeianto. 

• Develop 7 on-base wells arxJ purchase land and develop additional 
river wells near the »dsting wells. 

• Develop 7 on-base wells and construct a 10.5-mPe pipeline, treatment 
plant, and associated faciities to provider 7-MGD connection with the 
Califomia Aqueduct 

The MWA and the numerous Individual water purveyors that serve the 
communities in the Victor Valley are presently planning both short- and 
long-term infrastructure improvements on a relatively large-scale basis in 
anticipation of substantial rates of population growth, in the MWA Master Plan, 

George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-66 











tlvM options for the delivery of up to 87 MGD of water from the State vyMer 
Project via the Ceilfomia Aqueduct were analyzed. The capital costs ranged 
from $251.4 mWion to $267.4 mSlon and operating costs were estimated at 
about $37.2 mUion annually for each option to accommodate expected growth 
through 2010 (1990 doHars). 

4^4.1 Proposed Action. Table 4.2-10 presents a summary of lAlity demand 
changes associated wtth the Proposed Action. 


Table 4.2-10. UtUity Demand Changes in the Victor Valley - Proposed Action 



1993 

1998 


2013 

Water Demand 





Upper Basin Region (in MGO) 





Post-doeure 

40.4 

49.7 

59.0 

77.5 

Proposed Action 

40.4 

51.5 

62.8 

83.6 

Change from Post-closure 

0.0 

1.8 

3.8 

6.1 

Percent Change 

0.0 

3.7 

6.5 

7.9 

Wastewater Generation 





WWRA Service Area (in MGD) 





Post-dosure 

6.7 

10.4 

15.5 

22.5 

Proposed Action 

6.7 

10.8 

16.6 

24.3 

Change from Post-dosure 

0.0 

0.4 

1.1 

1.8 

Percent Change 

0.0 

4.0 

6.8 

8.0 

Solid Waste Generation 





Victor Valley Landfills (in mllions of cubic yards per yeaO 



Post-dosure 

0.8 

1.01 

1.22 

1.64 

Proposed Action 

0.8 

1.05 

1.30 

1.77 

Change from Post-dosure 

0.0 

0.04 

0.08 

0.13 

Percerd Change 

0.0 

1.5 

3.2 

5.3 

Electricity Demand 





SCE Victorvile District (in MWH/day) 





Post-dosure 

4,801 

6,192 

7,592 

10,275 

Proposed Action 

4,801 

6,363 

7,955 

10,855 

Change from Post-dosure 

0 

171 

363 

580 

Percent Change 

0.0 

2.8 

4.8 

5.6 

Natural Gas Demand 





SWG VictonrUe District (in therms/day) 




Post-dosure 

305,680 

446,616 

588,698 

875,154 

Proposed Action 

305,680 

455,875 

608,035 

905,643 

Change from Post-dosure 

0 

9,259 

19,337 

30,489 

Percent Change 

0.0 

2.1 

3.3 

3.5 


Soutcm: BtMdonMoiavaWatirAoMiey, 1900; Victor VallvyWutvwatwnaeiamation Authority, 1988; San Bcfflardino County 
SoUd Wuto M w gomont Oopartnont, 1969,1991; CalHomia Energy Conwnlaaion, 1990; Southern CalHomia Ediaon 
Connpany, 1991; Southweet Gaa Company, 1991. 


4 ^ 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





WitarSuppiy. Under the Proposed Action, water demand within the Upper 
Basin region of the MWA service area, which encompasses the Victor Vtritey, 
would increase over the demand estimated for the closure baseline 
(Figure 4.2-16). In the short term, through about 1995, the overal 
project-related increase in the water demand would remain below an average of 
about 1 MGO. By 2013, the average project-related demand would be 6.1 M60. 

irtfrastructural changes would be required throughout the Victor Valley in the 
various districts that would experier>ce direct and indirect population changes 
from the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, total demand within the 
region would reach an average of 83.6 MGD by 2013, approximately 4 percent 
greater than the extrapolated MWA projection (80.7 MGD) for that year. 

Current extraction rates from the river wells that supply the base are in excess of 
levels granted by the CaiHomia Department of Water Resources. If water 
consumption levels increase substantially from reuse, and/or adjudication of 
water rights In the Victor Valley limits the ability to pump from the existing river 
wells, future site developers wOl have to identify other options for the provision 
of additional water. 

Specific alterations to the water supply system would be dependent on the 
developers requirements and the purveyors' plans to change the existing 
on-base supply infrastructure. Formal procedures, consisting of submission of 
a tariff map to the Caiifomia Public Utilities Commission, as well as public review 
and hearings, would be required prior to annexation of the base to the service 
area by any water purveyor. 

The increased population and resulting increase in water demand from the 
Proposed Action would require the MWA and individuai water districts in the 
Victor Valley to make presently planned long-term infrastructural improvements 
1 to 2 years ahead of the schedule indicated by the MWA Projection. The 
overall changes to their short- and long-term plans, however, would not be 
substantially different from their cunent needs assessments which indicates the 
need for major changes throughout the next two decades. Water supply Issues 
are analyzed in Section 4.4.2, Water Resources. 

Wastewater. Wastewater treatment within the service area of the WWRA, 
which encompasses the Victor Valley, would increase as a result of the 
Proposed Action over estimated treatment levels projected for the closure 
baseline (Figure 4.2-17). In the short term, through about 1995, the overall 
increase in the wastewater treatment demand would remain below an average 
of about 0.2 MGD. By 2013, the overall increase from the Proposed Action 
would be an average of 1.6 MGO. 


4-68 


George AFB Di^)osal arKi Reuse FEIS 







EXPLANATION 

Average Daily 

^^mmm NoAcMon 

Water Demand - 

^ - « ^ -«« - 

MHMMMnWM I^VPOMQ MClOn 

All Alternatives 

s • a • HNVlfMBOfHi MipOfl 

(1990-2013) 

■kkw^AulalkM 

■.vkwwvw.Mv V^OTrMivl^MUll 

■M ^ a Conwiwciil Aiipoft 

G^fWVl Alflsion C#fllM' 

.Hi PrtctoiiM 

Rgure 4J2-16 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 4-69 











EXPLANATION 

Average Daily 

NO ^CvOn 

Wastewater 

mmmmmmm KiOpOSOQ ACOOfi 

Generation- 

mmmm kManwIonal AbpoTt 

All Alternatives 

Non-AvMon 

(1990-2013) 

mm mm m COffVnOIOifll AkpOft 

«m«m* GonoralAwMonConiM' 

mmwmwii PTOClOOIlfO 

Hgure 4.2-17 


4-70 


Geo^Af^tXsposat and Reuse FEIS 













Additional kilrastructijrai changes would be required throughout the Victor 
Vatey within the various wastewater collection districts that would e)q)erience 
direct and irviirect populatioru changes from the Proposed Actloa Total 
demand within the WWRA service area would reach an average of 24.3 MGO 
by 2013, approximately 4 percent greater than the WWRA implicit projection for 
that year. 

The increased population arxi resulting irx^rease in wastewater treatment 
demand from the Proposed Action would require WWRA arxf Mivfcfuai 
wastewater collection agencies in the Victor Valley to make presently-planned 
long-term infrastructural improvements about 1 year ahead of the schedule 
irxiicated by the Wastewater Master Plan. The overall changes to their short- 
and long-term plans would not be substantially different from their current needs 
assessment which indicates the need for major changes throughout the next 
two decades. Groundwater quality arxJ related issues are analyzed in 
Section 4.3, Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste and Section 4.4.2, Water 
Resources. 

Solid Waste. Solid waste disposal at the Apple Valley, Hesperia, Phelan, and 
Victorville landfills would Increase from the closure baseline as a result of the 
Proposed Action (Rgure 4.2-18). Under the Proposed Action, the existing 
capacities of the four landfills would be reached by 1992 for the Apple Valley 
and Victorville landfSIs, 1996 for Hesperia, and 2006 for Phelan. The additional 
expansion potential at the Apple Valley and Victon/flle landfills would be reached 
by 2004 under the Proposed Action. Although the expansion potential for the 
Hesperia landfQI has not yet been determined, the county is presently seeking to 
expand its existirtg capacity (San Bernardino County SWMD, 1991). 

The increased population and resulting increase in solid waste disposal from the 
Proposed Action would require additional landfill capacity in the Victor Valley 
less than 1 year ahead of the schedule indicated by per-capita solid waste 
disposal rates and future popi^ation growth. Source reduction and recycling 
programs that are presently receiving greater legal and budgetary emphasis 
could extend the cumulative landfill expectancies in the Victor Valley by as many 
as 5 to 10 years, depending on the actual effectiveness of such programs. 
Changes to the county’s short- and long-term plans for landfill capacity 
expansion in the Victor Valley would not be substantially altered under the 
Proposed Action. 

Energy 

Electricity. Bectricity consumption within the SCE Victorville District would 
increase as a resiA of the Proposed Action over the estimated closure baseline 
consumption (Rgure 4.2-19). In the short term, through 1995, the overall 
increase in the electricity demand would remain below an average of 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-71 





EXPLANATION 

NoAcNon 

MMMMMM r^OpOOvQ M»10ll 

.... bitomalional Airport 

.V.WAV..V.V. Non-AvMion 
^ ^ . CommorcW Airport 

GorwnI Artalon Corrtar 

■■.•■•■■■••III Pfoctoouro 


Total Solid 
Waste Generation 
All Alternatives 
(1990-2013) 


Hgure 4^-18 

4-72 Geoige AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










EXPLANATION 

Average Daily 

NoAcion 

Electricity Demand- 

mmmmmmm PfOpOMO AdOn 

All Alternatives 

mmmm bitafiialional AkpoTt 

(1990-2013) 

mm^m ComnMRW Akpoft 

GamnI AMakon Cwrtir 

. Pfkcteaura 

ngure 4^-19 


Geotge AFB D^posal and Reuse PEG ^*73 















68.7 MWH per day. By 2013. the OMeral Increase from the Propoeed Action 
would be an average of 580 MWH per day. 


Natural Gas. Natural gas connmpdon within the SWG VictorvUe District would 
increase as a result of the Proposed Action (werthe estiinated doeure baseline 
consiNnption (Figure 4.2-20). By 1996. short-term natural gas demand 
increases would be approadmateiy 4.000 therms per day. Thelong-term 
Irtcrease from the Proposed Action would average about 30.500 therms per day 
by 2013. 

Cumulative Impacts. The SST would increase demand In the Victor Valley 
area. Total electrical demand over the Anaheim to Las Vegas route would be 
500,000 klowatt hours (kwh) per day. and would require 22 substations along 
theroute. SCE has indicated that the company would have no difficulty meeting 
this additional demarKf. 

The Air Force Base closure arxi realignment activities in the region (Norton, 
March, and Edwards AFBs) are not e)(pected to have an impact on utilities in the 
Victor Valley area. 

Mitigation Measures. Because the corrective actions required by the WWRA 
have not been implemented by the Air Force, new users of the base property 
would have to implement mitigation measures for wastewater treatments. The 
type(s) and extent of mitigations cannot at present be ^jecified, because it 
would be dependent on: 

• The specific operating procedures established for the new uses 

• The specific products used 

• The equipment used on site. 

Depending on these factors, new users may have to make provisions for 
pretreatment of industriai wastewater. New users would also be required to 
obtain discharge permits in accordance with WWRA. 

4.2.4.2 International Airport Alternative. A summary of estimated changes in 
utility demand in the Victor Valley region for this alternative is presented in 
Table 4.2-11. 

Water Supply. As a result of the Intemationai Airport Alternative, water 
consumption within the Upper Basin region of the MWA service area would 
increase over estimated closure baseline consumption (see Figure 4.2-16). By 
1995. a short-term Increase in water demand would average about 2 MGD. The 
long-term overall Increase from the Intemationai Airport Alternative, would be an 
average of about 13 MGD by 2013. 


4-74 


George AfB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







EXPLANATION 

Average Dally 

NoActon 

Natural Gas Demand- 

mmmmmmm l^vpOHQ ACwfl 

All Alternatives 

..■« Intamilional Airport 

(1990-2013) 

Noi>-Artalion 

CotiwiMrcW Airport 

Qortoroi ArrMion Cortlw 

■■■■■■■■«~ Pradoouto 

Rgure 4^-20 


GeotgeAFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 4-75 













Tabto4^11. UlffilyDMiMidCIwngMInthaVidorVattay-lfitamaflonalAirportARinwIiva 



1993 

1998 

2003 

2013 

WatorOomand 





Upper Basin Rec^ (in MQD) 





Post-ciosure 

40.4 

49.7 

59.0 

77.5 

interrationai Airport Ait 

Change from Post-ciosure 

40.4 

57.0 

67.3 

90.4 

0.0 

7.3 

8.3 

12.9 

Percent Change 

0.0 

14.7 

14.1 

16.7 

WasteMMrter Generation 





VWV^ Service Area (in MGO) 





Post-ciosure 

6.7 

10.4 

15.5 

22.5 

irttemational Airport Ait 

Change from Post-dosure 

6.7 

12.0 

17.8 

26.4 

0.0 

1.6 

2.3 

3.9 

Percent Change 

0.0 

15.7 

14.8 

17.1 

Solid Waste Generation 





Victor Vaitey Landflis On mttions of cubic yards per year) 



Post-dosure 

0.80 

1.01 

1.22 

1.64 

intemationai Airport Ait 

Change from Post-dosure 

0.80 

1.16 

1.40 

1.92 

0.0 

0.16 

0.18 

0.28 

Percent Change 

0.0 

15.7 

14.8 

17.1 

Electricity Demand 





SCE Victorvlle District On MWH/day) 





Post-dosure 

4,801 

6,192 

7,592 

10,275 

Intemationai Airport Ait 

Change from Post-dosure 

4,801 

6,867 

8,376 

11,511 

0 

675 

784 

1,236 

Percent Change 

0.0 

10.9 

10.3 

12.0 

Natural Gas Demand 





SWG Victorvlle District On therms/day) 




Post-dosure 

305,680 

446,616 

588,698 

875,154 

International Airport Ait 

Change from Post-dosure 

305,680 

483,270 

630,461 

940,105 

0 

36,654 

41,763 

64,951 

Percent Change 

0.0 

8.2 

7.1 

7.4 

SouroM: BiMd on 1980; VietorVUt«yWasttw«t*rRNram«tjonAiitt)ority, 1968; San Bsmardino County 

Solid VWaata IdanaQanwnt Dapartmant, 1989,1991; Califoniia Enaqjy Commiaaion, 1990; Souttiam CaiHomia Ediaon 

Company, 1991; Soutliwaat Qaa Company, 1991. 




Infrastructural changes would be required throughout the Victor Valley in the 
various districts that would experience direct and indirect population changes 
from this alternative. Under the Intemationai Airport Alternative, total demand 
within the Victor Valley would reach an average of 90.4 MQD by 2013, 
approximately 12 percent greater than the MWA implicit projection for that year. 

The increased population arxl resulting increase in water demand from the 
international Airport Alternative would require the MWA and individual water 
districts in the Victor Valley to make presently planned infrastructural 
improvements about 4 years ahead of the schedule indicated by the MWA 
projection. The overall changes to their short- and long-term plans would 


4-76 George AFB Disposal vid Reuse FEIS 










accelerate their current planning strategy, which already Indicates the need for 
major changes throu(^tout the n«(t two decades. 

Wastewater. Wastewater treatment demand would increase as a result of the 
Intemationai Airport Alternative over estimated closure baseline treatment levels 
(see Figure 4.2-17). By 1995, the short-term increase in the wastewater 
treatment demartd would average about 0.4 MGD. The long-term Increase from 
this alterrative would average about 4 MGD by 2013. 

Infrastructural changes would be required throughout the Victor VaOey within 
the various wastewater collection districts that would experience direct and 
Indirectpopulationschangesfromtheintemational Airport Alternative. Under 
the Intemationai Airport Alternative, total demand within the region woUkl reach 
an average of 26.4 MGD by 2013, approximately 12 percent greater than the 
WWRA implicit projection for that year. 

The increased population and resulting increase in wastewater treatment 
demarxl from the Intemationai Airport Alternative would require WWRA and 
individual wastewater collection agencies in the Victor Valley to make 
presently-planned long-term infrastructural improvements about 4 years ahead 
of the schedule indicated by the Wastewater Master Plan. The overall changes 
to their short- and long-term plans would accelerate their current planning 
strategy, which already indicates the need for major changes throughout the 
next two decades. 

Solid Waste. The four major landfills that accept wastes from the communities 
in the Victor Valley wrxjld increase estimated dispo^ levels as a result of the 
international Airport Alternative over those projected for the closure baseline 
(see Figure 4.2-18). 

The existing capacities of the four landfills would be reached by 1992 for the 
Apple Valley and VIctorvMe landfills, 1996 for Hesperia, and 2006 for Phelan. 

The additional expansion potential at the Apple Valley and Victorville landfills 
would be reached by about 2003 under the International Airport Alternative. 

Expansion plans for the Hesperia landfill would extend the date that cumulative 
capacities would be reached In Victor Valley landfills. Source reduction and 
recycling programs could extend the cumulative landfill expectancies in the 
Victor Valley. Changes to the county's short- and long-term plans for landfill 
capacity expansion In tlw Victor Valley would not be substantially altered under 
this alternative. 

Energy 

Electricity. Electricity consumption within the SCE Victorvaie District would 
increase as a result of the Intemationai Airport Alternative over the estimated 


Georye AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-77 









ck)6urat)asalin«consurnptlon(seeFlgura4J2-19). By 1996. th* short-tenn 
iiwreaaeintheel«ctrickyd6marKlvMMjldaverag8aboutl8SMVVHper<tay. By 
2013. the k>ng4erm incraase from the International Airport/Utemativ* vvould 
average about 1.240 MWH per day. 

MahiraiGaa Natural gas consun^)tk>n vrtthin the SWQ VkrtoivBe District vvouM 
increase as a resute of the Intemationai Airport Alternative over the estimated 
closure baselirte consumption (see Figure 4.2-20). in the short term, through 
1995. the overall increase in the natural gas demand would average about 
10.300 therms per day. By 2013. the overall increase from this alternative would 
average about 64,950 therms per day. 

Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative impacts fr)r this aitemative are the same 
as stated for the Proposed Action. 

Mitigation Measures. New users would be required to implement mitigation 
measures as discussed for the Proposed Action (Section 4.2.4.1). 

4.2.4.3 Commercial Airport with Residential Attamative. Table 4.2-12 
presents a summary of utility demand changes associated with the Commerdai 
Airport with Residential Aitemative. 

Water Supply. This aitemative wodd resuit in increased water consumption 
over estimated closure baseline consumption within the Upper Basin region of 
the MWA service area (see Rgure 4.2-16). The short-term increase in water 
demand would average about 0.6 MGO by 1995. The long-term increase from 
this aitemative would be an average of 3.2 MGD by 2013. 

infrastructural changes may be required within parts of the Victor Valley in the 
various districts that would experience direct aiKi indirect populations changes 
from this aitemative. Extrapolation of the trend indicated by the MWA projection 
of water demand in the Victor Vaiiey in 2010. indicates that total water demand 
would reach an average of about 80.7 MGD by 2013. Under this aitemative. 
total demand within the Victor Valley would reach about the same level, 

80.7 MGD by 2013, as the MWA implicit projection for that year. 

The increase in population from this aitemative is about the same as the 
projected decrease resuMng from base closure. Because the projections made 
by the MWA included the current demand from George AFB overall, there would 
be no real change in the agency water demand projections. The agency and 
individual water districts in the Victor Vaiiey would stil need to make presently 
planned infrastructural improvements at about the same schedule and there 
would not be any change to their short- or long-term plans for major changes 
throughout the next two decades. 


4-78 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEtS 







Tablt4^12. UtmyDMMndChangMbittMVictorVaHay-CofiunaretolAirportwWiRMictoniiai 

Alltmativo 


1993 

1998 

2003 

2013 


Water Damand 
Upper Basin Region (in MGD) 


Post-dosure 

40.4 

49.7 

59.0 

77.5 

Commercial Akport/Resktontial Alt 

40.4 

50.8 

60.9 

80.7 

Change from Post-dosure 

0.0 

1.1 

2.0 

3.2 

Percent Change 

0.0 

2.3 

3.4 

4.2 

Wastewater Generation 





WWRA Service Area (in MGD) 
Commerdai Airport/Residential Ait 
Post-dosure 

6.7 

10.4 

15.5 

22.5 


6.7 

10.7 

16.1 

23.5 

Change From Post-dosive 

0.0 

0.3 

0.5 

1.0 

Percent Change 

0.0 

2.5 

3.5 

4.2 

Solid Waste Generation 





Victor Valley LandfMs (in mllions of cubic yards per year) 




Post-dosure 

0.80 

1.01 

1.22 

1.64 

Commercial Airport/Residential Alt 

0.80 

1.03 

1.26 

1.71 

Change from Post-dosure 

0.0 

0.02 

0.04 

0.07 

Percent Change 

0.0 

2.5 

3.5 

4.2 

Electricity Demand 





SCE Victorvlle District (in MWH/day) 





Post-dosure 

4,801 

6,192 

7,592 

10,275 

Commercial Airport/Residential Alt 

4,801 

6,298 

7,778 

10,582 

Change from Post-dosure 

0 

106 

186 

307 

Percent Change 

0.0 

1.0 

1.6 

2.7 

Natural Gas Demand 





SWG VictorvUe District (in ttierms/day) 





Future 

305,680 

446,616 

588,698 

875,154 

Commercial Airport/Residentiai Ait 

305,680 

452,367 

598,628 

891,293 

Change from Post-dosure 

0 

5,751 

9,930 

16,139 

Percent Change 

0.0 

1.3 

1.7 

1.8 


^owo5T55ronT!l^w?^^S5fT^Sncy^85n^3Sr^5B5y^W^vw5^5 ct5 fi55on7u5wr!ty^S5^Sn^rr5t35!o^5!!ny 
SoUd WmI* Manaocmwit OtpwtiTMnt. 1989,1991; CaUfomia Enafgy Commitaion, 1990; Southam CaUtamia Ediaon 
Company, 1991; Souttiwaat Oaa Company, 1991. 


Wastewater. V\^ewater treatment demand would increase as a result of the 
Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative over estimated closure baseline 
treatment levels (see Figure 4.2-17). By 1995, the short-term increase in the 
wastewater treatment demand would average about 0.2 MGD. The long-term 
toicrease from this alternative would average about 1.0 MGD by 2013. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-79 











Some infrastnictural changes may be required within the vark)us Victor Valey 
wastewater coUection agenciM that couid experience dh«ct and indirect 
popuiation changes from this aitemative. Under this alternative, total demand 
within the WWRA service area would reach an average of 23.5 MGOby2013. 
approximateiy the same as the WWRA implied projection for that year. 

Because the increase in popuiation from this aitemative is about the same as 
the projected decrease resulting from base closure arxl the projections made 
by WWRA included the currertt demand from George AFB, there would be a no 
change in the authority’s wastewater treatment demand projections. WWRA 
arxl Individual wastewater collection agencies in the Victor Valley would stM 
need to make presently planned long-term infrastructural improvements at 
about the same schedule. There would not be any substantial changes to their 
short- or long-term plans for major changes throughout the next two decades. 

Solid Waste. Solid waste disposal at Victor Valley larxlflls would increase as a 
result of the this aitemative over estimated closure baseline disposal levels (see 
Figure 4.2-18). The four Victor Valley landfills would reach their existing 
capacity level by 1992 for the Apple Valley and Victorvlle landfills. 1996 for 
Hesperia, and 2006 for Phelan. 'Hie additional expansion potential at the Apple 
Valley and VictorvPIe landfills would be reached by about 2004 urxier this 
aitemative. Expansion plans for the Hesperia landfill would extend the date that 
cumulative capacities would be reached in Victor Valley landfills. Source 
reduction and recycling programs could extend the cumulative larxifill 
expectancies in the Victor Valley. Changes to the county’s short- arxJ long-term 
plans for landffll capacity expansion in the Victor Valley would not be 
substantially altered under this aitemative. 

Energy 

Electricity . Bectricity consumption within the SCE Victorvlle District would 
increase as a result of the Commercial Airport with Residential Aitemative over 
the estimated closure baseline consumption (see Figure 4.2-19). Short-term 
increases in electricity demand would average 58 MWH per day in 1995. By 
2013, the increase from this alternative would average over 300 MWH per day. 

Natural Gas. Natural gas consumption within the SWG Victorvlle District would 
increase over the estimated closure baseline consumption as a result of tNs 
aitemative (see Figure 4.2-20). In the short term, the increase in natural gas 
demand would average about 3,200 therms per day by 1995. In 2013, the 
long-term Increase from the Commercial Airport with Residential Aitemative 
would be an average of about 16,100 therms per day. 

Cumulative Impacts. The cumilative impacts for this aitemative are the same 
as stated for the Proposed Action. 


4-80 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









MMgation Mmswm. N«w users would be raquirad to implwnaftmUgation 
meesures as discussed for the Proposed Action (see Section 4iL4.1). 

4.2.4.4 General Aviation Center Ailemative. Tabie 4.2-13 presents a summary 
of utllty demand changes associated with the Qenerai Aviation Center 
Altemative. 


Table4.^13. UtHRy Demand Changes in the Victor Valley-General Aviation Center Altemative 



1993 

1998 

2003 

2013 

Water Demand 

Upper Basin Region (in MGO) 

Poet-closure 

40.4 

49.7 

59.0 

77.5 

General Aviation Center Alt 

40.4 

51.2 

61.0 

79.7 

Change from Post-dosure 

0.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.2 

Percent Change 

0.0 

3.0 

3.5 

2.9 

Wastewater Generation 

WWRA Service Area (in MGD) 

Post-dosure 

6.7 

10.4 

15.5 

22.5 

General Aviation Center AIL 

6.7 

10.7 

16.1 

23.2 

Change from Post-dosure 

0.0 

0.3 

0.6 

0.7 

Percent Change 

0.0 

3.2 

3.6 

2.9 

Solid Waste Generation 

Victor Vaiiey Landfills (in mliions of cubic yards per year) 

Post-dosure 0.80 1.01 

1.22 

1.64 

General Aviation Center AIL 

0.80 

1.04 

1.26 

1.69 

Change from Post-dosure 

0.0 

0.03 

0.04 

0.05 

Percent Change 

0.0 

3.2 

3.6 

2.9 

Electricity Demand 

SCE VictoivMe District (in MWH/day) 

Post-dosure 

4,801 

6,192 

7,592 

10,275 

(aenerai Aviation Center AIL 

4,801 

6,329 

7,784 

10,486 

Cfwnge from Post-dosure 

0 

137 

192 

211 

Percent Change 

0.0 

2.2 

2.5 

2.1 

Natural Gas Demand . . 

SWG VIctorvne District (in therms/day) 

Post-dosure 305,680 

446,616 

588,698 

875,154 

General Aviation Center AIL 

305,680 

454,072 

598,943 

886,263 

Change from Post-dosure 

0 

7,456 

10,245 

11,110 

Percent Change 

0.0 

1.7 

1.7 

1.3 


Soutom: BtMd on Moiawo WUor Agoney, 1990; Victor VWloy VW«towator Rodamotion Authority, 1988; San Bamardino County 
SoNd WlHto Managomant Oapartmant, 1989,1991; Caiifomia Enargy Commission, 1990; Southam CalHbmia Edison 
Company, 1991; Soutlnwst GaM Company, 1991. 


Water Supply. This alternative would result in increased water consumption 
over estimated closure baseline consumption within the Upper Basin region of 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-81 






ttwMWA service arM(saeFlgura4^-1l9- The short-term increese in water 
demand wouM SK^erage about 0.7 MOO by 19QS. The iong^erm increase from 
this altemallve wouid be an average of 2.2 MOO by 2013. 

infrastructural changes may be required within parts of the Victor Vsley in the 
various districts that would experience direct and indirect population changes 
from this alternative. Extrapolation of the trend Indicated by the MWA 
prelection of vvatar derrwnd In the Victor Vsley In 2010. indicates that total water 
demand would reach an average of about 80.7 MGO by 2013. Underthis 
altemative. total demand within the Victor vaioy would reach about the same 
level. 79.7 MGD by 2013. as the MWA implidt protection for that year. 

The Increase in population from this alternative is slightiy less than the projected 
decrease resulting from base doaure. Because the projectiorts made by the 
MWA Included the currera demand from George AFB overan. there would be a 
slight decrease in the agency water demand projections. Theagencyand 
individual water districts in the Victor VePey would stH need to make 
presendy-pianned infrastructiaal Improvements at about the same schedule. 
There woukl not be any substantial changes to their short-or long-term plans 
for major changes throughout the next two decades. 

Wastewater. Wastewater treatment demand would increase as a result of the 
General Aviation Center Alternative ewer estimated closure baseline treatment 
levels (see Figure 4.2-17). By 1996. the short-term increase in the wastewater 
treatment demand would average about 0.1 MGD. The long-term increase from 
this aitemative would average 0.7 MGD by 2013. 

Some Infrastructural changes may be required within the various Victor Valley 
wastewater collection agencies that could experience direct and indirect 
population changes from this aitemative. Under this aitemative. total demand 
within the WWRA service area would reach an average of 23.2 MGD by 2013. 
approximately the same as the WWRA implicit projection for that year. 

Because the increase in population from this aitemative is slightly less than as 
the projected decrease resulting from base closure and the projections made 
by WWRA included the current demand from George AFB. there would be a 
slight decrease in the authority's wastewater treatment demand projections. 
WWRA and individual wastewater collection agencies in the Victor VaUey would 
stM need to make presendy-pianned long-term infrastructural improvements at 
about the same schedule. Therewouldnotbeanysubstantialchangestotheir 
short-or long-term plans for major changes throughout the next two decades. 

Solid Watte. Solid waste disposal at Victor Valley landfills would Increase as a 
result of this aitemative overestimated closure baseline disposal levels (see 
Figure 4.2-18). The four Victor Valley landfiiis would reach their existing 
capacity level by 1992 for the Apple Valley and Victorville landfills. 1996 for 


4-82 


George AFB Disposd and Reuse FEIS 





Hesperia, and 2006 for Phelan. The additional ttrpanslon potential at the Apple 
Valley and VictorvUe landfUs would be reached by about 2004 under this 
alternative. Expar^lon plans for the Hesperia iandflU would ndend the date that 
cumulative capacities would be reached in Victor Valley landfHs. Source 
reduction and recycling programs could e)(terKl the cumulative landfl 
expectancies in the Victor Valley. Changes to the county's short- and longterm 
plans for landfSI capacity expansion in the Victor \^ley would not be 
substantially altered under this aitemative. 

Energy 

Electricity. Qectridty consumption within the SCE Victorvflie District would 
increase as a result of the General Aviation Center Aitemative over the e^mated 
closure baseline consumption (see Figure 4.2-19). Short-term increases in 
electricity demand would average 32 MWH per day in 1995. By 2013, the 
increase from this aitemative would average about 210 MWH per day. 

Natural Gas . Natural gas consumption within the SWG VictorvUe District would 
increase over the estimated closure baseline cortsumption as a result of this 
aitemative (see Figure 4.2-20). In the short term, the increase in natural gas 
demand would average about 1,751 therms per day by 1995. In 2013, the 
long-term increase from the General Aviation Center Aitemative would be an 
average of about 11,100 therms per day. 

Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative impacts for this aitemative are the same 
as stated for the Proposed Action. 

Mitigation Measures. New users would be required to implement mitigation 
measures as discussed for the Proposed Action (see Section 4.2.4.1). 

4.2.4.5 Non-Aviation Aitemative. Table 4.2-14 presents a summary of utDity 
demand changes associated with this aitemative. 

Water Supply. The Non-Aviation Aitemative would also increase water 
consumption within the Upper Basin region of the MWA service area over 
estimated closure baselirra consumption (see Rgure 4.2-16). By 1995, the short 
term increase in water demand would average about 0.3 MGD. The long-term 
overall increase from this aitemative would be an average of 2.8 MGD by 2013. 

Infrastructural changes could be required within any Victor Valley district that 
experiences direct or indirect population changes from this aitemative. Under 
this aitemative, total dentand within the Victor Valley would reach an average of 
80.3 MGD by 2013, slightly less than the MWA implicit projection for that year. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-83 





TaM»4^14. mwyDamandChangMInth«VidorVaUay*Non-AviationAMamaliva 


1903 

1998 

2003 

2013 


WatarOoffland 
Uppar Basin Region (In MGO) 


Post-dosure 

40.4 

48.7 

59.0 

77.5 

Non-Aviation Aft. 

40.4 

50.4 

60.2 

80.3 

Change from Poat-doeure 

0.0 

0.7 

1.2 

2.8 

Percent Change 

0.0 

1.4 

2.2 

3.7 

Wastewater Generation 





WWRA Service Area (in MGO) 





Post-doeure 

6.7 

10.4 

15.5 

22.5 

Non-Aviation AIL 

6.7 

10.6 

15.9 

23.4 

Change from Post-dosure 

0.0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.9 

Percent Change 

0.0 

1.5 

2.3 

3.8 

Solid Waste Generation 





Victor Valley Landflls On mllions of cubic yards per year) 



Post-dosure 

0.80 

1.01 

1.22 

1.64 

Non-Aviation Alt 

0.80 

1.02 

1.25 

1.70 

Change from Post-dosure 

0.0 

0.02 

0.03 

0.06 

Percent Change 

0.0 

1.5 

2.3 

3.8 

Electricity Demand 





SCE VictorvMe District On MWH/day) 





Post-dosure 

4,801 

6,192 

7,592 

10,275 

NorvAviation Alt 

4,801 

6,257 

7,714 

10,547 

Change from Post-dosure 

0 

65 

122 

272 

Percent Change 

0.0 

1.0 

1.6 

2.7 

Natural Gas Demand 





SWG Victorvlle District On therms/day) 




Post-dosure 

305,680 

446,616 

588,698 

875,154 

Non-Aviation Alt 

305,680 

450,118 

595,214 

889,479 

Change from Post-dosure 

0 

3,502 

6,516 

14,325 

Percent Change 

0.0 

0.8 

1.1 

1.6 


SouroM: Baaad on MojavaWMarAgwwy, 1990; Vidor \MlayWntsMMrRaclaination Authority, 1968; San Btmardino County 
Solid WiMto Manaeomont Oopartmant, 1989,1991; CaHtamia Enargy Committion, 1990; Southom CaWomia Ediaon 
Company, 1991; Souttwmt Gaa Company, 1991. 


The increase in popuiation from this aitemative is siightiy iess than the projected 
decrease resulting from base closure. Because the projections made by the 
MWA included the current demand from George AFB, there would be a slight 
decrease in the MWA water demarvi projections. The MWA and irKlMdual water 
districts in the Victor Valley would stW need to make presently-planned 
Infrastructural improvements at about the same schedule. There would not be 
any substantial changes to their short- or long-term plans for major changes 
throughout the next two decades. 


4-84 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








Wastowattr. Demaixl for wastewater treatment would increase as a rasuR of 
the NoivAviation Altemtfive over esttonated doeure baseline treatmera levels 
(see Figure 4.2-17). By 1995. the short-term increase in the wastewater 
treatment demand would average about 0.1 MGD. The IothHo*^ increase from 
this alternative would average 0.9 MGD by 2013. 

Some infrastructural changes may be required wMiin the Victor Vsley 
wastewater collection agencies that experience direct or Indirect populations 
changes from this alternative. Under the Non-Aviation Alternative, total demand 
within the region would reach an average of 23.4 MGD by 2013. siigNiy less 
than the WWRA implicit projection for that year. Under the Non-Aviation 
Alternative, since the WWRA presently has other unincorporated areas of San 
Bernardino County in the Victor Valley as members, it is likely that a contractual 
or other type of arrangertrent could be made to include the base site into the 
service area of the WWRA regional treatment planL 

Because the irrcrease in population from this alternative is slightly less than the 
projected decrease resulting from base closure and the projections made by 
the WWRA included the current demand from George AFB. there would be a 
slight decrease in the authority's wastewater treatment demand projections. 

The WWRA arxi individual wastewater collection agencies in the Victor VaHey 
would stil need to make presently planned long-term infrastructural 
improvements at about the same schedule. There would not be any substantial 
changes to their short- or long-term plans for major changes throughout the 
next two decades. 

Solid Waste. Solid waste disposal at Victor Valley landfills would increase as a 
result of the this alternative over estimated closure baseline disposal levels (see 
Rgure 4.2-18). 

The Victor Valley landfSIs would reach their existing capacity levels by 1992 for 
Apple Valley and Victorvaie landfills. 1996 for Hesperia, and 2006 for Phelan 
1994. The additional expansion potential at the Apple Valley and VictorvUe 
landfills woidd be reached by about 2004 under this alternative. Expansion 
plans for the Hesperia landfBI would extend the date that cumulative capacities 
would be reached in Victor Valley landfills. Source reduction and recycling 
programs could extend ttw cumulative landfill expectancies in the Victor VeMey. 
Changes to the county’s short- and long-term plans for landfill capacity 
expansion in the Victor Valley would not be substantially altered under this 
alternative. 

Energy 

Eiflrtricity. Electricity consumption within the SCE Victorville District would 
increase as a result of the Non-Aviation Alternative over estimated closure 
baseline consumption levels (see Figure 4.2-19). Short-term increases in 

755 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






eiectiidty demand would average needy 25 MWH per day by 1995. Longterm 
increases from this attemative would average about 270 MWH per day by 2013. 

Natural Gas. Natural gas cor^sumptlon within the SWG Victorvlle District would 
increase as a residt of the Non-Aviation Alternative over the estimated closure 
baseline consumption (see Figure 4.2-20). In the short term, through 1995, the 
overall increase in the natural gas demand would average about 1,400 therms 
per day. By 2013, the iru:rease from the Non-Aviation Alternative would average 
about 14,300 therms per day. 

Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative Impacts for this alternative are the same 
as stated for the Proposed Action. 

MMgation Measures. New users would be required to implement mitigation 
measures as discussed for the Proposed Action (Section 4.2.4.1). 

4.2.4.6 Other Land Use Concepts. Changes in utility demand within each 
utility purveyors' service area resulting from the federal transfers and 
independent land use concepts would be generally commensurate with 
population changes resulting from these activities. 

U.S. Department of Justice. This reuse component, when overlaid with the 
Proposed Action and International Airport Alternative, would cause an estimated 
net reduction of approximately 2,48C direct on-site jobs to each of those reuse 
concepts. This reduction represents about 10 percent of the total direct on-site 
jobs for the Proposed Action and about 5 percent of the total direct on-site jobs 
for the International Airport Alternative. If population in-migration were assumed 
to decrease by the same proportion as the estimated reduction in jobs, utility 
demand would also decline by about the same proportions (i.e., about 
10 percent for the Proposed Action and 5 percent for the International Airport 
Alternative). This reuse component, when overlaid with the Commercial Airport 
with Residential and Non-Aviation alternatives, would cause a net increase of 
about 1,000 direct on-site jobs. This change represents about 5 and 8 percent 
of the total direct on-site jobs for these alternatives, respectively. If population 
in-migration were assumed to increase by the same proportions as the 
estimated change in jobs, utility demand would also increase by about the same 
proportion (i.e., about 5 percent for the Commercial Airport with Residential and 
about 8 percent for the Non-Aviation Alternative). 

U.S. Department of Interior. This reuse component, when overlaid with the 
Proposed Action, would cause an estimated net reduction of 960 direct on-site 
jobs or about 3.8 percent of the total direct on-site jobs for the Proposed Action. 
Using the same assumptions stated previously, utility demand would also 
decline by about 3.8 percent 


4-86 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





U.S. Oepartmant o( Houting and Urban OavatopmanL This reuse 
component, when overlaid with the Proposed Action wouid cause an estimated 
net reduction of 677 direct on-site jobs, or about 5 percent of the total direct 
Ofvsite jobs for the Proposed Action. Using the same assumptions stated 
previousiy, utility demand would also decline by about 5 percent When overlaid 
with the Interrtational Airport Alternative, on-site direct jobs would be reduced by 
about 3 percent: if populatton reductions were of similar magnitude, utHity 
demand would likely decrease by the same proportionate amount 

San Bernardino County Work Furlough Program. This reuse component, 
when overlaid with the Proposed Action would cause an estimated net 
reduction of 480 direct on-site jobs, or about 5 percent of the total direct on-site 
jobs for the Proposed Action. Using the same assumptions stated previousiy, 
utility demand would also decline by about 5 percent When overlaid with the 
International Airport Alternative, on-site direct jobs wouid be reduced by a 
negligible amount; utility demand changes would also likely be negligible. 

U.S. Department of Education. No measurable change In utility requirements 
would be anticipated for this federal transfer concept when overlaid with any of 
the reuse alterrtatives. 

Medical Facilities. Changes in on-site direct jobs and utility requirements are 
undetermined for this federal transfer concept when overlaid with any of the 
reuse alternatives. 

4.2.4.7 No-Action Alternative. Impacts of the No-Action Alternative would be 
as described in Section 3.2.4 as closure baseline conditions. 

Cumulative impacts. The SST would increase electrical demand in the Victor 
Valley area. Total electricai demand over the Anaheim to Las Vegas route would 
be 500,000 kwh per day, and would require 22 substations along the route. SCE 
has indicated that the company would have no difficulty meeting this additional 
demand. 

Air Force Base closure and realignment activities in the region (Norton, March, 
and Edwards AFBs) are not expected to have an impact on utilities in the Victor 
Valley area. 

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures would be required under this 
alternative. 


George AFB Disposal atKl Reuse FEIS 


4-87 






4.3 


HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/HAZARDOUS WASTE 


This section addresses the potentiai impacts of existing contaminated sites on the 
various reuse options, arxf the potentiai for environmental impacts caused by 
hazardous materials/waste management practices associated with the reuse 
options. Hazardous materials/wastes, IRP sites, storage tanks, asbestos, 
pesticides and herbicides, PCBs, radon, and medicai/biohazardous wastes wM be 
discussed within this section. 

The U.S. Air Force is committed to the remediation of ail contamination at George 
AFB due to past Air Force activities. The DMT wOi remain after base ctosure to 
coordinate deanup activities. Deiays or restrictions in reuse or disposal of 
property may occur due to the extent of contamination and the results of both the 
risk assessment and remediai designs determined for contaminated sites. 
Examples of possible land use restrictions would be the capping of iandfOls and 
the constraints from methane generation and cap integrity; as well as the location 
of long-term monitoring wells. These restrictions would have to be considered in 
the layout of future development. Options to developers indude creation of 
parks, greenbeits or open spaces over and around such areas. 

Regulatory standards and guideiines will be applied in determining the impacts 
caused by hazardous materids/waste. The following criteria were used to identify 
potential impacts: 

• Accidental release of friable asbestos during the demolition or 
modification of a structure 

• Generation of 100 kflograms (or more) of hazardous waste or 

1 kilogram (or more) of an acutely (Califomia Health and Safety Code 
Chapter 6.95, Section 25532) hazardous waste in a calendar month, 
resulting in increased regulatory requirements 

• New operational requirements or service for all LIST and tank systems 

• Any spill or release of a reportable quantity of a hazardous material 

• Manufcicturing of any compound that requires notifying the pertinent 
regulatory agency 

• Exposure of the environment or public to any hazardous material 
through release or disposal practices. 


4.3.1 Proposed Action 

Hazardous Materials Management The hazardous materials applicable to the 
operation of a commercial airport are summarized in Table 4.3-1. The types of 
hazardous materials used in relation to the Proposed Action would be similar to 
those used prior to closure, speciftcaily for aviation-related maintenance and fuel 
transportation. The quantities of hazardous materials utflized under the Proposed 
Action will be greater than those used under closure baseline conditions. 


4-88 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








Table 4.3-1. Hazardous Material Usage • Proposed Action 


Land Use Zones 

Operation Process 

Hazardous Materials 

Airfield 

Refueling; anti-/de-icing; utBization 
of dear zones, ninways, taxiways, 
airport terminal parkiiig, 
administration offices, corporate 
and private aviation tacllties, 
aircraft parking 

Aviation fuels, propylene glycol, 
ethylene glycol, he^ng ols 

Aviation Support 

Operations associated with 
aircraft maintenance and 
manufocturing, aeronautics 
research and development, air 
transportation-related industry 
and warehousing, law 
enforcemenL airline maintenance, 
other governmental administrative 
services 

Fuels, solvents, paints, 
degreasers, corrosives, heavy 
metals, reactives, thinners, 
ignitables, heating oBs, plating 
waste, cyanides, laboratory waste 

Industrial 
(Business Park) 

Activities associated with light 
industry, research and 
development, warehousing, and 
manufacturing 

Solvents, heavy metals, 
corrosives, catalysts, aerosols, 
fuels, heating oBs 

Commercial 
(Office/Business Park) 

Activities associated with offices, 
light industry, research and 
development, and higher value 
warehousing 

Fuels, soK/enfts, corrosives, 
ignitables, heating oBs, pesticides, 
herbicides, fungicides 

Public/Recreation 

Maintenance of existing 
recreational facilities and golf 
course 

Pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, 
chlorine, heating ofls 

Vacant Land 

Vacant 

Pesticides, fungicides, herbicides 


Currently; handling of hazardous materials on the base is managed by OOD. If 
the Proposed Action were implemented, each separate organization within the 
commercial airport structure wouid be responsibie for the management of 
hazardous materials according to applicable reguiations. Additionaiiy, each 
organization wouid have to comply with SARA, Section 311, Title III, which 
requires that local communities be informed of the use of hazardous materials. 

Hazardous Waste Management The six proposed land use zones (see 
Table 4.3-1) would host many operations that are yet to be defined. This section 
describes the types of hazardous wastes that may be generated in these land use 
zones. 


Once the responsibOities of hazardous waste management are allocated to 
irKlMdual organizations, proficiency with those materials and spili responses is 
required by OSHA regulations (29 CFR). Mutual aid agreements with sunounding 
communities may require additional scrutiny and training of emergency staff. 

George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 4-89 










The presence of numerous indepMKtont aMfner/operatore on the b 0 se would 
chenge the reguisiory requirements and probefaly increase the reguletory burden 
relative to hazardous waste managemert. ActMUee associated with the 
Proposed Action woukJ lead to an increase In the amount of hazardous waste 
generated compared to the closure baseline. 

InetaHation Restoration Program Siea. The US. Air Force is committed to 
continue IRP activities under DERP. CERCLA. and the FFA between the US. Air 
Force, US. EPA, CalNomia OHS. and the CaUfbmia water quality control board. 

IRP activities wM be coordinated by the DMT and the aforementioned agencies. 

The extent of contamination is being delineated and both the risk assessment arxi 
remedial designs wl be a result of this work. Proposed disposal and reuse of 
some George AFB properties may be delayed or limited due to the extent of 
contamination as wel as ongoing and future IRP activities (Figure 4.3-1). This 
process wW also identify currerti and future monitoring of wett locations and 
consider land use limitations as a result of their presence. 

Uitimate decisions on what type of future land use wH be implemented at areas 
overlying or adjacent to an IRP site wtt greatly depend on the overall 
characterization of risk to hianan health posed by the IRP site. This risk 
assessment is an integral part of the remedial investigation to be corxiucted at 
IRP sites. Part of the risk assessment involves estimates of exposure to 
contaminants under future larxf use corxiitions at the site. This assessment 
provides an understanding of the potential exposures to contaminants in the 
future arxi may reveal that the site wU not support some potential future land uses. 

The IRP sites within each land use area for the Proposed Action are summarized 
in Table 4.3-2. 

• Akflekl - Cleanup activities associated with the industrial storm drain 
system are to be completed prior to closure, and are not expected to 
irnpact llightline operations akxrg the main apron or the pro|x)sed airfield 
expansion into the misting cantonment area. Cleanup efforts associated 
with a number of landfinsarxJ dump sites in the Noith«»t Disposal Area 
may impact flight operations. SpH sites at the southwest end of the main 
runways are not ttfiMpated to impact flight operations. Land use 
restriction may occur based on number and location of monitoring wells. 

• Aviation Support-The proposed construction of aviation support areas 
may be delayed by cleanup activities associated with the TCE groundwater 
contamination as weH as numerous landfHs/dump sites within the 
Northeast Disposal Area. Cleanup activities for sites LF-13 and LF-14 have 
not been determined. Cleanup efforts within the Central Disposal Area 
may delay aviation support and industrial reuse development proposed for 
thatarea. Monitoring and extraction weH locations may delay or restrict 
reuse. 


4-90 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









EXPLANATION 



IRP Sites- 

m Anfield 

■■ Inslibrfonar 
(Education) 

mu AfynuNure* 

Proposed Action 

mm Avialion Support 

m^^^l Ooiwnoponl 
mlH (QfMBumem PvIO 

1 1 Vacant Land* 


mm '"'iuBtial 

[ 1 Reektartal* 

15^ TCEPIume 

Lalaral Extent 


^^^m VMifionar 
(Medkai) 

l^m PubMReoreation 

WPSilBO 



■■■j Base Boundanr 

I II SB ==== Abandoned Runway 

0 7S01SOO 3000 Feet^^ NotAppicable FiflUf# 4.3-1 


GBorgB AFB Di^sal arrof Reuso FEIS 


4-91 










































































TabI* 4.3-2. IRP Sitaa within Land Uaa Areas - Proposed Action 


Proposed Land Use 

IRP Sites 

Airfield 

TCE Groundwater Plume, Liquid Fuel Distribution System (ST-S7), 

Industrial Storm Drain (SD-2S). DP-03, DP-04, DP-60, LF-13, LF-35, LF-36. 

LF-43, LF-45, SD-18, SD-41. SS-30, ST-54, ST-57 

Aviation Support 

TCE Groundwater Plume, Liquid Fuel Distribution System (ST-67), 

Industrial Storm Drain (SD-2S), DP-02, DP-04, DP-46. FT-19, FT-19a, FT-20. 

LF-13. LF-14, LF-44. SS-53. SS-55. ST-56. WP-11. WP-26. WP-29. WP-32 

Industrial 

Liquid Fuel Distribution System (ST-67), 

Industrial Storm Drain (SD-2S), DP-01, DP-IO, DP-15, DP-33. DP-34, LF-07, 

LF-08. LF-11. LF-35. LF-37. LF-38. OT-51. RW-09. SD-18, SD-27. SD-28, SS-21. 
SS-24. SS-52, SS-58. SS-S9. WP-40 

Commercial 

Liquid Fuel Distribution System (ST-67), DP-47, LF-12, LF-39, OT-48, SS-23, 
SS-55. WP-16 

Public/Recreation 

OT-22 

Vacant Land 

SD-42 


• industrial • Cleanup activities associated with numerous iandfilis and 
dumpsites within the West Perimeter Disposai area and Southeast Disposal 
Area as well as spUi sites within the Central Disposal Area may delay 
industrial development under the Proposed Action. 

• Commercial - Various IRP sites including a POL leach field, salvage yard, 
landQIs, and spill sites could delay reuse due to dean-up activities. 

• Public/Recreation - Reuse of this area should not be affected by IRP site 
OT-22. 

• Vacant Land • IRP site SD-42 should not impact the base reuse under the 
proposed action. 

Underground/Aboveground Storage Tanks. Air flight and maintenance 
operations associated with the Proposed Action would require the use of 
aboveground storage tanks and USTs. These tanks must be in compliance with 
federal, state, and local regulations regarding leak, spill, and overfill prelection, 
and liability insurance. 

Asbestos. Renovation and demolition of existing structures M^h ACM may occur 
with reuse development. Such activities will comply with all applicabie federal, 
state and local regulations. The number of structures with ACM is unknown; an 
asbestos survey is currently in progress. 

Pesticides and Herbicides. Pesticide and herbicide usage associated with the 
Proposed Action would increase over amounts currently used, as a result of the 
increase in Pubiic/Recreation and Commercial land uses. Management practices 
would conform with FI FRA and state regulations. 

PCBs. Ail federally regulated PCB-contaminated equipment (50 to 499 ppm) wi 
be removed prior to base closure; therefore, these materials wW not create any 
impacts. PCB items (5 to 49 ppm) remaining after base closure wfll be managed 
in compliance with state regulations. 

4-92 George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


L 










Radon. Al radon acreanlngMjn^roaultaMwrabaloiivEPA'g recommended 
rnWgation lerel of 4 pCi/l of air therefore, no further action is required and radon 
wH have no impact on reuse aclMties. 

Medical/Blohasaidoua Waste. AlofthesernateriaiswRbeincineraiedand 
removed prior to base ciosure. Accordinf^. these materials vHii not present any 
Impact 

Cumulative Impacts. The Proposed Action vrould not result in any cumulative 
impacts. 

Mitigation Measures. A hazardous materials and waste planning committee 
comprising new base users could be established. This planning body could 
reduce the costs of envirorMnental compliance training, waste management and 
mutual spM response 

All of the IRP sites may not need to be remediated; however, all of them must be 
addressed and property dosed out Active coordination between the Air Force's 
IRP representative and new construction plannirtg agencies would mitigate 
potential problems. The presence of IRP sites may limit certain land uses within 
overlying areas; options could indude reuse as open space, green-belt or parks. 

Coordination between asbestos removal and new construction or renovation 
actions wouid avoid any potentiai asbestos impacts. Compliance wtth the 
NESHAP wouid avoid poterkial exposure to asbestos during construction and/or 
renovation activities. 

4.3.2 intamationai Airport ARemative 

Hazardous Materials Management The Proposed Action and the intamationai 
Airport Alternative primaity differ in magnitude of land use zones (Figure 4.3-2). 
The hazardous materiais that would be used in operations of the intemationai 
Airport are summarized in Table 4.3-3. The quantities of hazardous materials 
used and hazardous waste generated wodd be greater than under the Proposed 
Action, as a result of increased major aircraft activities associated with an 
Intemationai Airport 

Currently, handling of hazardous materials on the base is managed by DOD. if 
the International Airport Alternative were implemented, each separate 
organization within the commercial airport structure would be responsMiie for the 
management of hazardous materials according to applicable regulations. 
Additionally, each organization would have to comply with SARA, Section 311, 
Tide III, which requires that local communMes be informed of the use of 
hazardous materials. 


George AFBl^sposal and Reus0FEIS 


4-93 








EXPLANATION 



Airfield 

■ 

tesilufianal * 

(Education) 

■ 


Avnlian Su|ipart 

■ 

Corrampotel 
^IfioeiBuaineaB Pari^ 



hduateal 

□ 

Reaidenfite’ 



haliluticnal * 

(Medtete) 

■ 

PubMRecrealion* 

1 III « HI 


nj-1 


0 7501S00 3000 Fee* 




Aj^bullure* 


Vacant Land* 

TCE Plume 
Lateral Extent 

fftPSitee 


IRP Sites- 
International Airport 
Alternative 


mmmwm Base Boundary 
==== Abandoned Runway 
• NotAppicable 


Figur« 4.3*2 


4-94 


George AFB [Xsposai and Reuse FEIS 



























































TabI* 4.3-3. Hazardous Matarial Usage - Intamational Airport Attemativa 


Laixi Use Zones 

Operation Process 

Hazardous Materials 

Airfield 

Refueling, dear zones, runways, 
taxiways, airport terminal 

Aviation fuels, propyierw glycd, 
dhylene glycol, heating ols 

Aviation Support 

Corporate, helicopter, gerwal 
aviation use, flight line bufldings, 
aircraft parking and industry, air 
cargo 

Fuels, solvents, paints, degreasers, 
corrosives, heavy metals, reactives, 
thinners. ignitables 

Industrial/Business Park 

Office complexes, light industry. 

Fuels, solvents, corrosives. 

Commerciai Hotel 

research and development, training 
faclity, high tech warehousing and 
manutacturing, general 
manufacturing, resort/conference 
faclities, hotels, golf courses, 
recreational, open space. 

ignitables, heating ols, heavy 
metals, catalysts, aerosols 

Commercial 

Hotel, office complexes, light 
industry, research and development 

Heating ols, pesticides, fungicides, 
herbicides, fuels, solvents, 
corrosives, ignitables, plating 
wastes, cyanides, laboratory wastes 


Hazardous Waste Management The four proposed land use zones (see Table 
4.3-3) would host many operations that are yet to be defined. 

Once the responsibilities of hazardous waste management are allocated to 
individual organizations, proficiency with those materials and spill responses is 
required by OSHA regulations (29 CFR). Mutual aid agreements with surrounding 
communities may require additional scrutiny and training of emergency staff. 

The presence of numerous independerrt owner/operators on the base woiJd 
change the regulatory requirements and probably increase the regulatory burden 
relative to hazardous waste management. ActivKies associated with the 
International Airport Alternative would lead to an increase in the amount of 
hazardous waste generated compared to the closure baseline. 

Installation Restoration Program Sites. The IRP program and remediation 
requirements could delay or limit proposed land uses under the international 
Airport Alternative. IRP sites and their associated land use under this alternative 
are listed in Table 4.3-4. 

• Airfield - Rightiine operations associated with the International Airport 
Alternative may be impacted due to the overall airport expansion 
(extension and expansion of runways, taxiways and aprons) into areas 
at additional IRP sites. This expansion would extend into the Northeast 
Disposal Area, which contains TCE groundwater contamination, as well 
as numerous burial sites and landfills that will not be cleaned up prior to 
base closure. Remediation facPities for the TCE contamination plume 
are iri place atxl may delay construction of runways or cause them to 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-95 












TabI* 4 . 3 - 4 . IRP SKat within Land Uaa Araaa > International Airport Altamative 


Proposed Land Use 

IRP Sites 

Airfield 

TCE Groundwater Plume, Liquid Fuel Distribution System (ST-67), 

Industrial Storm Drain (SD-2S) DP-01. DP-03. DP-04, DP-47, DP-60. FT-19, 

FT-19a. LF-13. LF-35. LF-36. LF-37. LF-38. LF-43. LF-45. OT-48. OT-51. SD-18. 
SD-27. SD-28. SD-41. SS-21. SS-23. SS-24. SS-30. SS-58. SS-59. ST-54, 

ST-56. ST-57, WP-11. WP-32 

Aviation Support 

industrial Storm Drain (SD-25). DP-02, DP-04, DP-46, FT-20, LF-14, LF-44, 

SS-53, SS-55. WP-26, WP-29 

Industrial 

DP-10, DP-15, DP-33, DP-34. LF-07. LF-08, LF-11. LF-12. LF-39, RW-09. SS-52. 
SS-55. WP-16, WP-40 

Commercial 

LF-39. OT-22 

Vacant Land 

SD-42 


be realigned. Monitoring well locations could delay or limit base 
reuse under this alternative. 

Expansion along the existing flightiine may be impacted by cleanup 
and monitoring activities associated with the Liquid Fuel Distributkm 
System (site ST-67). Runway extension to the southwest would 
advance into spQI sites and landfills in the West Perimeter Disposal 
Area, with potential impact to airfield operations. Cleanup and 
monitoring activities associated with the JP-4 leak, site SS-30, may 
delay or restrict airfield expansion in the Central Disposal Area. 

• Aviation Support - Aviation support development may be affected 
based on its proximity to the base iandfili (site LF-14) and remediation 
and monitoring activities associated with this IRP site. 

• Industrial - industrial development may be impacted by cleanup 
activities associated with landfills and burial sites in the Southeast 
Disposal Area. Installation of monitoring wells may restrict use in this 
area. Cleanup efforts are discussed in Section 4.3.1. 

• Commercial - This land use area is underlain by IRP sites LF-39 and 
OT-22. 

• Vacant Land - IRP site SD-42 shouid not impact base reuse under this 
alternative. 

Underground/Aboveground Storage Tanks. Air flight and maintenance 
operations associated with the International Airport Alternative would require the 
use of aboveground storage tanks and USTs. These tanks must be in compliance 
with federal, state and local regulations regarding leaks, spills and overfDI 
protection and liability insurance. 

Asbestos. Renovation and demolition of existing structures with ACM may occur 
with reuse development. Such activities will comply with all applicable federal, 
state and local regulations. The number of structures with ACM is unknown; an 
asbestos survey is currently In progress. 


4-96 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









PMticidM and HtiticidM. UndarthalitamndcNial Airport Altemalhwpestic^ 
and herbicide usage vwoiddcortinue at ojrraidlypfacti^ An increase in usage 
for aMeid maintenance would couriterbalance the elimination of pesticides and 
herbicides used at the golf course. 

PCBa. Alfederaly regulated PCB-conlaminatedeqidpment (SO to 409 ppm) wl 
be removed prior to base closure; therefore, these materials wH not create any 
impacts. PCB items ^ to 49 ppm) remaining after base closure wll be managed 
in cornpliarKM with state regutations. 

Radon. AH radon screer^ survey reeults were below the EPA's recommended 
mitigation level of 4 pCVI of air therefore, no action is required and radon wl 
have no impact on reuse activities. 

Medical/Blobazardoua Waste. AH of these materials wH be incinerated and 
removed prior to base closure. Accordingly, these materials wll not present any 
impact 

Cumulative Impacts. No cumulative impacts would result under the 
International Airport Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. Ibe same mitigation measures appiicabie to the Proposed 
Action would be appropriate for activities associated with the International Airport 
Alternative. In addition, realignment of the runway or relocation of TCE 
remediation taclities and morAoring weUs in the Northeast Disposal Area may be 
required in order to eliminate reuse delays. 

4.3.3 Commercial Airport with ResUentiai Alternative 

Hazardous Materials Marwgement The Commercial Airport with Residential 
Alternative differs from the Proposed Action in that it includes residential and 
institutional land uses (Figure 4.3-3). The usage of pesticides and herbicides 
would increase In comparison to the Proposed Action. The hazardous materials 
that would be utilized for operations of the Commerciai Airport with Residential 
Alternative are summarized in Table 4.3-5. The amounts of hazardous materials 
used and hazardous waste generated would be approximately equivalent to those 
under the Proposed Action. 

Currently, handling of hazardous materials on the base is managed by DOD. If 
the Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative were implemented, each 
separate organization wtthin the commercial airport structure would be 
responsible for the management of hazardous materials according to applicable 
regulations. Additionaity, each organization would have to comply with SARA, 
Section 311, Titie III, which requires that local communities be informed of the use 
of hazardous materials. 


George AfB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-97 












EXPLANATION 



AifMd 

■ 

InsMiliaral 

(Eduoabon) 

■ 


Avialian Support 

■ 

CommercM 
9}1ioeSuaineaB Pari^ 

Z] 


Muetial 

□ 

Readential 



boMilianal 

(MedndD 

■ 

PubiofReoreabon 



rLTi 


ATicuNwe* 


VaoOTtLand 

TCE Plume 
Ukral Exlent 

IRPSitas 


0 7M1500 3000 Feel 




mmm^ Bite Boumtoy 
====: Abendoned Ru 
* NolApiBoAle 


IRP Sites- 
Commercial Airport 
with Residential 
Alternative 


Figura 4.3-3 


4-98 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 
















































TaU* 4.34. Hazardous Malarial Usaga • Commercial Airport with ReaMantial Altamativa 


Land Use Zones 

Operation Process 

Hazardoi» Materials 

Airfield 

Refueling; antf-/de-icing; utilization 
of dear zories, runways, taxiways, 
airport termirai, parking, 
administration o^es, corporate 
and private aviation facflities, 
aircraft parking, fbred-based 
operators 

Aviation fuels, propylene glycol, 
ethylene glycol, heating oils 

Aviation Support 

Operations associated with aircraft 
maintenance, aircraft 
manufacturing, aeronautics 
research and development, air 
transportation-related industry and 
warehousing, law enforcement, 
airline maintenance, other 
government agencies 

Fuels, solvents, paints, degreasers, 
corrosives, heavy metals, 
reactives, thinners, Ignitables, 
plating wastes, cyamides and 
laboratory wastes 

Industrial 

Operations associated with light 
industry, research/development, 
warehousing 

Solvents, heavy metals, corrosives, 
catalysts, fuels, heating ds, 
aerosols 

Institutional (Medical) 

Operation of existing hospital 

Medicai/biohazardous waste, 
heavy m^s, chemotherapeutic 
and radiological sources, 
laboratory wastes, solvents 

Institutional (Education) 

Operation of aviation-related 
training, and public education 
(existing schools) 

Corrosives, reacth/es, solvents, 
fuels, ignitables, paints, heating oils 

Commercial 

Operation of restaurants, banks 

Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, 
cNorine, fuels, heating ols 

Residential 

Activities associated with single 
family, multi-family units 

Heating oils, solvents, pesticides, 
herbicides, cNorine 

Pubilc/Recreation 

Maintenance of existing 
recreational fticSities and golf 
course 

Pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, 
heating oils, chlorine 

Vacant Land 

Vacant 

Pesticides, fungicides, herbicides 


Hazardous Waste Management The nine proposed land use zones (see Table 
4.3-5) woidd host many operations that are yet to be defined. 

Once the responsibilities of hazardous waste management are allocated to 
Individual organizations, proficiency with those materials and spill responses is 
required by OSHA regulations (29 CFR). Mutual aid agreements with surrounding 
communities may require additional scrutiny and training of emergency staff. 

The presence of numerous independent owner/operators on the base would 
change the regulatory requirements and probably increase the regulatory burden 
relative to hazardous waste management. Activities associated with the 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEtS 





Commercial Airport with Resideotiai Alternative would lead to an increase in the 
amount of hazardous waste generated compared to the closure baseline. 

Installation Restoration Program Sites. Impacts to the commercial airport with 
residential alternative due to IRP activities are discussed below. Table 4.3-6 
contains a listing of IRP sites associated with each land use. 


Table 4.3*6. IRP Sites within Land Use Areas • Commercial Airport with Residential Altemative 


Proposed Land Use 

IRP Sites 

Airfield 

TCE Grourxlwater Plume 

Industrial Storm Drain (SO-2S). DP-03, DP-04, DP-60. LF-13. LF-35. LF-36, 

LF-43. LF-45. SD-18. SD-41. WP-32 

Aviation Support 

Liquid Fuel Distribution System (ST-67) 

Industrial Storm Drain (SD-25) 

DP-02, LF-14, SS-30. SS-55. ST-S4. ST-56. ST-57. WP-29. WP-32 

Industrial 

TCE Groundwater Plume 

Industrial Storm Drain (SD-25). DP-01. DP^7. FT-19. FT-19a. FT-20. LF-14. 

LF-37. LF-38. OT-48. SD-18. SD-27. SD-28. SS-21, SS-23. SS-24. SS-59. 

ST-56. WP-11,WP-26 

Institutional (Medical) 

None 

Institutional 

(Education) 

OT-48. WP-16 

Commercial 

None 

Residential 

DP-10. DP-15. DP-33. DP-34. DP-46. LF-07. LF-08. LF-11, LF-12. LF-39. LF-44. 
OT-22. OT-51. RW-09. SD-18, SS-52. SS-53, WP-40 

Public/Recreation 

OT-22 

Vacant Land 

SD-42 


• Airfield • Right operations for the proposed commercial airport may be 
disrupted by cleanup activities associated with the Liquid Fuel Distribution 
System (site ST-67). Ongoing cleanup of the TCE groundwater plume in 
the northeastern portion of the proposed airfield may not create additional 
impacts to this land use. 


• Aviation Support - Development associated with this proposed land use 
may be impacted by cleanup activities associated with base landfill LF-14. 
Cleanup of the Liquid Fuel Distribution System, as well as numerous other 
IRP sites within the Central Disposal Area, may delay development of 
flightline and other facflities within the Central Base Area. 


• Industrial - Development within the northeast Disposal Area may be 
delayed due to cleanup activities associated with the TCE groundwater 
plume. Cleanup of numerous other sites in the west perimeter and Central 
Disposal Areas may delay construction associated with this proposed land 
use. 


• Institutional (Medical) - No IRP sites are associated with this proposed 
land use under the altemative. 


4-100 George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 






• IfMtitiitiOfMi (Education) - D«w8lopmeiit associated with this proposed 
land use may be deiayed due to cleanup of a POL leach field (site WP-16) 
and the base salvage yard (site 0T48). 

• Commercial* No IBP sites are associated with this proposed land use 
under thto altematlve. 

• Residential ■ Cleanup activities associated with numerous landfiis. burial 
sites, and spM sites in the western, eastern, and southeastern sections of 
George AFB may delay construction of proposed residential land uses. 

• Vacant Land - IBP stte SO-42 should not impact the base reuse under this 
alternative. 

Underground/AbovegrouTKl Storage Ibriks. Air flight and maintenance 
operations associated wtth the Commerdai Airport with Residentiai Aitemative 
would require the use of aboveground storage tanks and USTs. These tanks must 
be in compliance with federd. state and local regulations regarding leak. spM, and 
overfill protection and liabifly Insurance. 

Asbestos. Renovation arxl demolition of existing structures with ACM may occur 
with reuse deveiopmenL Such activities wfll comply with ail applicable federal, 
state and local regulations. The number of structures with ACM is unknown; an 
asbestos survey is currently in progress. 

Pesticides and Herbicidea. Usage of pesticides and herbicides for the 
Commercial Airport with Residentiai Aitemative would increase over current 
amounts as a result of the increase in residential development. 

PCBs. All federally regulated PCB-contaminated equipment (50 to 499 ppm) will 
be removed prior to base closure; therefore, these materials wll not create any 
impacts. PCB items (S to 49 ppm) remaining after base closure wM be managed 
in compliance with state regulations. 

Radon. Ail radon screening survey results were below EPA's recommended 
mitigation level of 4 pCi/l of air; therefore, no action is required and radon will 
have no impact on reuse activities. 

Medical/Biohazardous Waste. The hospital would generate 
medical/biohazardous waste; management practices would conform to Title 22, 
Artide 13 of the CCR. 

Cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts would result under the Commercial 
Airport with Residentiai Aitemative. 

Mitigation Measures. The same mitigation measures discussed for the 
Proposed Action would be appropriate for activities associated v4th this 
aitemative. Reuse of residentiai areas may carry restrictions based on 
remediation arfo closure operations performed at specific sites. Reuse as a park, 
greenbeit or open space are options available to developers. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-101 






4.3.4 General Avietlon Center Alternative 

Hazardoue Materials Management The Proposed Action and the General 
Aviation Center Alternative differ In the reduced number and types of operations 
and the retention of residential areas. Approximately 50 percent of the base has 
not been identified for development Onactive) in this alternative (Figure 4.3-4), 
whereas the Proposed Action utilizes the entire base. The effects concerning IRR 
USTs, asbestos, and pesticides and herbicides would be simlar to those IdentNied 
for the Proposed Action. Smaller quantities of hazardous materials arxJ wastes 
would be present under this alternative because of the reduction in aircraft 
operations arxl the absence of any proposed irxlustrial reuse (Table 4.3-7). 


Table 4.3-7. Hazardous Material Usage - General Aviation Center Alternative 


Land Use Zones 

Operation Process 

Hazardous Materials 

Airfield 

Refueling; anti-/de-icing; utilization 
of clear zones, taxiways, airport 
terminal parking, administrative 
offices, corporate and private 
aviation facilities, aircraft parking, 
fixed base operators 

Aviation fuels, propylene glycol, 
ethylene glycol, heating oUs 

Aviation Support 

Operations associated with 
general aviation use, aircraft 
maintenance 

Fuels, solvents, paints, 
degreasers, corrosives, heavy 
metals, reactives, thinners, 

Ignitabies, plating wastes, 
cyanides, laboratory wastes 

Institutional (Education) 

Operation of schools 

Solvents, fuels, ignitabies, paints, 
heating oUs 

Institutional (Medical) 

Operation of existing hospital 

Medical/biohazardous waste, 
heavy metals, chemotherapeutic 
and radiological sources, 
laboratory waste, solvents 

Commercial 

Operation of existing land 
exchange offices, banks and 
restaurant establishments 

Heating oils, solvents, fungicides, 
herbicides, pesticides 

Residential 

Activities associated with single 
family and multi-famay units 

Heating oil, fuels, solvents, 
herbicides, pesticides, chlorine 

Public/Recreation 

Maintenance of existing 
recreational faculties and vacant 
areas, golf course 

Pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, 
chlorine, heating oils 

Vacant Land 

Vacant 

Pesticides, fungicides, herbicides 


Currently, handling of hazardous materials on the base is managed by 000. If 
the General Aviation Center Alternative were implemented, each separate 
organization within the commercial airport structure would be responsible for the 
management of hazardous materials according to applicable regulations. 
Additionally, each organization would have to comply with SARA, Section 311, 

4-102 George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










EXPLANATION 



Aiflwld 

■ 

ramnoiHi 

(Eduoadon) 

■ 


Avialkxi Support 

■ 

Convneraiii 
(pfMBumwm ParlO 

n 


Industial’ 

InaMulional 

(Meiioal) 

□ 

Reeideiitial 



■ 

PuMolReoraalion 



run 


0 7501500 3000 F«et 




A^nulture* 


VaoantLand 

TCEPhime 
Lateral Extent 

IRP Sites 


IRP Sites- 
General Aviation 
Center Alternative 


■■■■■ Base Boundaiy 
==== Abandcned Runway 
* NotAppiosUe 


Figure 4.3-4 


Qeorge AFB [Xsposa! and Reuse FEIS 


4-103 



































































TWe III. which requires that local communities be Mormed of the use of 
hazardous materials. 

Hazardous Waste Management The eight proposed land use zones (see Table 
4.3-7) would host many operattons that are yet to be defined. This section 
describes the types of hazardous wastes that may be generated in these land use 
zones. 

Once the responsibilities of hazardous waste management are allocated to 
individual organizatiorts, proficiency with those materials and spll responses is 
required by OSHA regulations (29 CFR). Mutuai aid agreements with surrounding 
communities may require additional scrutiny and training of emergency staff. 

The presence of numerous independent owner/operators on the base would 
change the regulatory requirements and probably increase the regulatory burden 
relative to hazardous waste management Activities associated with the General 
Aviation Center Alternative would lead to an increase in the amount of hazardous 
waste generated compared to the closure baseline. 

Installation Restoration Program Sites. The IRP remediation requirements may 
delay or limit the proposed ieuid uses identified under the General Aviation Center 
Alternative. Table 4.3-8 lists the IRP sites and their respective land uses under this 
alternative. 


Table 4.3-8. IRP Sites within Land Use Areas • Generai Aviation Center Aitemative 


Proposed Land Use 

IRP Sites 

Airfield 

TCE Groundwater Plume, Liquid Fuel Distribution System (ST-67), 

Industrial Storm Drain (SD-25). DP-03, DP-04, DP-60, LF-13, LF-35, LF-36, 

LF-43. LF-45, SD-18, SD-41, ST-54, WP-32 

Aviation Support 

Liquid Fuel Distribution System (ST-67), 

Industrial Storm Drain (SD-25). DP-47, LF-37, LF-38. OT-48, OT-51, SD-18, 

SD-27. SD-28. SS-21. SS-23, SS-24, SS-30. SS-58. SS-59, ST-56. ST-57 

institutional (Medical) 

None 

institutional (Education) 

None 

Commercial 

Liquid Fuel Distribution System (ST-67), Industrial Storm Drain (SD-25), DP-47, 
OT-48. SS-55. WP-16. WP-29 

Residential 

LF-12, LF-39 

Public/Recreation 

OT-22 

Vacant Land 

TCE Groundwater Plume, Industrial Storm Drain (SD-25), DP-01, DP-02, 

DP-10, DP-15, DP-33, DP-34, DP-46, FT-19, FT-19a, FT-20, LF-07, LF-08, 

LF-11. LF-14. LF-44. RW-09. SD-42. SS-52. SS-53. ST-56. WP-11. WP-26. 

WP-40 

• Airfield - IRP cleanup activities of the base landfill would not impact airfield 
operations at the northeast end of the runway. Cleanup and monitoring 


4-104 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 














wen actMtiestor the Uqiicl Fuel Distribution System (site ST€7) may 
impact iligiaiina opeiation. 

• Aviation Support -Deveiopment of proposed aviation support areas may 
be impacted by daanup actions within the Certral Disposal Area and the 
Liquid Fuel Distrftxjtlon Systeia 

• Commercial • The proposed commerdai land uses are not expected to be 
irnpacted by any cleanup activities. Cleanup efforts are disojssed in 
Section 4.3.1. 

• Institutionai (Education)- No IRP sites are assodated with tNs proposed 
land use under tMs alternative. 

• Institutional (MedicaO - No IRP sites are associated with this proposed 
land use urxler this alternative. 

• PubUc/Recreation- Reuse of this area should not be affected by IRP site 
OT-22. 

• Residential • Proposed residential areas overlay landfUs (see Figure 4.3-4) 
under this altemative and may have to incorporate greent^ open space, 
or parks into residentlai areas to accommodate remediation and 
nxMiitoring efforts. 

• Vacant land-The entire Southeast Disposal Area and most of the IRP 
sites assigned to the northeast disposal area, indudingtheTCE 
grouixfwater piiwne, are on vacant land arKi should not delay or resbict 
deveiopment under this altemative. 

UrKferground/Aboveground Storage Tanks. Air flight and maintenance 
operations associated with the General Aviation Center Altemative would require 
the use of aboveground storage tanks and USTs. These tanks must be in 
compliance with federal, state and local regulations regarding leak, spll, arxl 
overfill protection, and llabflity insurance. 

Asbestos. Renovation arxf demolition of existirtg structures with ACM may occur 
with reuse development. Such activities wU comply with all appiicabie federal, 
state and local regulations. The number of structures with ACM is unkrxywn; an 
asbestos survey is currently in progress. 

Pesticides and Herbicides. Under the General Aviation Center Altemative, 
pesticide and herbicide usage would continue as currently practiced. 

PCBs. All federally regulated PCB-contaminated equipment (SO to 499 ppm) wM 
be removed prior to base closure; therefore, these materials will not create any 
impacts. PCS items (5 to 49 ppm) remaining after base closure will be managed 
in compliance with state regulations. 

Radon. Ail radon screening survey results were below EPA’s recommended 
mitigation level of 4 pCi/l of air; therefore, no action is required and radon wfli 
have no impact on reuse acth4ties. 

Medical/Biohazardoua Waste. The hospital would generate 
medical/biohazardota waste; management practices would conform to Title 22, 
Article 13 of the CCR. 

George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-105 










Cumulattv* Impacts. No cunHiative impacts would result under the General 
Aviation Center Alternative. 


Mitigation Measures. The same mitigation measures discussed for the 
Proposed Action would be appropriate for activities associated with this 
alternative. 


4.3.8 NofvAviation Altemative 

Hazardous Materials Management Effects associated with the implementation 
of the NorvAviation Altemative (Rgure 4.3-5) would be simlar to those identified 
for the Proposed Action. Because there would be no aviation or associated 
maintenance activities under this option, the amounts of hazardous materiais 
managed would be less than those used under the Proposed Action. The 
proposed industrial activities associated with this altemative. however, might 
offset that reduction. The hazardous materials that would be used under the 
Non-Aviation Altemative are summarized in Table 4.3-9. 


Table 4.3-9. Hazardous Material Usage - Non-Aviation Altemative 


Land Use Zones 

Operation Process 

Hazardous Materials 

Industrial 

Activities associated with light 
industry, research and 
development, warehousing 

Fuels, solvents, corrosives, ignitabies, 
heating oOs, heavy metals, catalysts, heating 
oils, plating wastes, cyanides, laboratory 
wastes, shipping of hazardous materiais 

Institutional 

(Medical/Education) 

Operation of existing schools and 
higher education, hospital 

Medical/biohazardous waste, heavy metals, 
chemotherapeutic and radiological sources, 
laboratory waste, solvents 

Commercial 

Operation of retal/offices 

Fuels, solvents, corrosives, ignitabies, 
heating oHs, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides 

Residential 

Activities associated with single 
famly and mutti famly units 

Heating ofls, solvents, pesticides, herbicides, 
fungicides, chlorine 

Public/Recreation 

Maintenance of existing 
recreational facilities/golf course 

Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides. cNorine 

Vacant Land 

Vacant 

Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides 


Hazardous Waste Management The same effects discussed under the 
Proposed Action would apply with implementation of this altemative. Industrial 
activities may generate simlar types of hazardous waste to those of aviation 
maintenance actMties, but in smaller quantities. Various parties wouid be 
responsible for managing different waste streams in the identified reuse areas. 

Installation Restoration Program Sites. The IRP program and remediation 
requirements may impact the land uses identified in this Non-Aviation Altemative 
(Figure 4.3-5). IRP sites and their proposed larvi use under this altemative are 
presented in Table 4.3-10. 

4-106 George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









EXPLANATION 



IRP Sites- 

AifMir 

H (EduoaSon) 

■i*»**^ 

Non-Aviation 

mu Avialion Supporf 

CtfwiwoM 
ipIMBummm Pvt) 

1 \ VaoanlLand 

Alternative 

biduatiN 

1 [ Roadonlial 

TCEPIunM 

Lateral Extonl 


■■ bHiMianal 
iH (MednN) 


IRPSilBa 



nn 


0 7S01S00 3000 Feat 




■■•iB Baw Boundaiy 
==== AbmtoMd Ruiwmy 
• Noli 


Figur* 4.3-5 


Qeoigo AFB Disposal and Reuse FEtS 


4-107 











































Tabto 4.3-10. IRP SUM within Land Um Aims • Non-Aviation ARamativt 


Proposed Land Use 

IRP Sites 

Industrial 

Liquid Fuel Distribution System (ST-67), industrial Storm Drain (SD-2S). SD-27, 
SD-28. SS-21, SS-24, SS-30, SS-5S, SS-S8. ST-64. ST-57, WP-29 

Institutional (Medical) 

None 

Institutional (Education) 

Liquid Fuel Distribution System (ST-67), DP-47, OT-48. SS-23. SS-55. ST-56. 
WP-11.WP-16 

Conwnercial 

DP-01 

Residential 

TCE GrouTKjwater Plume, iiKiustrial Storm Drain (SD-25), DP-02. DP-03, 

DP-04, DP-10. DP-15. DP-33. DP-34, DP-48. DP-60, FT-19. FT-19a. FT-20. 

LF-07. LF-08. LF-II. LF-12. LF-13. LF-14. LF.35. LF-36. LF-37. LF-38. LF-39. 

LF-43. LF-44. LF-45. OT-22. OT-51. RW-09. SD-18, SD-41, SS-52. SS-53, 

SS-59. WP-28. WP-32, WP-40 

Public/Recraation 

OT-22 

Vacant Land 

S042 


• induatrial - Proposed industrial areas associated with this alternative may 
be impacted by cleanup activities within the cei^ Disposal Area, and 
would include cleanup of the Liquid Fuel Distribution System (site ST-67) 

• institutional (Medical) - No IRP sites are associated with this proposed 
land use under this alternative. 

• Institutional (Education) - Development of proposed educational taclities 
may be implemented by cleanup activities associated with die Liquid Fuel 
Distribution System as well as numerous other IRP sites within the Central 
Disposal Area. 

• Commercial • This area proposed for commercial development may be 
impacted by cleanup activities associated with a paint drum burial stte (site 
DP^I). 

• Residential • Areas associated with the Non-Aviation Alternative overlie 
numerous landfills, burial sites and fuel spW areas located within the 
Southeast and Northeast Disposal Areas. The presence of these IRP sites 
within the residential areas may limit the site-specific reuse plans on 
locating residential units on or near these IRP sites, depending on the 
severity of contaminatbn and level of IRP effort to rem^iate any 
contamination. Reuse as open space, greenbelts, or parks may represent 
suitable reuse options. Cleanup and monitoring activities at th^ sites 
could delay development of the proposed residential reuses. Cleanup 
activities for proposed residential areas within the West Perimeter and 
Central Disposal Areas may also impact development. 

• Public/Recreation - Reuse of this area should not be effected by IRP site 
OT-22. 


Underground/Aboveground Storage Tanks. Maintenance operations 
associated with the Non-Aviation Alternative would require the use of 
aboveground storage tanks and USTs. These tanks must be in compliance with 
federal, state and local regulations regarding leak, spSI and overfill protection and 
liabllty insurance. 


4-108 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 












Asbtttot. R«n(Natk)n and demolition of «)dtting8tnjcturas with ACM may occur 
with reuse developmenL Such activities wl comply withal applicable federal, 
state aiidi-sal regulations. The number of structures with is unknown; an 
asbestos rurvey is currandy In progress. 

Pesticides and HerMeMaa. Pesticidae and herbicides usage associated with the 
Non-Aviation Alternative rnay Increase In several land use areas from quantities 
currently used. Management practices would conform to RFRA and state 
regulatiorM. 

PCBa. Al federaly regulated PC8-conlaminated equipment (SO to 499 ppm) wi 
be removed prior to base closure; therefcm. these materiais wH not create any 
impacts. PCS Items (5 to 49 ppm) remaining after base closure wM be managed 
In compliance with state regulatlorw. 

Radon. AM radon screening survey results were below ERA’S recommended 
mitigation level of 4 pQ/l of air, therefore, no action is required and radon would 
not create any impact on reuse activities. 

Medicai/Biohazardoua Waste. The hospital would generate medical/ 
biohazardous waste; management practices would conform to TWe 22, Article 13 
of the OCR. 

Cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts would result under the 
Non-Aviation Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. The same mitigation measures discussed for the 
Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative would be appropriate for activities 
associated with this aitemative. 

4.3.6 Other Land Use Concepts 

This section wH discuss transfers/conveyances within the framework of the IRP 
and wlhin the context of the hazardous materiais typically associated with their 
proposed reuses (Figure 4.3-6). IRP sites associated with each land use concept 
are provided in Table 4.3-11. 

U.S. Department of Justice. The hazardous materiais likely to be utilized and 
the associated waste generated for an FCC would include fuels, ignitables, 
solvents corrosives, heating ols, dry cleaning solvents, pesticides and herbicides. 
Cleanup activities at numerous landflls and munitions burial sites within the 
Southeast Disposai /Vrea may restrict development of the proposed FCC. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. No change in function or use is proposed by 
the DOi transfer, and there would be no impacts due to IRP remediation activities. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmenL No change in function 
or use is proposed. These unis may have ACM. and removal would, I required. 


George AFB tXsposal and Rwse FEIS 


4-109 










EXPLANATION 

190Bf8l COrVBCiOnal C0fnpi6X 

(^ fUtaaaton FacXbBa 

(^ MaataCfeds 

/^ Boron AinmyFacilySflclor 
FMdOflira PwWnQGiriQB 

ru I A 

0 750 1500 3000FM 


® Adalanto School OMriet 

^ San Bemardno County 

^ Woit(Furtau^Ooni*Niaa 

0 Privala M ad ca l Inammion 

H IRPSila 

TCE Pfejma Lalarai Exiani 
- BaaaBoundary 
zzzz AbtndofwdRumMy 


IRP Sites- 

Federal Transfers and 
Independent Land Uses 


Rgure 4.3-6 



GeofgeAFB D^p(xal and Reuse FEIS 






































TaM* 4.3-11. IRP Sitaa writhin Und Uaa Araaa - Olhar Land Uaa Coneapla 


Proposed Land Use 

IRP Sites 

Federal Correctional Complex 

DP-10. DP-15. OP 3s). DP-34. LF-07. LF-08. LF-11. RW-OO, SS-52. WP-10 

Recreation FadMes 

OT-22 

Alaska Circle 

None 

Boron Airway Faclity Sector 
Field Office Parking Garage 

None 

Adelanto School District 

None 

San Bernardino County Work 
Furlough Dormttories 

None 

Private Medical Institution 

None 


temporarily impact reuse. No impacts would occur due to IRP remediation 
activities. 

U.S. Department of Tivnsportation. No change in function or use is proposed 
and hazardous materials used and wastes generated will not change; therefore, 
there is no impact IRP remediation activities would not cause any impacts. 

U.S. Department of Education. The hazardous materials likely to be utlized and 
associated wastes generated for the reuse as a school, would likely include fuels, 
ignttables, solvents, corrosives, heating oBs, fxtlnts, degreasers, heavy metals, 
reactives, thinners, and laboratory wastes. Reuse of existing holdings must 
comply with AHERA regulations. These facflities may contain ACM, and removal 
of these materials may delay reuse of these fciclities. No impacts would occur 
from IRP remediation activities. 

San Bernardino County Work Furlough Program. No change in function or 
use is proposed, therefore, there would be no impact. Additionally, no impacts 
from any IRP activities would be incurred. 

Medical Facilitlea. The hospital would generate medical/biohazardous waste; 
management practices would conform to Title 22, Article 13 of the CCR. IRP 
remediation activities may not impact reuse. 

4.3.7 No-Action Alternative 

The only hazardous materials/waste issues associated with this alternative would 
concern the final phases of the IRP activities. The No-Action Alternative would 
require the DMT to manage alt waste generated under the applicable regulations. 
Painting and maintenance would be the primary activities that would involve 
hazardous materials. 


George AFB DisposaJ and Reuse FEIS 


4-111 












HazMVioiis Matartols ItafiagMiMnL Ha7aidou»mrteriato would be utibad^ 
preventive and regular nwManance aclMtee, grounde maintenance, and water 
treatrnem The materials uaed for theeeactMtiee would indude pesdcidee, 
herfalddee. fuels, paints and cor r oe l vee. The DMT would be responsibie for 
hazardous materials handUng training, as weM as hazardous materiais 
communication requirements of OSHA regulations. 

Hazardous Waste Management. Wkhtheetceptionoffoclitiesiaiized by DMT 
persormei, aH satellite accumulMion points would be dosed before base closure. 
DRMO would dispose of el hazardous waste prior to closure. The smaii amount 
of hazardous waste that would be generated under the No-Action Altemative may 
enable the DMT to become an exempt, smal-quantity generator. 

Installation Restoration Program Sites. The DMT would support the dlity 
requirementsfortheIRPcontractorarKf provUesecurityfortheareas. Ongoing 
sampling and pump-aixl-treat remediai design activities would be cor^ued by 
the individual IRP contractors. 

Underground/Aboveground Storage Ibnks. The three USTs designed in 
compliance with 1988 requirements, located at the AGE Service Station (Fac 789) 
wii be dosed in place. Plans to remove all USTs would be implemented after 
dosure. 

The aboveground storage tanks would be purged to avoid fire hazards. The DMT 
would provide cathodic protection, repair, and maintenance of the aboveground 
storage tanks and piping. 

Asbestos. The impacts from the No-Action Altemative would be minimal. 
Vacated foclities would likely be boarded up if the No-Action Altemative were 
implemented. All deteriorated asbestos materials wfil be abated; therefore, ACM 
would not be released into the atmosphere. 

Pesticides and Herbicides. Urxier the No-Action Alternative, the grounds and 
golf course would be maintained in such a manner as to foclitate economic 
resumption of use. There should not be an appreciable increase in the use of 
pesticides and herbicides. Application of pesticides and herbicides would be 
conducted in accordance with RFRA and state regulations to assure the proper 
and safe handling and application of all chemicals. 

PCBs. All federally regulated PCB-contaminated equipment (50 to 499 ppm) wll 
be renKJved prior to base closure; therefore, these materials will not create any 
impacts. PCB items (5 to 49 ppm) remaining after base closure will be managed 
in compliance with state regulations. 

Radon. All radon screening survey results were below EPA's recommerxfed 
mitigation level of 4 pCi/l of air, therefore, no further action is required and rtfoon 
would not create any impacts. 


4-112 


George AFB Disposal end Reuse FEIS 






Medicai/Biohazardous Waata. AU of these materials wll be disinfected or 
removed prior to closure: therefore, these materials wfll not create an impact 

Cumulative Impacts. No cumulative impacts would result urxler the No-Action 
Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. Under the No-Action Alternative, one organization would 
be responsible for the basewide management of hazardous materials/waste. 
Contirtgency plans to address spill response would be less extensive than those 
required for the Proposed Action or the other reuse alternatives. 

4.4 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 

This section describes the potential effects on the natural resources of soils and 
geology, water resources, noise, biological resources, and cultural resources in 
the base area and the surrounding region. 

4.4.1 Soils and Geology 

This section describes the potential effects of the Proposed Action and reuse 
alternatives on the loc£d soQs and geology. The analysis is based on the review 
of published literature. Soils and geology will be affected largely during the 
construction phase, when local soil profiles are altered and regional aggregate 
supplies are tapped. After construction, soils will remain relatively stable 
because they will be overlain by facilities or pavements or managed in such a 
way that erosion will be minimized. 

4.4.1.1 Proposed Action. Regional effects on soils and geology would not be 
significant. Use of sand and gravel resources (e.g., for base or drain 
construction material) from several large producers adjacent to the Mojave 
River, where these resources are plentiful, would not significantly reduce the 
availabO'ity of these materials. 

Local effects on soils and geology would result primarily from the construction 
activities associated with the Proposed Action, such as grading, excavating, and 
recontouring the soils. These activities could alter soil proves and the local 
topography. 

Local soils are higNy susceptible to wind erosion and slightly to moderately 
susceptible to water erosion; therefore, preventative measures would be 
necessary to minimize erosion. During construction, removal of vegetative 
cover and disturbance of desert pavement by the exposure of cut slopes and 
grading activities would increase the potential for erosion by wind and water. 
Most of the on-base areas affected by construction activity have been 
previously developed. Renovation of existing facilities could create some 
impacts. Off-base land subject to acquisition northeast and south of the 
north-south runway would be affected most by construction-related activities. 


George AFB DisposaJ and Reuse FEIS 


4-113 






Alteration of natural surface arxi sol conditions wtt occur as a result of gradhig. 
trertching, arxl vehicular traffic across urKieveloped iand surfaces. These 
activities wHI cause degradation of naturally occurring desert pavement and 
short-term mposure of underlying sols, aii of which wll create adverse 
corxlitions related to sol erosion by wind and water. 

Over 2,600 acres of land wll be disturbed under this alternative including a total 
of approximately 200 acres oH off-base land. Sols in the various land use areas, 
with the exception of recreatiorud/open space areas, would be affected by 
construction operations. Construction-related activity associated with 
renovation and extension of the existing airfield wll affect large areas berth on 
and off base (about 169 acres). Construction-related activity in the aviation 
support areas could potentially disturb approximately 523 acres near the 
runway. Renovation, demolition, and construction in the industrial, business, 
and commercial areas will affect approximately 1,934 acres, but wll be 
concentrated in areas already developed by base-related activities. 
Approximately 300 acres of existing recreational/open space land wll not be 
developed and no adverse effects on local sol conditions are expected. 

Table 4.4-1 identifies the approximate acreages to be disturbed under this 
alternative in each of the three phases (1993-1998,1998-2003, and 2003-2013) 
after base closure. Total off-base land to be disturbed is less than 10 percent of 
the off-base area to be acquired (202 acres of the 2,352 acres to be acquired) 
for this alternative. 


Table 4.4-1. Estimated Acreage to be Disturbed at 5,10, and 20 Year Intervals - Proposed Action 


isaa. 

Land Use On-Base 

-1998 

Off-Base 

1998l 

On-Base 

-2003 

Off-Base 

2003 

On-Base 

-2013 

Off-Base 

Total 

On-Base Off-Base 

Total 

Airfield 

68 

- 

- 

- 

- 

101 

68 101 

169 

Aviation Support 

130 

- 

155 

- 

238 

- 

523 

523 

Commercial 

Office/ 

BusinessPark 

135 

- 

135 

- 

281 

- 

551 

551 

Industrial 

Aviation-Related 

154 

- 

140 

- 

301 

- 

595 

595 

Business Park 

- 

101 

357 

- 

330 

- 

687 101 

788 

Recreation 

15 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

15 

15 

Totals 

502 

101 

787 

- 

1,150 

101 

2,439 202 

2,641 


Some eidsting faclities may not meet current Uniform Bulding Code (UBC) 
design standards for Seismic Hazard Zone 4. The conforming guidelines 
followed by the high desert region of San Bernardino County do not go beyond 
those of the UBC. Major additions or alterations must meet current seismic 
codes; upgrades to the existing structure would only be required if the 
modifications cause it to be in violation of any UBC provisions. In addition, 
buldings whose use or occupancy was legal at the time the UBC was adopted 
may continue to be used or occupied. 


4-114 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









Cumulative impacts. No cumulative effects on soils are anticipated. A 
short-term increase in demand for construction-related resources (particularly 
sand and gravel) is expected during expansion of the existing airfield and 
construction of related facilities. Because of the extensive sand and gravel 
deposits along the Mojave River and in alluvial terraces nearby, this short-term 
increase in demand is not expected to have a long-term effect on future sources 
of sand and gravel. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are available to minimize erosion 
problems associated with wind and water, especially during the construction 
phase when trenches and cut slopes are exposed. During construction, the 
length of time vegetation and other cover is absent should be minimized. When 
cut slopes are exposed, any of the following measures rriay be useful in limiting 
erosion; 

• Add protective covering with mulch, straw or other synthetic materiai 
(tacking will be required). 

• Limit the amount of area disturbed and the length of time slopes and 
barren ground are left exposed. 

• Construct diversion dikes and interceptor ditches to divert water away 
from construction areas. 

• Install slope drains (conduits) and/or water velocity-control devices to 
reduce concentrated high velocity streams from developing. 

While mitigation measures will help reduce the amount of erosion that could 
occur as a result of construction-related activities, erosion by wind and water 
cannot be completely eliminated. Application of mulch, straw or synthetic 
material has proven very effective over the short term for controlling erosion, 
while the planting of windbreakers and revegetation are the most effective 
long-term means of reducing erosion. Soils typical of George AFB are highly 
erosive. The application of straw at the rate of about 1,000 pounds per acre 
would reduce the short-term erosion potential of these soils by about 65 percent 
while the application of 2,000 pounds per acre would reduce the short-term 
erosion potential by about 95 percent. Application of the straw would require 
tacking using a modified sheeps-foot. 

After the construction phase, long-term erosion control can be effectively 
accomplished by keeping soils under vegetative cover and planting wind breaks 
perpendicular to the predominant wind direction. Revegetating with short 
grasses, barley, or aif^fa would reduce the long-term erosion potential by 
greater than 50 percent. The type of vegetation used as wind breaks must 
comply with FAA standards in areas intended for aircraft runways. After 
construction, soils underlying facilities and pavements will not be subject to 
erosion. 

4.4.1.2 International Airport Alternative. Types of impacts associated with 
soils and geology under this alternative would be similar to those under the 
Proposed Action, except that the area affected is over twice as large as that 
disturbed under the Proposed Action. Effects on mineral resources (sand and 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-115 








gravel) in the short term wxid be considerably greater under this alternative 
because of the large amourtt of new construction required. Aithoufl^ this is a 
large hicrease over the current and projected requirements for the Proposed 
Action, large quantities of sand and gravel are present along the Mojave River 
and in surrounding areas: therefore, the long-term impacts to aggregate 
resources in the region are considered mirtor. 

Over 4,400 acres of urxleveioped land north of the base would be disturbed as a 
result of extension of Runway 03/21, construction of a runway parallel to 03/21, 
and construction of two new parallel north-south runways and related support 
fcicUities. impacts from soil erosion are considered to be short term because, 
once the construction phase is complete, areas subject to erosion woiM be 
covered by pavement, facilities or revegetation, thus reducing the erosion 
potential. Table 4.4-2 shows the total area to be disturbed under each land use 
category in each of the three phases (1993-1998,1998-2003, and 2003-2013) 
after closure both on and off base. About 55 percent of the off-base land to be 
acquired will be disturbed by this alternative. 


Table 4.4-2. Estimated Acreage to be Disturbed at 5,10, and 20 Year Intervals - International Airport 

Alternative 


1993 

Land Use On-Base 

•1998 

Off-Base 

1998 

On-Base 

Off-Base 

2003 

On-Base 

T2oia 

Off-Base 

Total 

On-Base Off-Base 

Total 

Airfield 

- 

• 

876 

3,169 

- 

- 

876 

3,169 

4,045 

Aviation Support 

- 

268 

- 

268 

- 

690 

• 

1,226 

1,226 

Commercial 

Hotel 

477 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

447 

- 

477 

Industrial 

General 

687 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

687 

- 

687 

Business Park 

- 

- 

124 

- 

125 

- 

249 

- 

249 

Aviation-related 

- 

- 

217 

- 

- 

186 

217 

186 

403 

Total 

1.164 

268 

1.217 

3.437 

125 

876 

2.506 

4.581 

7.087 


Cumulative Impacts. Cumdative short-term impacts associated with the 
increased local demand on aggregate resources In the area will have a larger 
Impact when combined with the projected rapid growth in the immediate area. 
Long-term impacts on the availability of aggregate material shored be minimal 
because there is an abundance of aggregate sources in the region. 

MKigation Measures. Potential mitigation measures would be similar to those 
discussed for the Proposed Action. 

4.4.1.3 Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative. Land west and 
southeast of the runway is identified for residential, industrial, and aviation 
support uses under this alternative, and will sustain impacts similar to those of 
the Proposed Action. The total area expected to be disturbed by 
George AFB Disposal and Reuse FBIS 


4-116 












construction-related activity is about 2.600 acres. In general, however, the 
majority of the construction w8l take place in areas that have already been 
disturbed by previous base construction. Table 4.4-3 shows the amount of area 
to be disturbed in each of the three phases (1993-1998,1998-2003, and 
2003-2013) after base closure. 


Table 4.4>3. Estimated Acreage to be Disturbed at 5,10, and 20 Year Intervale - Commercial Airport 

with Residential Alternative 

1993-1998 19 98 - 2003 2003 - 2013 Total 


Land Use 

On-Base Off-Base 

On-Base 

Off-Base 

On-Base 

Off-Base 

On-Base Off-Base 

Total 

Aviation Support 

67 

67 

- 

69 

- 

203 

- 

203 

Commercial/ 

Retail 

14 

9 

- 

- 

- 

23 

- 

23 

Industrial 

- 

244 

- 

490 

- 

734 

- 

734 

Institutionai 

Medical 

1 

- 

- 

• 

- 

1 

- 

1 

Education 

22 

- 

- 

- 

- 

22 

- 

22 

Public 

12 

- 

- 

- 

- 

12 

- 

12 

Residential 

314 

565 

- 

694 

- 

1,573 

- 

1,573 

Total 

430 

885 

- 

1.253 

- 


- 

2.568 


Cumulative Effects. No cumulative effects on soils or geology are anticipated 
from other projects In the area. 

Mitigation Measures. Potential mitigation measures would be simQar to those 
discussed for the Proposed Action. 

4.4.1.4 General Aviation Center Alternative. Under the General Aviation 
Center Alternative, a minimal amount of new construction will occur arxl nearly 
all operations would reuse existing facilities. The types of impacts would be 
similar to those of the Proposed Action. Limited new construction and 
renovation in the airfield arxi aviation support areas will create short-term 
impacts to soils by creating barren ground, cut slopes, and open excavations 
during the construction phase. Once construction is complete, the potential for 
erosion will be minimized because the majority of the area will be overlain by 
faculties or pavements. Overall, approximately 220 acres of land are expected 
to be disturbed under this alternative. All disturbance is expected to occur 
within 5 years of base closure (1993-1998). 

Because all construction w3l take place in areas already developed, new areas 
of unique soils wiii not be disturbed. Because construction wHI be minimal, 
impacts to sand and gravel resources will also be minimal. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on so9s and geology would not be 
likely to occur under this alternative. 

George AFBDisposaJ and Reuse FEIS 4-117 








Mitigation Maaturas. Types of mitigation measures would be simlar to those 
discussed for the Proposed Action, but would be required on a smaller scale. 


4.4.1.5 Non^viation AHemativa. Under the Non-Aviation Alternative, existing 
foclities In the main cantonment area wBI be renovated for the irtstitutiortal land 
use, existing base housing will be used for residential land use, and existing 
runways wll be used both for residential and industrial uses. The types of 
impacts would be similar to those under the Proposed Action. Demolition of the 
existing runway will create short-term impacts to soils by creating barren 
ground, cut slopes, and open excavations during the construction phase. Once 
construction is completed, the potential for erosion would be minimized 
because the majority of the area will be overlain by facilities or pavements. 

Table 4.4-4 shows the total acreage to be disturbed in each of the three phases 
(1993-1998,1998-2003, and 2003-2013) after closure. 


Table 4.4-4. Estimated Acreage to be Disturbed at 5,10, and 20 Year Intervals - Non-Aviation 

AHemative 


Land Use 

1993 

On-Base 

-1998 

Off-Base 

1998 

On-Base 

-2003 

Off-Base 

2003 

On-Base 

-2013 

Off-Base 

Total 

On-Base Off-Base 

Total 

Commercial/ 

Retail 

- 

- 

9 

- 

9 

- 

18 

18 

Industrial 

Business Park 

165 

- 

165 

- 

330 

- 

660 

660 

institutional 

Medical 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 


1 

1 

Education 

69 

- 

69 

- 

144 


282 

282 

Public 

12 

- 

- 

- 

- 


12 

12 

Recreation 

4 

- 

- 

- 

- 


4 

4 

Vacant Land 

15 

- 

- 

- 

- 


15 

15 

Residential 

709 

- 

921 

- 

1,140 


2,770 

2,770 

Total 


- 

1.164 

- 






Cumulative Effects. Cumulative effects on soils and geology would not be 
likely to occur under this alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. Potential mitigation measures would be similar to those 
discussed for the Proposed Action. 

4.4.1.6 Other Land Use Concepts. As described in Section 2.3.5, several 
federal transfers and independent land use concepts have been identified. 
These actions may take place in addition to one of the integrated reuse 
alternatives. 

U.S. Department of Justice. Potential impacts to soils may result from 
construction on undeveloped land. Impacts from erosion are expected to be 
short term during the construction phase when steep-walled trenches and 

4-118 George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 











barren soB are exposed. Once construction Is complete, the erosion potential 
wM be minimized by revegetation or the presence of overiytoig fadities. 

U.S. Department of interior. This transfer would not create any impacts to 
soils or geology because no construction would be required. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development This transfer would 
not create any impacts to soils or geology because renovations wll be minor 
and limited to painting, carpeting, and fixture replacement. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. This transfer would nd involve new 
construction, impacts to soiis and geology are insignificant. 

U.S. Department of Education. Impacts to sons and geology are expected to 
be insignificant because the majority of the properties/parcels are existirtg 
facilities. 

San Bernardino County Work Furlough Program, impacts to soils and 
geology to this action will be insignificant because new construction would be 
limited to minor renovation. 

Medical Facilities. Impacts to soil and geology as a result of the conveyance 
of the base hospital will be insignificant because new construction, if any, would 
be limited to minor renovation. 

4.4.1.7 No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative would result in no 
major new impacts to the soils and geology of the base area and the 
surrounding region. The construction operations associated with this alternative 
would be minimal or non-existent and restricted to maintenance-type activities. 

4.4.2 Water Resources 

The following sections describe the potential impacts on water resources as a 
result of the Proposed Action and reuse alternatives. Construction activities 
could alter soil profiles and natural drainages, which, in turn, may alter water 
flow patterns temporarily. All development will be outside the 100-year flood 
plain of the Mojave River; therefore, severe flooding should not be a problem. 

Projections of water demand are based on criteria used in Mojave Water 
Agency estimates that assume per capita water requirements (production) 
range from 180 to 257 gallons per day per person and that actual consumption 
(water lost through evaporation, etc., and not returned to the groundwater 
basin) is 50 percent of production. 


George AFB DisposaJ and Reuse FEIS 


4-119 










4.4^1 Proposad Action 


Surfaco Watar. Under the Proposed Action, sola in the airfield and aviatlorv 
support area would be compacted during construction arxl overlain by asphalt, 
asphaltic concrete, or buldings, creating Impervious surfaces that would cause 
increased storm water runoff to local storm sewers. Surfcice water and 
near-surface groundwater flow would be affected by the increased amount of 
Impervious surfaces around the site. Drainage patterns would be altered to 
divert water away from facilities and off of the runways. The acquired land north 
and northeast of Runway 17/35 would be most affected by these types of 
construction activities. Stormwater discharge (non-point source) from the 
airfield may contain waste oils and other contaminants, which could degrade 
surface water and groundwater resources. Since all surface water flow is 
directed to the Mojave River, which is the primary source of recharge to the 
Mojave RK/er Groundwater Basins, groundwater quality may be affected both 
locally and downstream. 

Groundwater. Under the Proposed Action projected water production and 
consumption for the years 1998,2003, and 2013 are shown in Table 4.4-5. 

Water demand will be about the same as current base demands in the year 
2003, and will exceed current base demand by 1 to 3 percent by the year 2013. 
In the year 2013 water production demand is expected to range from 4.8 to 
6.8 MGO (5,365 to 7,660 af/yr). It is assumed the water will be supplied by a 
local water purveyor. The 4.8 to 6.8 MOD water requirement is 1.7 to 2.4 times 
the current base production of 2.8 MGD but is expected to contribute only 
slightly to the overall drop in groundwater levels currently experienced in the 
Upper Mojave Basin. 


Table 4.4-5. Projected Water Demand - Proposed Action 


Increase Over 

Production Consumption Contribution to Current Base 
Year _ (MGD) _ (af/vr) _ Overdraft _ Operations 


1993 

— 

— 

— 

— 

1998 

1.5 to 2.1 

814 to 1,163 

1-2% 

About l%less 

2003 

3.0 to 4.3 

1,701 to 2,429 

3% 

0to1% 

2013 

4.8 to 6.8 

2,682 to 3,830 

4-5% 

1 to 3% 


Assuming that the entire water requirement is pumped from the local 
groundwater basin, and assuming 50 percent of production is returned to the 
groundwater basin through deep percolation from wastewater treatment plants, 
domestic irrigation, lakes, etc., the actual loss of groundwater from the basin 
under this alternative is estimated to range from 2,682 to 3,830 af/yr by the year 
2013. This would contribute to the existing overdraft condition, and to the 
projected 2013 consumption rate of 76,000 af/yr, by about 4 to 5 percent. 
Compared to the ba " werage annual consumption rate (assuming 


4-120 


George AFB jsai and Reuse FEIS 








50 percent is ratumsd to the groundvMtfar basin), this would resutt in a net 
increase in basin wide consumption by 1 to 3 percent in the year 2013. 

Groundwater withdrawal from the Upper Basin may have a negative impact on 
the avalabllty of water further downstream. Pumping more water from the 
Upper Basin would reduce the amount of water avalable to reach the basins 
downstream and limit the amount of water occurring as surfece flow at the 
Upper and Lower Narrows. Reduced surface flow at the Upper and Lower 
Narrows would result in negative environmental impacts to the biologic 
communities along the river (tui chub and other threatened and erKlartgered 
species, see Section 4.4.5). Reduced flow to the Middle and Lower Basins 
would further Increase overdraft conditions In these basins by reducing the 
amount of water being allowed to recharge this part of the basin. Beforethe 
new deveiopers/development agency could extract water from the Upper 
Mt^ave GrourKiwater Basin, they may be required to obtain a license from the 
State Water Resources Control Board. 

Cumulative Impacts. No other major projects have been identifed. Increased 
demand associated with the rapid regional growth has been taken into account 
in the analysis. Therefore, no cumulative impacts have been identified for the 
region. 

Mitigation Measures. To minimize porxling in new areas, construction designs 
should incorporate provisions for increased stormwater runoff. These mitigation 
measures would be incorporated into the design and construction of any new 
facilities. Construction designs would be required to account for the increased 
surfece runoff to the Mojave River in order to prevent groundwater quality 
degradation. To protect groundwater quality, the project may also be subject to 
the NPDES permit system for stormwater discharges during the construction 
period and for the duration of airport operation. This provision is contained in 
the NPDES Permit Application Regulations for Storm Water Discharges issued 
by the EPA as final nfle on November 16,1990. This permit is required for all 
construction activities that would disturb more than 5 acres and for major 
transportation faclities tfwl have vehicle maintenance areas, equipment 
cleaning areas, arxf airports. 

The Mojave Water Agency has been investigating ways to supplement 
groundwater sources in the Mojave Desert for several years. Any alternative 
that uses groundwater resources would contribute to the existing overdraft 
conditions currently experienced in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Mojave 
Basins. Extraction of grourxlwater resources may require a license from the 
State Water Resources Corftrol Board. Possible alternative sources of water 
include: 

• Purchase of the total 50,800 af/yr allotment from the State Water Project 

• Water conservation 

• Water reuse 

George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEiS 4-121 









• Water marketing (or water transfers) including vvater exchanges, vvaler 
rights sales, water ranching/farming, and interbasin trartsfers (Pimie. 1990) 

• Combined use of surtace and {^ourxfwater 

• Any corrdsinatlon of the above. 

Purchase of the 50,800 af/yr allotment from the State Water Project in itself 
would not be suffidera to solve the water shortage problems projected for this 
area even with no reuse at George AFB. In addition, with drouc^ conditions 
currently being experienced, the total allotment for the Mojave Basins may not 
be avalable from the SWP. 

4.4.2.2 International Airport Alternative 

Surface Water. Under the international Airport Alternative, approximately 
8,300 acres of undeveloped land north of the current base bourxfary would be 
graded, recontoured, paved, arxi have facilities constructed upon it. In the 
absence of a detailed airport layout plan it is assumed that over 50 percent of 
the airfield area will be overtdn by asphalt, asphaltic corrcrete, etc. and wn 
result in increased storm water runoff from this area. As a result, natural 
drainage patterns will be altered to divert water away from the airfield and 
aviation support areas. Extension of Runway 03/21 may alter the natural 
drainage of the industrial storm drain that runs from the southeast side of the 
flightline area, around the northeast erxl of the runway, and into the Mojave 
River. The approximately 8,300 acres north of the existing base wfll have the 
greatest impacts. Storm water discharge (non-point source) from the airfield 
may contain waste oils arxf other contaminants that could degrade local surtace 
and groundwater resources. 

Groundwater. Under the International Airport Alternative, water production and 
consumption for the years 1998,2003, and 2013 are shown in Table 4.4-6. As 
shown in this table, water demand wOi exceed the current base demand by 3 to 
5 percent in the years 1998 arxi 2003, and will exceed the current base demand 
by 5 to 8 percent in 2013. Groundwater production demand in 2013 is expected 
to range from 10.2 MGD to 14.6 MGD (11,428 af/yr to 16,318 af/yr). It is 
assumed that water will be provided by a local purveyor. The projected water 
requirement under this alternative is 3.6 to over 5 times the current average 
annual base production. 

If the entire water requirement is drawn from the groundwater supplies, this 
would contribute substantiaiiy to current and projected overdraft corxlitions. 
Assuming that 50 percent of the water is consumed (i.e., permanent loss from 
the groundwater basin), the actual loss of groundwater from the basin would be 
between 5,714 af/yr and 8,159 af/yr by the year 2013. This would contribute to 
the existing overdraft condition by a maximum of about 11 percent of the 


4-122 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










Tabl« 4.44. Projectad Watar Damand • Intamational Airport ARamatfva 


Year 

Production 

(MGD) 

Consumption 

(af/yr) 

(Contribution to 
Overdraft 

Increase Over 
Current Base 
Operations 

1993 



— 

— 

1996 

5.8 to 8.2 

3,225 to 5,246 

5to8% 

3 to 5% greater 

2003 

6.6 to 9.4 

3,674 to 5,246 

6to8% 

3 to 5% greater 

2013 

10.2 to 14.6 

5,714 to 8,159 

8to11% 

5 to 8% greater 


projected consumption rate in 2013. Assuming that base consumption is 
SO percent of the current production, the net increase in the contribution to the 
existing overdraft condttion would be between 5 and 8 percent by the year 2013. 

Cumulative Impacts. As with the Proposed Action, no cumulative impacts 
associated with water resources are expected in the region. 

Mitigation Measures. Under the International Airport Alternative construction 
designs need to account for increased storm water runoff. In addition, designs 
for the extension of Run\^y 03/21 will have to take into account the natural 
drainage pattern of the industrial storm drain that currently extends around the 
northeast side of the runway by either incorporating a drainage culvert urxfer 
the runway or some other means to allow continued drainage of the storm 
drain. The project may also be subject to the NPDES permit system for storm 
water discharges during the construction period and during airport operations. 
As with the Proposed Action, alternative sources of grourxlwater need to be 
reviewed on a regional basis if overdraft conditions are to be curtafled. The 
additional water requirements under this alternative will require alternative 
sources of water on a more rapid schedule. 

4.4.2.3 Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative 

Surteea Water. Effects on surface water are expected to be identical to those 
of the Proposed Action with the exception of effects related to off-base airfield 
and aviation-support areas, which would not be acquired under this alternative. 

Groundwater. Under the Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative, 
projected water production and consumption for the years 1996,2003, and 
2013 are shown in Table 4.4-7. Water demand is expected to be about equal to 
current base demand by the year 2013. In 2013 water production demand is 
projected to range from 2.5 to 3.6 MGD. Water is assumed to be supplied by a 
local water purveyor. Although this alternative would use about the same 
quantity of water as current base activities, any withdrawal of water from the 
groundwater basin would contribute to the existing overdraft corxiition and 
would create a negative impact. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-123 











Tabto 4.4*7. Prqiactad Watar Damand > Commarciai Airport with Raaidafrtial 

Altamativa 


Year 

Production 

(MGO) 

Consumption 

(af/yr) 

Contribution to 
Overdraft 

increase Over 
Current Base 
Operations 

1993 

— 


— 

— 

1998 

0.9 to 1.3 

506 to 722 

about 1% 

1 to 2% less 

2003 

1.6 to 2.2 

874 to 1,247 

1t0 2% 

Oto l%less 

2013 

2.5 to 3.6 

1,420 to 2,027 

2 to 3% 

about same 


Assuming that consumption wDi equai 50 percent of production, the estimated 
consumption for this aitemative is projected to range from 1,420 af/yr to 
2,027 af/yr by the year 2013. This wouid contribute a maximum of 3 percent of 
the projected 2013 consumption rate. The net increase over current base 
consumption to the existing overdraft condition wouid be a maximum of 
0.6 percent by the year 2013. 

Cumulative Impacts. No cumiriative impacts have been identified. 

Mitigation Measures. Types of mitigation measures wouid be the same as 
those identified under the Proposed Action, but wouid be required on a siower 
scheduie. 

4.4.2.4 General Aviation Center Aitemative 

Surtace Water. Effects on surface water are not expected to change over 
baseline conditions (i e-. closure) since most reuse activities are expected to 
take place in existing facBKies. 

Groundwater. Under the General Aviation Center Aitemative, projected water 
production and consumption for the years 1998.2003, and 2013 are shown in 
Table 4.4-8. As shown, water demand under this aitemative is not expected to 
exceed current base demand over the 20-year period. In 2013 water production 
demand is estimated to range from 1.5 MGD (1,714 af/yr) to 2.2 MGD 
(2,448 af/yr). Water is assumed to be supplied by a local water purveyor. The 
General Aviation Center is expected to require less water than current base 
operations. However, as with all reuse alternatives, any groundwater withdrawal 
from the groundwater system will contribute to the existing overdraft condition 
and wfll result in a negative impact 

Assuming consumption to be 50 percent of production, the estimated 
consumption for this aitemative would range from 857 af/yr to 1,224 af/yr. This 
would contribute about 2 percent of the projected consumption for the year 
2013. Assuming that base consumption is 50 percent of production, the net 


4-124 


George AFB Dispose and Reuse FEIS 









Tabl* 4.4-8. Projacted Watar Damand - Ganaral Aviation Cantar Altamativa 


Year 

Production 

(MGD) 

Consumption 

(af/yr) 

Contribution to 
Overdraft 

Increase Over 
Current Base 
Operations 

1993 



— 


1998 

1.0 to 1.5 

575 to 821 

about 1% 

1 to 2% less 

2003 

1.4 to 2.0 

790 to 1,128 

1 to 2% 

about 1%!^ 

2013 

1.5 to 2.2 

857 to 1.224 

1 to 2% 

about l%less 


contribution to overdraft condKioris wouid be about 1 percent iess than current 
base consumption values. 

Cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts have been identified in the region. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures would be similar to those identified 
under the Proposed Action, but wouid be required on a slower schedule. 

4.4.2.S Non-Aviation Alternative 

Surface Water. Effects on surface water would be minimal since all 
construction and/or demolition will be confined to existing base property. 
Residential and industrial development in the existing airfield area will require 
installation of stormwater sewer systems which should be incorporated into the 
construction design. Effects on surface and groundwater quality are expected 
to be positive from this attemative, since the inflow of industrial hazardous 
materials would be reduced. 

Groundwater. Under the Non-Aviation Alternative projected water production 
and consumption for the years 1998,2003, and 2013 are shown in Table 4.4-9. 
Water demarxf for this alternative is expected to be about the same as current 
base demand by the year 2013. In the year 2013 groundwater production 
demand is estimated to range from 2.2 to 3.2 MGO. It is assumed that water will 
be obtained by a local water purveyor. This alternative is projected to require 
about the same amount of water in 2013, as current base activities (average 
annual base production is 2.8 MGD). However, any withdrawal of water from 
the groundwater basin will contribute to the existing overdraft condition and will 
have a negative impact 

Assuming consumption to be 50 percent of production, the estimated 
consumption values for this alternative range from 1,260 af/yr to 1,799 af/yr. 

This would contribute about 2 percent of the projected annual consumption for 
2013. Assuming that base consumption is 50 percent of current production, the 
net increase in contribution to the existing overdraft condition would be a 
maximum of 0.3 percent by the year 2013. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-125 









TabI* 4.4>9. Protected Water Demand - Non*Aviation AHemative 


Year 

Production 

(MGD) 

Consumption 

(af/yr) 

Contribution to 
Overdraft 

Increase Over 
CivrentBase 
Operations 

1993 

— 


— 

— 

1998 

0.5 to 0.8 

308 to 440 

about 1% 

aboi4 2%less 

2003 

1.0 to 1.5 

573 to 818 

about 1% 

about l%less 

2013 

2.2 to 3.2 

1,260 to 1,799 

1 to 2% 

about the same 


Cumulative Impacts. No cumtJative impacts have been identified in the region. 

Mitigation Measures. Types of mitigation measures wouid be the same as 
those identified under the Proposed Action, but would be required on a slower 
schedule. 

4.4.2.6 Other Land Use Concepts. Only the proposed FCC requested by the 
BOP woidd result in an impact to water resources. The remaining federal 
transfers and independent land use concepts would not add significantly to the 
water shortage problems currently experienced or expected to be experienced 
In the future. 

Based on per-capita water production estimates of 180 to 257 gallons per 
person per day, water production requirements for this facility are estimated at 
between 0.4 and 0.8 MGD. When this federal transfer is overlain with the other 
reuse alternatives, a reduction in total population of about 10 percent for the 
Proposed Action and about 5 percent for the International Airport Alternative 
occurs. As a result, water requirements for these alternatives would likewise be 
reduced by the same amount. When this federal transfer is overlain with the 
Commercial Airport with Residential, General Aviation Center, and Non-Aviation 
alternatives, a net increase in regional population occurs (5 percent for 
Commercial with Residential and 8 percent with the Non-Aviation). As a result, 
water requirements for the region would similarly increase by the same amount. 
The overall effect on the groundwater basin would result in only a minor 
increase or decrease in groundwater levels. 

4.4.2.7 No-Action Alternative. Effects would be limited to positive changes in 
surface and groundwater qutdity. With very limited operations, inflow of new 
hazardous materials would be reduced. With no increase In personnel, 
contribution to the existing overdraft conditions would be very minimal, limited 
to water consumption by the 50 DMT employees for security and maintenance 
activities. 


4-126 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










Cumuiatlv* Impacts. With very limited activity, base-delated Impacts to water 
resources win be minimal; however, the corrtinued rapid growth in the desert 
communities w8l continue overdraft corKtitions of the grourvjwater basins. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures initiated by the Air Force wi not be 
necessary because no impacts are anticipated. Alternative sources of water wll 
stai be required for the communities. 

4.4.3 Air Quality 

Air quaiKy impacts couid occur during construction and operations associated 
with the Proposed Action and alternatives for the reuse of George AFB. 
Construction-related Impacts could result from fugitive dust (particuiate matter) 
and construction equipment emissions over an intermittent period of 20 years. 
Operational impacts couid occur from; (1) mobSe sources such as aircraft, 
aircraft operation support equipment, commercial transport vehicles, and 
personal vehicles; (2) point sources such as heating/power plants, generators, 
incinerators and storage tanks; and (3) secondary emission sources associated 
with a general population increase, such as residential heating. 

The methods selected to analyze impacts depend upon the type of air emission 
source being examined. The primary emission source categories associated 
with the Proposed Action and the alternatives include construction, aircraft, 
vehicles, point sources, and indirect source emissions related to population 
increase. Because construction phase emissions are generally considered 
temporary and not subject to air quality regulation, analysis is limited to 
estimating the amount of uncontrolled fugitive dust that may be emitted from 
disturbed areas. Analysis for point source and indirect source emissions 
consists of quantifying the emissions and evaluating how those emissions 
would affect progress toward attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS and 
CAAQS. The ambient effects of aircraft and mobile source emissions are 
analyzed by modeling. The Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System 
(EDMS) is used to simt^ate the dispersion of emissions from airport operations 
(USDOT, 1988). The model is run in a screening mode utilizing an array of 
1-hour worst-case meteorological conditions. 

The following assumptions were made in estimating the effects of the Proposed 
Action and alternatives; 

• For the following source categories, emission inventory amounts for 
PMia SO 2 , and CO are based on the ratio of source emissions to 
population, as defined by the 1987 emission Inventory for the San 
Bernardino County portion of the SEDAB (ARB,1990); fuel combustion; 
waste burning; solvent use; petroleum storage and transfer, industrial 
processes; miscelianeous processes (includes farming operations, 
construction and demolition, entrained road dust, fires, arid other natural 
sources); and off-road vehicles. Control measures implemented after 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-127 










1987 are assumed to provide only small percentage emission reductions 
for these source categories. 

• For the same source categories as above, arxl for the on-road vehicle 
category, emission inventory amounts for hydrocarbons (ROG) and NOx 
are based on the ratio of source emissions to population, as defined by the 
1991 Draft Air Quality Attainment Plan planning emission inventory 
forecasts (SBCAPCO, 1991). The planning inventory forecasts account for 
the effect of future control measures. 

• For the on-road vehicle category, emission inventory amounts for PMio, 
SO 2 , and CO are based on the ratio of source emissions to population, as 
defined by the 1987 emission inventory for the San Bernardino County 
portion of the SEOAB (ARB, 1990). In addition, a factor based on the 
change in mobile source vehicle emission rates (as predicted by the ARB's 
EMFAC7 emission rate program) is applied to account for the more 
stringent tailpipe exhaust emission standards that would apply in future 
years. 

• For the aircraft ground operation and aerospace ground equipment 
categories, emission inventory amounts are based on the ratio of 
emissions to flight operations, as defined by the 1988 George AFB 
inventory data. 


4.4.3.1 Proposed Action. Total estimated emissions of the Proposed Action 
are presented in Table 4.4-10 for the years 1993,1998, 2003, and 2013. The 
estimates of aircraft emissions contained in the table are based on EPA aircraft 
emission factors provided as part of the built-in data base of the EDMS model. 
The EDMS model uses the EPA emission factors and information on peak and 
annual LTO cycles to produce an emissions inventory report for the aircraft 
operations. Emissions for all other categories of emissions were calculated as 
described in Appendix L 


Table 4.4-10. Pollutant Emissions Associated with the Proposed Action (tons/day) 


Pollutant 

Attainment 

Level 

1987 Emissions 
Inventory Amount 

1993 

1998 

2003 

2013 

NOx 

94(b) 

134 

1.05 

3.38 

3.25 

7.79 

ROG 

35<"> 

50 

0.33 

1.74 

1.98 

3.05 

PM 10 

57<®> 

100 

0.03 

3.63 

7.17 

11.25 

S02 

275<") 

11 

0.06 

0.45 

0.85 

1.28 

CO 

560^**^ 

190 

1.00 

6.90 

11.71 

17.46 


Notes: 


(a) Emissions are from the San Bernardino County portion of the Southeast Desert Basin (ARB, 1990; 
SBCAPCD, 1991). 

(b) Area currently in rranattainment of ozone standard. Attainment projected to occur in 1994 
(SBCAPCO, 1991). 

(c) Area currently in nonattainment of PM 10 standards. Projected attainment date unknown. 
SBCAPCD currently preparing attainment plans for this pollutant. 

(d) Area currently attaining standards for this pollutant. 


Construction. Fugitive dust and combustive emissions would be generated 
during construction activities associated with airfield, aviation support. 


4-128 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 













Industrial, and commercial land uses. These emissions would be greatest 
during site clearing artd grading activities. Uncontroiied fugitive dust 
(particuiate matter) emissions from ground-disturbing activities would be 
emitted at a rate of 1.2 tons per acre per month (U.S. EPA, 1985a). The PMio 
fraction of the total fugitive dust emissions is assumed to be 50 percent, or 
0.6 tons per acre per month. 

it is estimated that construction of runway extensions and resurfacing of the 
existing runways, demolition and renovation of buDdings in the aviation support 
and commercial land use areas, and construction of an industrial business park 
in the industrial land use area would disturb a total of approximately 2.641 acres 
over the 20-year period of project development. The average amount of land 
area that would be disturbed at any one time during these construction activities 
is 132 acres. The average unmitigated amount of particuiate matter emissions 
would therefore be 158 tons per month (79 tons per month of PMio). The 
impact of these emissions would cause elevated short-term concentrations of 
particulates at receptors close to the construction areas. However, the elevated 
concentrations would be a temporary effect that would fall off rapidly with 
distance. 

Operation. Potential impacts to air quality as a result of air emissions from the 
operation of the Proposed Action were evaluated in terms of two spatial scales; 
regional and local. The regional-scale analysis considered the potential for 
project emissions to cause or contribute to a nonattainment condition in the 
San Bernardino County portion of the SEOAB. The local-scale analyses 
evaluated the potential impact to ambient air quality concentrations in the 
immediate vicinity of the Proposed Action. The following sections present the 
results of these analyses and provide a comparison of the potential air quality 
effects of the Proposed Action to the various project alternatives. 

Regional Scale 

The California Clean Air Act of 1988 (CCAA) (Chapter 1568 of the California 
Health and Safety Code) and the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 
(CAAA) establish a variety of air emission management and control 
requirements which will affect both existing arxl future sources of air pollution in 
the state of California. The CCAA in some respects is more restrictive than the 
CAAA in that the CCAA requires all air districts in California to achieve and 
maintain the CAAQS, which are set at lower levels than the corresponding 
NAAQS. The CCAA further requires each air district to achieve annual emission 
reductions of nonattainment pollutants of 5 percent or more until attainment is 
reached, compared to about 3 percent annual reductions under the CCAA. The 
CCAA also empowers the California air districts with the authority to impose a 
variety of transportation control measures and controls on irxiirect and area 
emission sources as required to reach and maintain attainment. 


George AFB Disposal ana Reuse FEIS 


4-129 









As a result, the evaluation of regional-scale impacts from the Proposed Action 
has considered the effect any new air emissions would have on the air quality 
attainment status of the Southeast Desert Air Basin. Because of the different 
requirements which apply to nonattainment pollutants versus attainment 
pollutants, this analysis is best subdivided by pollutant. The following 
paragraphs summarize the results of the regional-scale impact analysis. 

The SEDAB currently does not meet the CAAQS for ozone, and portions of the 
basin do not meet the NAAQS for ozone. However, since ozone is not a 
directly-emitted pollutant, emissions of its precursor pollutants NOx and ROG 
are regulated instead. The SBCAPCO has recently released a 1991 Draft Air 
Quality Attainment Plan (DAQAP) which describes the methods by which 
SBCAPCD plans to reduce the emissions of NOx and ROG in the SEDAB to 
meet the requirements of the CCAA and achieve attainment of the ozone 
standard (SBCAPCD, 1991). Based upon the analyses provided in the DAQAP, 
SBCAPCD has identified the level of basin-wide NOx and ROG emissions which 
would result in attainment of the ozone standard. Accounting for growth 
projections in the region, and factoring the effect of emission reduction 
measures (both existing and proposed), SBCAPCD has projected attainment of 
the CAAQS for ozone by 1994. 

The potential NOx and ROG emissions from the Proposed Action were 
evaluated in terms of how those emissions would affect SBCAPCD's progress 
toward attainment and maintenance of the CAAQS for ozone. Emission rates 
for NOx and ROG were calculated for the direct sources that would be 
associated with each alternative reuse action, as well as for emissions resulting 
from increased mobile vehicle activity and other indirect sources linked to direct 
and indirect population growth associated with the reuse alternative. These 
emission increases, after accounting for the source-specific reductions 
associated with SBCAPCD-pianned control measures, would be in addition to 
the emission levels projected in the DAQAP. 

Table 4.4-10 summarizes the results of the emission calculations for the 
Proposed Action for 0,5,10, and 20 year increments after closure (i.e., for the 
years 1993,1998,2003, and 2013, respectively). This table also provides a 
comparison of the magnitude of the reuse-related emissions in relation to the 
attainment level (the basin-wide level of emissions above which the area would 
be in nonattainment) and the 1987 emission inventory amount for the San 
Bernardino County portion of the SEDAB. Figures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 illustrate the 
relative level of NOx and ROG emissions, respectively, for the Proposed Action 
and each alternative in comparison to the 1987 basin-wide emission totals and 
the George AFB predosure emission level. 

These results show that emissions of NOx and ROG couid interfere with the 
process of reaching the attainment levels by the year 1994, and maintaining 
those levels after 1994. All NOx and ROG emissions associated with the 

4-130 George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 



EmiMlons (tona/day) 



EXPLANATION 


M Proposed Action 
International Airport 


NOx Emissions from 
George AFB Reuse 
Alternatives 


Figure 4.4-1 


George AFB Di^X)saI and Reuse FBIS 


4-131 











Emi««lont (tona/day) 



EXPLANATION 


P re poa nd Action 
Imemalonal Airport 


ROG Emissions from 
George AFB Reuse 
Alternatives 


Figure 4.4-2 


4-132 


GeofgeAFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










Proposed Action will therefore have to be mitigated to the fullest extent possftile. 
and the remaining portions wii have to be fuHy offset by the reduction of 
emissions from other sources in the area. Potential mttigation measures arxj 
the offset process are discussed below in the mitigation section of this text 

The San Bernardino County portion of the SEDAB does not currently meet the 
CAAQS and NAAQS for PMia The SBCAPCO is currently pr^jaring a OAQAP 
for PMio to evaluate the emission control measures which are necessary to 
achieve attainment. This information was not availabie for this EIS, so the PMio 
attainment level was estimated by assuming that the ratio of second highest 
observed 1987 PMio concentration to the PMio standard was the same as the 
ratio of the PMio 1987 emission baseline to the PMio attainment level. The 
attainment level calculated in this fashion is 57 tons per day, compared to the 
1987 baseline PMio emission level of 100 tons per day. However, since 
approximately 77 percent of the PMio emissions in the SEDAB are attributable 
to natural sources such as road dust and windblown dust, attainment of the 
CAAQS for PMio will be difficult to achieve by controlling the small contribution 
of emissions from other sources. 

Table 4.4-10 provides a comparison of the magnitude of the reuse-related 
emissions in relation to the estimated attainment level for PMio. Figure 4.4-3 
illustrates the relative level of PMio emissions for the Proposed Action and each 
alternative in comparison to the 1987 basin-wide emission total and the George 
AFB predosure emission level. These results show that emissions from the 
Proposed Action would interfere with the process of reaching attainment of the 
CAAQS and NAAQS for PMio. PMio emissions associated with the Proposed 
Action will therefore have to be mitigated to the fullest extent possible and the 
remainder offset by the reduction of PMio emissions from other sources in the 
area. 

The SEDAB currently meets the CAAQS and NAAQS for NOz, CO, and SOz. 
Because the area is in attainment for these pollutants, SBCAPCD has not made 
detailed estimates of future emissions of these pollutants, and has not been 
required to establish specific emission reduction measures (except for NOz, 
which is managed as a result of its precursor role as NOx in ozone 
nonattainment as described above). The process by which emissions of these 
attainment pollutants are prevented from creating a nonattainment condition is 
called Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). This process, which is 
currently administered by EPA in San Bernardino County until the APCD 
develops its own approved PSD program, limits the allowable ambient impact of 
emissions from new major stationary sources or major modifications to specific 
increments designed to prevent any significant degradation of the area’s 
acceptable air quality. However, the PSD process currently applies only to 
NOz, SOz, arxl particulate emissions (not CO), and does not provide a 
mechanism for dealing with non-stationary sources such as motor vehicles and 
akcraft. 


George AFB Disposa/and Reuse FEIS 


4-133 










EXPLANATION 

_ pnipoMd Action Goorge AFB Reuse 

• ■ . • Inistnalionai Airport Alternatives 


Rgure 4.4-3 


4-134 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 

















Most of the SO 2 and CO emissions associated with the Proposed Action and 
alternatives would arise from mobile sources. Because mobie sources do not 
trigger PSD analysis, and CO is not covered by PSD at all. this analysis 
examines the potential for these emissions to cause a nonattainment situation at 
some future time. To do this, it was necessary to estimate the basin-wide 
emission level for SO 2 and CO which would result in a nonattaiivnent condWon 
in the SEOAB. This was accomplished by comparirrg the 1987 baseline 
emission levels to the 1987 ambient concentrations for these pollutants as 
described above for PM 10 . The ‘attainment levels” calculated in ttiis fashion are 
275 tons per day for SO 2 and 560 tons per day for CO. compared to 1987 
baseline emission levels of 1 1 tons pet day and 190 tons per day, respectively. 

Table 4.4-10 summarizes the calculated emission rates for SO 2 and CO and also 
provides a comparison of the magnitude of the reuse-related emissions in 
relation to the estimated attainment levels for the two pollutants. Figures 4.4-4 
and 4.4-5 illustrate the relative level of SO 2 and CO emissions for the Proposed 
Action and each alternative in comparison to the 1987 basin-wide emission total 
and the George AFB predosure emission level. 

These results show that the Proposed Action emissions of SO 2 arxl CO will not 
be sufficient to jeopardize the attainment status for these pollutants. Current 
baseline emissions in the basin are well below the levels which would cause 
nonattainment, and the Proposed Action emissions are only a small fraction of 
the baseline. In addition, long-term emission trends prepared by the EPA 
indicate that both SO 2 and CO emissions are declining across the nation and 
wili continue to decline (U.S. EPA, 1991). The SOz emission decreases are 
attributed primarily to three general changes; (1) installation of fuel gas 
desulfurization controls, (2) reduction in the average sulfur content of fuels, and 
(3) implementation of emission controls on various industrial processes. CO 
emission reductions have been realized primarily due to the increasingly 
stringent motor vehicle emission control requirements. Emission reductions 
from these requirements have more than offset the CO increases related to 
population growth and increased vehicle miles traveled. 

Local Scale 

The impacts of emissions associated with operation of the Proposed Action 
commercial airport were assessed by use of the Emissions and Dispersion 
Modeling System. The EDMS was developed by the FAA and the U.S. Air 
Force specifically to prepare airport or air base emission inventories, and to 
calculate the concentrations caused by these emissions as they disperse 
downwind. Peak-hour scenarios for emissions from both aircraft operations and 
vehicle traffic serving the airport were modeled. A variety of worst-case 
meteorological conditions which combined 1 meter per second windspeed with 
A, D, or F stability class were used as input in conjunction with wind directions 
both parallel and perpendicular to the runways and major terminal roadways. 

George AFB Disposal end Reuse FEIS 4-135 




aoo 










Ambient temperature was assumed to be 70^F, and traffic on the roadways was 
assumed to be operating in a 20 percent coid start mode, whie traffic in the 
parking areas was assumed to be 80 percent cokJ start EPA conversion factors 
were used to convert the modei-predicted 1-hotv impact results to conservative 
screening-ievei estimates of longer averaging period corx;entrations (U.S. EPA, 
1977). The actual long-term averages would be less than the values produced 
by use of the conversion factors. 

A summary of the EDMS analysis is presented in Table 4.4-11. The results show 
that for a peak-hour airport operation scenario, the maximum 1-hour pollutant 
concentration would occur at a receptor located along the airport property 
boundary downwind from the northeast end of the NE-SW runway (Runway 
03/21). This receptor is located along the centerline of the runway, and is 
approximately 4,000 feet from the end of the runway. The primary contritxition 
to the impact at this location is from the aircraft exhaust emitted during takeoffs. 
The modeling results indicate that NO 2 concentrations would exceed standards 
in the immediate area surrounding the airport, in particular, that area extending 
from the ends of the runways. 


Table 4.4-11. Air Quality Modeling Results for the Proposed Action 

Averaging Project Impact*** Background Limiting 

Pollutant Time 1993 1998 2003 2013 Concentration^^ Standard' 


CO 

8-hour 

60 

638 

818 

1,224 

4.5<)0 

10,000 


1-hour 

86 

911 

1,169 

1.749 

7,424 

40,000 

N 02 

Annual 

91 

94 

98 

100 

25 

100 


1-hour 

619 

646 

692 

711 

172 

470 

S 02 

Annual 

7 

9 

11 

13 

5 

80 


24-hour 

29 

37 

44 

50 

47 

131 


3-hour 

65 

84 

100 

113 

121 

1,300 


1-hour 

73 

94 

111 

126 

121 

655 

PM 10 

Annual 

(geometric) 

1.8 

3.0 

2.9 

3.3 

44.1 

30 


Annual 

(arithmetic) 

1.8 

3.0 

2.9 

3.3 

48.1 

50 


24-hour 

7.1 

12.2 

11.7 

13.2 

112 


Notes: (a) 

Maximum impact in all cases occurred at a receptor located on the property line approximately 4,000 feet downwind 


from tho norttiMSt ond of tfM NE-SW runway (Runway 03/21). 

(b) Background coiKantrations assumed to equal the mean of first-high values monitored at the Victorville, Phelan, and 
Hesperia rrwnitoring stations during 1987 to 1989. 

(c) Nitrogen dioxide impact concentrations caiculated by use of the ozone limiting method of Cole and Summarhays 
(1979). Tan percent of NOkSSsumed to be themrally converted to N02- Conversion of the remainder of NOx to NO 2 
is limited by the background corwentration of ozone. Background ozone concentrations assumed to equal the mean 
of first-high values numitored st^e Victorville, Phelan, and Hesperia mooitoring stations during 1987 to 1989:1-hour 
ozone background « 406/<g/m'*; annual ozone background •> 70><g/m'^. 


4-138 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








PMio concentfations may also exceed standards when added to the 
background concentratloa However, the actual PMio backgrourxJ 
concentration which woiM occur in future years is not known with certainty. 

The PMio background may decline in future years if new controi strategies are 
impiemented and successfii, but this does not seem likely given the large 
amount of uncontrollable natural sources of PMio within the SEDAB. 

Cumulative Impacts. No other projects have been identified that would cause 
adverse cumulative air quality impacts as a result of development of the 
Proposed Action. Development of the proposed SST would be beneficial to air 
quality because emissions associated with vehicle transport of passengers to 
and from the airport would be reduced. 

Mitigation Measures. Air quality impacts during construction would occur 
from (1) fugitive dust emissions from ground-disturbing activities and 
(2) combustive emissions from construction equipment. The future project 
proponent (e.g., redevelopment authority or airport authority) would have the 
responsibility of mitigating these impacts. Vigorous water application during 
ground-disturbing activities would mitigate fugitive dust emissions by at least 
SO percent (U.S. EPA, 1985). Decreasing the time period during which newly 
graded sites are exposed to the elements would further mitigate fugitive dust 
emissions by some factor directly related to the reduction in exposure time. 
Combustive emission impacts could be mitigated by efficient scheduling of 
equipment use, implementing a phased construction schedule to reduce the 
number of units operating simultaneously, and performing regular vehicle 
engine maintenance. The amount of emission reduction provided by these 
measures is not known with certainty because of the potential variables in 
scheduling. However, it is estimated that implementation of these measures 
would substantially reduce combustive emissions and air quality effects from 
construction activities associated with the Proposed Action by 10 to 25 percent. 
In addition, all aviation development during the construction phase would 
comply with measures contained in the FAA Standards for Specifying 
Construction of Airports (FAA, 1990). 

Air quality operational mitigation measures and offset purchases would be 
necessary to eliminate any interference with attainment and maintenance of the 
CAAQS and NAAQS due to increased emissions from the Proposed Action. As 
previously discussed, mitigations and offsets will therefore be required to 
eliminate emission increases of NOx, ROG, and PMio- Mitigation measures 
would have to be developed by the project proponent (the redevelopment 
agency or the airport authority). These measures would have to be coordinated 
with the SBCAPCD and the ARB in order to ensure consistency with local and/or 
regional air quality attainment plans. 

Potential mitigation measures would most likely focus on some type of land use 
or transportation planning and management measures to reduce motor vehicle 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-139 









poHutioa The purpose of the measures would be to reduce vehicle mies 
travelled, vehicle trips, and peak hour travel. These reductions would, therefore, 
reduce both regional and localized vehldeH-eiated emissions of NOx. ROG, and 
PMio. 

The types of operational mitigation measures that could be implemented 
include: (1) development of a comprehensive airport shuttle system to reduce 
personal vehicle use; (2) use of off-site parking aixi parking lot shuttles for 
long-term parking needs; (3) development of a light rai or trolly (electric) 
transportation system to service the airport; (4) promotion of carpoois and 
vanpoois by providing a rider matching service, preferential parking and 
financial incentives; (5) financial incentives to encourage the use of public 
transit; (6) improvements such as bicyde lanes, storage facilities and showers 
to increase the use of bicyding as a mode of transportation; and (7) on-site 
location of facilities that wodd reduce the need for off-site travel (e.g., childcare 
facilities, cafeterias, postal machines, automated tellers, etc.). 

The amount of emission reduction achieved would depend on the particular 
mitigation measures selected. Emissions remaining after application of ail 
practicable mitigation measures would have to be offset by reducing simPar 
pollutant emissions from other area sources by a ratio greater than one for one. 
Emission offsets are generally obtained by methods such as: (1) direct 
purchase and shutdown of an emitting source; (2) installation on existing 
sources of new or additional control equipment beyond that which is currently 
required by regulation; and (3) innovative and non-traditionai methods such as 
construction of bus shelters to induce increased mass transit ridership, buying 
and renKsving from service older model on-road vehicles, or paving of unpaved 
parking and road areas to reduce particulate emissions. 

The SBCAPCD recently proposed New Souri view (NSR) regulations that 
would establish a system for acquiring, banking, and transferring air emission 
reduction credits. These rules are expected to be approved by EPA in 1992. 

NSR is a process used to determine whether the construction or modification of 
stationary sources of air pollutant emissions wPI interfere with attainment or 
maintenance of a NAAQS. A major new source or major modification to an 
existing source located in a nonattainment area for a pollutant to be emitted by 
the proposed source or modification would be required to obtain offsetting 
emission reductions for the pollutant or its precursors prior to construction or 
modification. 

Offsetting emission reductions, or emission reduction credits, can be obtained 
by the shutdown or permanent curtaPment of emissions of the applicable 
pollutants from existing sources. Under the SBCAPCD proposed rules, owners 
of existing stationary sources that permanently shutdown or curtaP operations 
may apply for emission reduction credit certificates. The owner must apply 

George AFB DisposaJ and Reuse FEIS 


4-140 






within 90 days after shutdown or curtaUment and must provide the necessary 
emissions calculation data. Emission reduction credits that become avalabte 
due to the failure of the owner of the emitting facility to timely file for the 
certificates would be forfeited. The amount of emission reducUon credits 
received will depend on whether the emitting source employed reasonably 
available control technology (RACT). RACT is technology required by Section 
172 of the Qean Air Act to be installed on existing major sources in 
nonattainment areas and reflects controls identified in EPA guidance to the 
states as necessary in ozone nonattainment areas. If the unit employed RACT, 
the available ERCs equal the actual reduction in emissions. If RACT was rK>t 
used prior to shutdown or curtailment, the avaSable ERCs equal the amours of 
emissions that would have been emitted if the unit had operated with RACT. 

The ERC certificates may be used, held for later use, or transferred in whole or 
in part When eventually used to offset emission increases from a new or 
modified stationary source, a penalty in the form of varying offset ratios (ratio of 
ERCs to increased emissions from a new or modified source) may be imposed 
depending on the distance of the new or modified source from the shutdown or 
curtailed source that generated the ERC. The following table lists the offset 
ratios based on location of the new or modified source requiring the offset from 
the shutdown or curtailed source: 


Location Offset flatio 

Within the same source 1 to 1 

Within 15 miles of the source 1.2 to 1 

15 to 49 miles of the source and within air basin 1.5 to 1 

50 to 100 miles, and within air basin 2.0 to 1 

More than 100 miles, and within air basin 3.0 to 1 


The SBCAPCD will use the ERC program as part of its Air Quality Attainment 
Plan to reduce overall air emissions and attain compliance with the state and 
federal air quality standards. As described above, the ERC program obtains 
reductions in overall emissions by imposing a RACT forfeiture and offset 
penalties. 

The permanent shutdown or curtailment of existing stationary sources of air 
pollutants at George AFB could result in a significant amount of available ERCs 
for precursors to ozone and a moderate amount of ERCs for PMia Due to the 
RACT forfeiture and offset penalties associated with ERCs, the permanent 
shutdown or curtailment of all or a portion of existing stationary sources at 
George AFB could contribute to reductions in overall emissions within the 
district. The extent of impact would depend on how the reuse and development 
activities are subject to NSR and where they obtain any necessary emission 


George AFB Disposd and Reuse FEIS 


4-141 











reduction offsets prior to construction or modification of major sources of air 
poUutant emissions. 

Transfer or conveyance, without permanent shutdown or curtaBment, of existing 
emitting sources at George AFB to reuse organizations would not result in 
accumulation of ERCs for those sources. A change of ownership of the sources 
without permanent shutdown or curtailment of emissions would require the new 
owner to apply to the SBCAPCD for a permit to operate. The new owner would 
not be subject to NSR requirements so long as the new owner proposed to 
operate the existing emitting source without modification or change in operating 
conditions. Under those circumstances, the application for a new permit to 
operate would serve as a temporary permit for operation of the existing emitting 
source. 

Emission offsets are often difficult to obtain and may require a large 
commitment of time and money in order to do so. As was the case for 
mitigation measures, the future project proponent must therefore establish a 
dialogue with the SBCAPCD and the ARB well in advance of project initiation in 
order to ensure that the necessary amount of offsets will be established, found, 
and properly credited. 

4.4.3.2 International Airport Alternative. The primary difference between this 
alternative and the Proposed Action is the size of the aircraft operations. The 
large airfield, airport, and aviation support areas associated with the 
International Airport operations would increase the amount of air traffic and 
population-related emissions. 

Construction. Construction impacts from this alternative would be greater than 
under the Proposed Action because of the large amount of development 
needed for the airport and aviation-support areas. It is estimated that a total of 
7,087 acres will be disturbed by construction over the 20-year period of project 
development Approximately 354 acres would be disturbed at any one time 
during this period, resulting in unmitigated particulate matter emissions of 
425 tons per month (213 tons per month of PMio). The impact of these 
emissions would cause elevated concentrations of particulates at receptors 
close to the construction areas. The concentrations would fall off rapidly wKh 
distance from the construction areas. 

Operation. Table 4.4-12 sutnmarizes the results of the emission calculations for 
the International Airport Alternative for the 5,10, and 20 year increments (i.e., for 
the years 1998,2003, and 2013, respectively). Emissions for the year 2013 
increase substantially over the year 2003 emissions, particularly in the case of 
NOx, ROG, and CO. These large increases are a result of the large number of 
aircraft operations occurring in the year 2013, which causes queuing to take 
place on the taxiways prior to takeoff. Queue length and queue time increase 
as a function of the number of planes attempting to take off during any given 


4-142 


George AFB DisposaJ and Reuse FEIS 




Table 4.4-12. Pollutant Emissions Associated with the International Abport Alternative 

(tona/day) 


Pollutant 

Attainment 

Level 

1987 Emissions 
Inventory Amount 

1998 

IIBHIIII 

2013 

NOx 


134 

7.31 

12.98 

47.67 

ROG 

35<^) 

50 

3.53 

3.99 

52.51 

PMio 

57<®) 

100 

1.89 

15.44 

25.99 

SO 2 

275<‘‘' 

11 

0.42 

2.72 

6.49 

CO 

560<^> 

190 

13.32 

29.14 

181.13 


NotM; 


(a) Emiasiont ara from tha San Bamardino County portion of tha Southaaat Daaart Basin (ARB, 1990; 
8BCAPCO, 1991). 

(b) Araa currantiy in nonattainmant of ozons standard. Attainmant projactad to occur in 1994 (SBCAPCO, 
1991). 

(c) Araa currantiy in rwnattainmant of PMio standards. Projactad attainmant data unknown. 

SBCAPCO currantiy praparing attainmant plans for this pollutant. 

(d) Araa currantiy attaining standards for this pollutant. 


time period; queue times of up to 50 minutes can be experienced during peak 
takeoff hours. Large amounts of emissions are released as the aircraft wait in 
the takeoff queue. Queuing emissions account for 14.8 joercent of the total NOx 
emissions from all emission source categories combined (refer to Appendix I,), 
68.5 percent of total CO emissions, and 81.0 percent of total ROG emissions. 
This table also provides a comparison of the magnitude of the reuse-related 
emissions in relation to the attainment level (the basin-wide level of emissions 
above which the area would be In nonattainment) and the 1987 emission 
inventory amount for the San Bernardino County portion of the SEDAB. 

These results show that emissions of NOx, ROG, and PMio could interfere with 
the process of reaching and maintaining attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS. 
All NOx, ROG, and PMio emissions associated with the International Airport 
Alternative will therefore have to be mitigated to the fullest extent possible, and 
the portions remaining after mitigation will have to be fully offset by reducing 
emissions of these pollutants from other sources in the area. Section 4.4.3.1 
(Regional Scale) provides a discussion of the PSD program currently 
administered by EPA in San Bernardino County. 

Most of the SOz and CO emissions associated with the International Airport 
Alternative and alternatives would arise from mobile sources. Because mobfle 
sources do not trigger PSD analysis, and CO is not covered by PSD at all, this 
analysis examines the potential for these emissions to cause a nonattainment 
situation at some future time. 

Table 4.4-12 summarizes the calculated emission rates for SO 2 and CO and also 
provides a comparison of the magnitude of the reuse-related emissions in 
relation to the estimated attainment levels for the two pollutants. These results 
indicate that the International Airport Alternative emissions of SO 2 and CO 


George AFB DisposaJ and Reuse FEIS 


4-143 







would not be sufficient to jeopardize the attainment status for these pollutants. 
Current baseline emissions in the basin are well below the levels which would 
cause nonattainment, and the International Airport Aitemative emissions (with 
the exception of year 2013 CO emissions) are only a small fraction of the 
baseline. In addition, long-term emission trends prepared by the EPA indicate 
that both SO 2 and CO emissions are declining throughout the nation and wM 
continue to decline (U.S. EPA, 1991). The large amount of CO emissions 
associated with the Intematiorud Airport Aitemative in the year 2013 is primarily 
due to increased traffic congestion and queueing of aircraft during peak 
operatiortai hours. The CO ton per day amount is nearly equivalent to the entire 
1987 baseline emissions for the basin. Nonetheless, current baseline emissions 
are so low that the addition of the project CO emissions to the baseline would 
still not exceed the estimated attainment level of emissions. 

The Impacts of emissions associated with oF>eration of the International Airport 
Aitemative were assessed by use of the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling 
System. Included in the modeling were peak hour scenarios for both aircraft 
operations and vehicle traffic serving the airport. Meteorological condKions and 
other parameters input into the model were the same as previously described 
for the modeling of the Proposed Action. EPA conversion factors were used to 
convert the model-predicted 1-hour impacts to conservative screening-level 
estimates of longer averaging period concentrations (U.S. EPA, 1977). The 
actual long-term averages would be less than the values produced by use of the 
conversion factors. 

A summary of the EDMS analysis is presented in Table 4.4-13. The results show 
that for a peak hour airport operation scenario, two high concentration locations 
would be produced. The maximum 1-hour CO pollutant concentration would 
occur at a receptor located along the airport property boundary approximately 
5,000 feet downwind from the main terminal roadway. The primary contribution 
to the impact at this location is from on-road vehicle exhaust. Maximum impact 
for all other pollutants occurred at a receptor located on the property line 
approximately 11,250 feet downwind from the south end of the north-south 
runway. The primary contribution to the impact at this location is from aircraft 
exhaust emitted during takeoffs. 

The modeling results indicate that NO 2 concentrations would exceed standards 
in the immediate area surrounding the airport, in particular, that area extending 
from the ends of the runways. NO 2 1 -hour concentrations would exceed 
standards during each modeled year of the project, but would get progressively 
worse until concentrations in the year 2013 were approximately three times 
higher than the CAAQS. Emissions of SO 2 and PM 10 would cause exceedance 
of the CAAQS and NAAQS beginning sometime between the years 2003 and 
2013. Emissions and concentrations Increase dramatically when the airport 
begins to reach capacity during this time period and traffic congestion and 
aircraft queueing on the runways begins to occur. 


4-144 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





TabI* 4.4-13. Air QuaMy Modallng Raaiilta for tha Inlamational Airport Altamativa ^g/m*) 


PoHutant 

Averaging _ 
Time 

1998 


2013 

_ Background 
Concentration^' 

Limitinfi 

Standard^^ 

CO 

8-hour 

2.150 

2.702 

5.432 

4.500 

10.000 


1-hour 

3.072 

3.860 

7.760 

7.424 

40.000 

N02^’ 

Annual 

31 

79 

156 

25 

100 


1-hour 

310 

497 

1.271 

172 

470 

SO 2 

Annual 

1 

5 

150 

5 

60 


24-hour 

6 

19 

596 

47 

131 


3-hour 

13 

43 

1.346 

121 

1.300 


1-hour 

14 

48 

1.496 

121 

655 

PM 10 

Annual 

(geometric) 

0.2 

0.6 

98 

44.1 

30 


Annual 

(arithmetic) 

0.2 

0.6 

98 

48.1 

50 


24'hour 

0.7 

2.4 

394 

112 

150 


Notes: (a) Tha maximum 1-hour CO poNutent oonoantration ufouM occur at a racaptor Iccated along tha airport proparty 
boundary approximately 5,000 faat downwind from ttw main terminal roadway. Maximum Impart tor aN olhar 
pollutante ooeurrad at a racaptor located on tha proparty lina approximately 11,250 teat downwind from tha south 
and of tha north-south ninway. 

(b) Background oonoantrationsasaumad to aqual tha maan of first-high valuasmonitorad at tha Vlctorvilla,Phalan, and 
Hasparla monitoring stations during 1957 to 1909. 

(c) NHrogandioxida Impart concantrations calculated by usa of tha ozona limiting rnolhod of Cola and Summarhays 
(1979). Tan paroant of NOx assumad to ba frtermatly converted to N02. Conversion of tha ramaindar of NOx to NO2 
is limited by tha background oonoantration of ozorta. Background ozorw concantrations assumed to equal tha maan 
of first-high values monitorad at^ VlrtorviHa, Phelan, and Hesperia moghoring stations during 1957 to 1959:1-hour 
ozorw background > 405><g/m ; annual ozona background > TOpgAn . 


CumuiBifv* Impacts. Cumulative impacts are the same as those provided for 
the Proposed Actioa 

Mitigation Measuraa. Mitigation measures and offset purchases are the same 
as those recommended for the Proposed Action (Section 4.4.3.1). 

4.4.3.3 Commercial Airport with Residential Aitemative. This alternative 
differs from the Proposed Action in that approximately 2.000 acres of land are 
used for residential areas rather than for aviation support, commercial and 
industrial uses. Also, unlike the Proposed Action, the airfield area is not 
expanded under this aitemative. However, the number and type of aircraft 
operations is assumed to remain the same as for the Proposed Action. 

Construction. Construction Impacts fry this aitemative would be less than for 
the Proposed Action because of reduced disturbance in the airfield and aviation 
support areas, it is estimated that a total of 2.568 acres wM be disturbed over 
the 20-year iHe of the profect Approximately 128 acres would be disturbed at 
any one time during this period resulting in unmitigated particuiate matter 
emissions of 154 tons per month (77 tons per month of PM 10 ). Theimpactof 

George AfB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-145 






these einisskm wcmM CUM altvated oonc8i«ritions of particutato at recapton 
located dose to the constructkjn areas. Haeuver, the elevated coriceritrations 
would be a temporary effect that vvoiid rapkfly decrease with distarice from the 
construction areas. 

Operation. Table 4.4-14 summarizes the results of the emission calculations hx 
theCommerdal Airport with Residential Alternative for 0, S. 10, and 20 year 
increments after closure (Le . for the years 1093.1908,2003, and 2013, 
respectively). This table also provides a comparison of the magnitude of the 
reuse-related emissions In relation to the attainment level (the basin-wide level 
of emissions above which the area would be in nonattainment) and the 1987 
emission inventory arrKxmt for the San Bernardino County portion of the 
SEDAB. 


Table 4.4-14. Pollutant Emissions Associated with the Commercial Airport with 

Residential Alternative (tons/day) 


Pollutant 

Attainment 

Level 

1987 Emissions 
Inventory Amoieit ^ 

1993 

1998 

liHijSSli 

2013 

NOx 

94<^» 

134 

1.05 

2.61 

3.54 

4.54 

ROG 

35 W 

SO 

0.33 

0.95 

1.23 

1.42 

PMio 

57<®> 

100 

0.03 

2.18 

3.71 

5.98 

SO 2 

27S<‘‘’ 

11 

0.06 

0.32 

0.48 

0.73 

_ 


190 

1.00 


7.23 

10.80 


NotM: (a) EmiaaiOfW «• from ttM San BamaidinoCotmtypoftion of the SoulliMatOMMt Basin (ARB. 1990; 
SBCAPCO. 1991). 

(b) Araa currantly in nonattainntant of ozono standard. Attainmsnt projactsd to occur in 1994 (SBCAPCO, 
1991). 

(c) Aroa currantly in nonattainmarrt of PMioatandards. Projactsd attainmant data unknown. 

SBCAPCO currantly praparing attainmsnt plans for this poUutant 

(d) Aroa currantly atlakiing standards for this poltutant 


These results show that emissions of NOx. ROG. and PMio, although relatively 
smaH in comparison to baseline inventory amounts, could interfere with the 
process of reaching and maintaining attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS. Ail 
NOx, ROG. and PMio emissions associated with the Commercial Airport with 
Residential Alternative would, therefore, have to be mitigated to the fullest extent 
possible, and the portions remaining alter mitigation offset by reducing 
emissions of these pollutants from other sources in the area. Section 4.4.3.1 
(Regional Scale) provides a discus^on of the PSD program curremiy 
administerd by EPA in San Bernardino County. 

Table 4.4-14 summarizes the calculated emission rates for SOz arxi CO and also 
provides a comparison of the ma^piltude of the reuse-related emissions in 
relation to the estimated attairwnent levels for the two pollutants. Theseresults 
indicate that the Commerdai Alport with Residential Alternative emissions of 
SO 2 and CO would not be sufficient to jeopardize the attainment status for these 
pollutants. Current baseline wnissions In the basin are well below the levels 


4-146 


George AFB Disposal and Reu^ FEIS 






which would cause nonattainment, and the Commercial Airport wtth Residentiai 
Alternative emissions are only a small fraction of the baseline. In addition, 
long-ts^ emission trends prepared by the EPA indicate that both SOa and CO 
emissions are dedining throughout the nation and wll continue to dedine 
(U.S. EPA, 1991). 

The impacts of emissions associated with operation of the airport under this 
alternative were assessed by use of the Emissions artd Dispersion Modeling 
System. The airport operations for this alternative are assumed to be the same 
as for the Proposed Action. Therefore, ait inputs and results for this alternative 
are the same as previously described for the modeling of the Proposed Action. 
Please refer to Section 4.4.3.1 for a description of the results. 

Cumulative Impacts. No other projects have been identified that would cause 
adverse cumulative air quality Impacts as a result of development of the 
Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures and offset purchases are the same 
as those recommended for the Proposed Action (Section 4.4.3.1). 

4.4.3.4 General Aviation Center Alternative. The General Aviation Center 
Alternative would convert the existing airfield and aviation support areas to 
private aviation use. The airfield activity and number of annual flights associated 
with this alternative would be lower than urxier the Proposed Action. A minimal 
amount of new construction is proposed under this alternative, and 
approximately SO percent of the base would remain vacant 

Construction. Some fugitive dust and combustive emissions would be 
generated during activities associated with construction of new aviation support 
faclities arxf renovation of buPdings in the commercial and residential land use 
areas. It is estimated that a total of only 220 acres wUI be disturbed by 
construction during the life of this project alternative. An average of 11 acres 
would be disturbed at any one time, resulting in an unmitigated amount of 
particulate matter emissions equal to 13 tons per month (6.5 tons per month of 
PMio). The impact of these emissions would cause elevated short-term 
concentrations of particulates at receptors dose to the construction areas. 
However, the elevated concentrations would be a temporary effect that would 
foil off rapidly with distance. 

Operation. Table 4.4-15 summarizes the results of the emission calculations for 
the General Aviation Center Alternative. This table also provides a comparison 
of the magnitude of the reuse-related emissions in relation to the attainment 
level (the basin-wide level of emissions above which the area would be in 
nonattainment) and the 1987 emission inventory amount for the San Bernardino 
County portion of the SEDAB. 


George AFB Disposal and BeuseFElS 


4-147 





Tabl« 4.4>15. Poautanl Emissions Associstsd with ths Gsnsrsi Aviation Cantor Aitamativa 

(lont/day) 


Pollutant 

Attainment 

Level 

1987 Emissions 
Inventorv Amount 

1998 


2013 

NOx 

94^®J 

134 

1.38 

1.73 

1.71 

ROG 

35<**> 

50 

0.60 

0.54 

0.66 

PMio 

57<») 

100 

2.43 

3.30 

3.60 

SOz 

275*^^ 

11 

0.25 

0.35 

0.39 

_ 

560*" 

_ ]SSl _ 

3.72 

4.86 



NotM: (a) Emiaaiora ara from tiM San Bernardino County portion of thaSoulhMttOaMrt Basin (ARB, 1990; 

SBCAPCO, 1991). 

(b) Area currently in nonattainment of ozone standard. Attainment projected to occur in 1994 (SBCAPCO, 


1991). 

(e) Area currently in nonattainment of PMio standards. Projected attainment date unknown. 

SBCAPCO currently preparing attainment plans for this pollutant 
(d) Area currently attaining standards for this pollutant 


These results show that emissions of NOx, ROG, and PMio, although relatively 
small in comparison to baseline inventory amounts, could interfere with the 
process of reaching and maintaining attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS. All 
NOx. ROG, and PMio emissions associated with the General Aviation Center 
Alternative would therefore have to be mitigated to the fuliest extent possible, 
and the portions remaining after mitigation offset by reducing emissions of 
these pollutants from other sources in the ama. 

Section 4.4.3.1 (Regional Scale) provides a discussion of the PSD program 
currently administerd by EPA in San Bernardino County. 

Table 4.4-15 summarizes the calculated emission rates for SOg and CO and also 
provides a comparison of the magnitude of the reuse-related emissions in 
relation to the estimated attainment levels for the two pollutants. These results 
indicate that the General Aviation Center Alternative emissions of SOz and CO 
would not be sufficient to jeopardize the attainment status for these pollutants. 
Current baseline emissions in the basin are well below the levels which would 
cause nonattainment, and the General Aviation Center Alternative emissions are 
only a small fraction of the baseline. In addition, long-term emisston trends 
prepared by the EPA indicate that both SOz and CO emissions are declining 
throughout the nation and wfll continue to decline (U.S. EPA, 1991). 

The impacts of emissions associated with operation of the airport under this 
alternative are expected to be simSar, albeit somevdiat less, than the impacts 
associated with the Proposed Action. The maximum amount of aircraft 
operations under the Proposed Action scenario is 76,000 while the maximum 
number for the General Aviation Center Alternative is 54,000. (Refer to Section 
4.4.3.1 for a description of the results of the Proposed Action modeling and 
impacts.) 


4-148 


George AFB DisfiosaJ end Reuse FEIS 








CufiHilativ* impacts. No other projects have been (dentWed that would cause 
adverse cumulativa air quality Impacts with this alternative. The proposed SST 
wodki provide beneficial air quality impacts by reducing the amount of 
emissions associated ^h vehide transport of spectators to and from the airport 
during air shows. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures and offset purchases are the same 
as those recommended for ttte Proposed Action (Section 4.4.3.1). 

4.4.3.5 Non*Aviation Alternative. The Norv-Aviation Alternative would 
eliminate the airfield and aviation support areas and convert the base property 
to entirely industrial, institutiortal, commercial, residential, and recreational uses. 

Construction. Construction impacts tor this alternative would be approximately 
the same as those for the Proposed Action. It is estimated that a total of 
3,762 acres will be disturbed by construction during the life of this project 
alternative. Approximately 188 acres would be disturbed at any point in time 
during this period, resulting in unmitigated particulate matter emissions of 
226 tons per month (113 tons per month of PMio). The impact of these 
emissions would cause elevated concentrations of particulates at receptors 
located dose to the construction areas. However, the elevated concentrations 
would be a temporary effect the would rapidly decrease with distance from the 
construction areas. 

Operation. Table 4.4-16 summarizes the results of the emission calculations for 
the Non-Aviation Alternative. This table also provides a comparison of the 
magnitude of the reuse-related emissions in relation to the attainment level (the 
basirt-wide level of emissions above which the area would be in nonattainment) 
and the 1987 emission inventory amount for the San Bernardino County portion 
oftheSEOAB. 


Table 4.4-16. Pollutant Emissions Associated with the Non-Aviation Alternative (tons/day) 


Pollutant 

Attainment 

Level 

1987 Emissions 
Inventory Amount 

1998 

2003 

2013 

NOx 


134 

0.78 

1.23 

2.04 

ROG 

35^> 

SO 

0.32 

0.51 

0.81 

PMio 

57<®> 

100 

1.31 

2.40 

5.25 

SO 2 

275<‘'> 

11 

0.14 

0.25 

0.55 


560“*) 

190 

1-78 

3.02 

6.67 


NotM: (t) Emissiofit valnxn the San Btmafdino County portion of th* Southeast Desert Basin (ARB, 1990; 

SBCAPCO, 1991). 

9>) Area currently in nonattainment of ozone standard. Attainment projected to occur in 1994 (SBCAPCO, 


1991). 

(c) Area currently in nonattainment of PMio standards. Projected attainment date unknown. 
SBCAPCO currently preparing attainment plans for this pollutant 

(d) Area currently attaining standards for this pollutant 


George AFBDisf}Osal and Reuse FEIS 


4-149 






S«ction 4.4.3.1 (Regional Scale) provides a discussion of the PSD program 
currently administerd by EPA in San Bernardino County. 

Table 4.4-16 summarizes the caictiated emission rates for SO 2 and CO and also 
provides a comparison of the rrragnitude of the reuse-related emissions in 
relation to the estimated attainment levels for the two pollutants. These results 
indicate that the Non-Aviation Alternative emissions of SOz and CO would not 
be sufficient to jeopardize the attainment status for these pollutants. Current 
baseline emissions in the basin are well below the levels which would cause 
nonattainment, and the Non-Aviation Alternative emissions are only a small 
fraction of the baseline. In addition, long-term emission trends prepared by the 
EPA iixiicate that both SO 2 and CO emissions are declining throughout the 
nation and wiii continue to decline (U.S. EPA, 1991). 

Cumulative impacts. No other projects have been identified that would cause 
adverse cumulative air q<jality impacts as a result of the Non-Aviation Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures and offset purchases are the same 
as those recommended for the Proposed Action (Section 4.4.3.1). 

4.4.3.6. Other Land Use Concepts. Several federal transfers and independent 
land use concepts have been identified, as described in Section 2.3.5. 
Implementation of these reuse proposals is assumed to be in conjunction with 
that of the Proposed Action or alternatives. Potential changes in air quality 
resulting from implementation of one or more of the federal transfers and land 
use concepts are described below. 

U.S. Department of Justice. The complex would generate some additional air 
emissions associated with heating and power requirements, and mobile source 
emissions related to vehicle traffic generated by employees and service 
vehicles. The amount of emissions would be small compared to total emissions 
associated with full implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives. 

U.S. Department of Interior. This transfer could cause some slight increase in 
emissions over the amount associated with facility use during predosure 
conditions if the number of facility users increases. Additional users from the 
community would generate an increase in vehicle traffic to and from the 
recreational facBities. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This transfer would 
not create additional air emissions, arxl may reduce emissions slightly if the 
number of vehicies owned by the low-income and homeless tenants is less than 
the number that would be present under circumstances of general population 
occupation. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. This transfer would have no impact on air 
quality. 


4-150 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





U.S. Dtpartmtnt of Education. Transfer of these faclities and properties 
would have beneficial effects on air quality because the presence of locd 
educational facilities would reduce vehicle travel for the residertts living in the 
area. 

San Bernardino County Work Furlough Program. Slight increases in air 
emissiorrs could be associated with this conveyance, depending on the number 
of employees required and related vehide-mBes of travel. 

Medical Facilities. Increases in air emissions could be associated with this 
transfer, depending on the number of employees required, the number of 
patients/students accommodated, and related vehide-mBes of travel. 

4.4.3.7 No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative wodd not require 
further use of the base after dosure. The Air Force wouid place the base in a 
caretaker status intended to minimize deterioration of the existing utBities and 
structures. There would be no active uses of the property. 

The No-Action Alternative would have no adverse impact on air quality. Air 
quality conditions at the time of dosure may not be affected by continued 
maintenance of the base at the dosure level of activity. In fact, there may be 
some level of air quality benefit associated with maintaining the base at a 
reduced level of activity compared to the levels of activity associated with either 
the Proposed Action or reuse alternatives. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no other projects currently planned for the 
George AFB area that would have a cumulative air quality impact as a result of 
the No-Action Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. Air quality mitigation measures are not required for the 
No-Action Alternative because there are no significant impacts associated with 
this alternative. 

4.4.4 Noise 

Environmentai impact analysis related to noise indudes the potentid effects on 
the local human and animal populations. This analysis will estimate the odent 
and magnitude of noise levels generated by the Proposed Action and 
alternatives, using the predictive models discussed below. The baseline noise 
conditions and predicted noise levels wfll then be assessed with respect to 
potential annoyance, speech interference, sleep disturbance, hearing loss, 
health and land-use impacts. 

Methods used to quantify the effects of noise such as annoyance, speech 
interference, sleep disturbance, health and hearing loss have undergone 
extensive scientific development during the past several decades. The most 


George AFBJ>ispo$al arxi Reuse FEIS 


4-151 





current and reliable measures are nolse-Induced hearing loss and annoyance. 
Extra-auditory effects (those not directly related to hearing capability) are also 
important, although they are not as well understood. The current scientific 
consensus is that “evidence from available research reports is suggestive, but ft 
does not provide definitive answers to the question of health effects, other than 
to the auditory system, at long-term exposure to noise* (National Academy of 
Sciences, 1961). The effects of noise are summarized within this section and a 
detaOed description is provided in Appendix J. 

Annoyance. Noise annoyance is defined by the EPA as any negative 
subjective reaction to noise on the part of an individual or group. Table 4.4-17 
presents the results of over a dozen studies of transF>ortation modes, including 
airports, investigating the relationship between noise and annoyance levels. 


Table 4.4-17. Percentage of Population Highly Annoyed by Noise 

Exposure 


DNL Interval 

Percentage of Persons Highly Annoyed 

<65 

<15 

65-70 

15-25 

70-75 

25-37 

75-80 

37-52 


Sourca: Adapted from National Academy of Sciences, 1977. 


This relationship has been suggested by the National Academy of Sciences 
(NAS, 1977) and recently re-evaluated (Fidell et al., 1989) for use in describing 
peoples’ reaction to semi-continuous (transportation) noise. These data are 
shown to provide a perspective on the level of annoyance that might be 
anticipated. For example, 15 to 25 percent of persons exposed to DNL of 65 to 
70 dB would be highly annoyed by the noise levels. 

Speech Interference. One of the ways that noise affects daily life is by 
prevention or impairment of speech communication. In a noisy environment, 
understanding speech is diminished when speech signals are masked by 
intruding noises. Reduced intelligibility of speech may also have other effects; 
for example, if the understanding of speech is interrupted, performance may be 
reduced, annoyance may increase, and learning may be impaired. Research 
suggests that aircraft flyover noises that exceed approximately 60 dB interfere 
with speech communication. Increasing the level of the flyover noise maximum 
to 80 dB will reduce the intelligibility to zero, even if the person speaks in a loud 
voice. 

Sleep interference. The effects of noise on sleep are of concern, primarily in 
assuring suitable residential environments. Early studies suggest that various 
noise levels between 25 and 50 dBA were associated with an absence of sleep 
background disturbance. Because no known health effects were associated 


4-152 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









with either waking or sleep-stage changes, either of which was poterttiaMy useful 
as a descriptor of sleep di^urbance. 

The noise descriptor that may best describe the effect of noise on sleep is the 
SEL The SEL takes into account an event’s sound intensity, frequency 
content, and time duration, by measuring the total A-weighted sound energy of 
the event and incorporating it into a single number. Unlike DNL, which 
describes the daily average noise exposure, SEL describes the normalized 
noise from a single flyover, called an event. 

Studies (Lukas, 1975; Goldstein and Lukas, 1980) show great variability in the 
percentage of people awakened by exposure to noise. A recent review 
(Pearsons et ai.. 1989) of the literature related to sleep disturbance, including 
field as well as laboratory studies, suggests that habituation may reduce the 
effect of noise on sleep. The authors point out that the relationship between 
noise exposure and sleep disturbance is complex and affected by the 
interaction of many variables. The large differences between the findings of the 
laboratory and field studies make it difficult to determine the best relationship to 
use. The method developed by Lukas would estimate seven times more 
awakening than the field results reported by Pearsons. 

The relationships between percent awakened and SEL are presented in 
Figure 4.4-6. These relationships consider the sound attenuation provided by a 
residential building with the windows open. Appendix J contains further 
information on the derivation. 

Hearing Loss. Hearing loss is measured in decibels and refers to a permanent 
auditory threshold shift of an individual's hearing in an ear. The EPA (EPA, 

1974) has recommended a limiting daily energy value of Leq 70 dBA to protect 
against hearing impairment over a period of 40 years. This daily energy average 
would translate into a DNL \^ue of approximately 75 dBA or greater. Based on 
EPA recommendations (U.S. EPA, 1974), hearing loss is not expected in people 
exposed to 75 DNL or less. 

Health. Research investigating the relationship between noise and adverse 
extra-auditory health effects have been inconclusive. Alleged extra-auditory 
health consequences of noise exposure which have been studied include birth 
defects, psychological fliness, cancer, stroke, hypertension and cardiac 
HInesses. Although hypertension appears to be the most biologically plausible 
of these consequences, studies addressing this issue have failed to provide 
adequate support. Studies that have found negative consequences have failed 
to be replicated, thereby questioning the validity of those studies (Frerichs et al., 
1980; Anton-Guirgis et al.. 1986). Studies that have controlled for multiple 
factors have shown no, or very weak, associations between noise exposure and 
extra-auditory effects (Thompson and Fideil, 1989). The current state of 
technical knowledge cannot support inference of a causal or consistent 

George AFB DisposeJ and Reuse FEIS 4-153 





Luh«8(1977)^^ 


•3 

e 40. 



110 120 


Exterior Sound Exposure Level (SEL) 


Souroa: Pearaons, 1969. 


Sleep Disruption 
(Awakening) 


Figure 4.4-6 


-154 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 











relationship, nor a quantttath/a dose-response, between residential aircraft noise 
exposure and heald) consequences. 

Animals. Literature corx:8ming the effects of noise on animals Is not large, and 
most of the studies have focused on the relation between dosages of 
continuous noise and effects (Belanovskil and Omel’yanenko, 1982; Ames. 
1974). A review of 209 daims pertinent to aircraft noise spanning a 32-year 
period suggested that economic loss was smaN, that the major source of loss 
was panic induced in ndve animals, arxl that experimental literature is 
inadequate to document ior>g-term or subtle effects (Bowles et al., 1990). No 
controlled study has documented any serious accident or mortaiity on livestock, 
despite extreme exposure to noise. 

Land Use Com)Mtibility. Estimates of total noise exposure resulting from 
aircraft operations, as expressed using DNL, can be interpreted in terms of the 
compatibility with designated land uses. The Federal interagency Committee 
on Urban Noise developed iand-use compatibility guidelines for noise (USDOT, 
1980). Based upon these guidelines, suggested compatibility guidelines for 
evaluating land uses in aircraft noise exposure areas were developed by the 
FAA and are presented in Section 3.4.4. The larxi use compatibHity guidelines 
are based on annoyance and hearing loss consideratior^ previously described. 
Part 150 of the FAA regulations describes the procedures, standards and 
methodology governing the development, submission and review of airport 
noise exposure maps and airport noise compatibility programs. It describes the 
use of yearly DNL In the evaluation of airport noise environments. It also 
identifies those land-use types that are normally compatible with various levels 
of exposure. Compatible or incompatible land use is determined by comparing 
the predicted DNL level at a site with the recommended land uses. 

Noise Modeling. In order to define the noise impacts from aircraft operations 
at George AFB, the FAA approved Noise Exposure Model (NOISEMAP) version 
6.0 which was utlized to predict 66,70, and 75 DNL noise contours and SEL 
values for noise-sensitive receptors. Appendix J defines these descriptors. The 
contours were generated for the Proposed Action for the baseline year (1993) 
and three future year projections (1998,2003, and 2013), and for the 
International Airport Alternative and General Aviation Center Alternative for three 
future year projections (1998,2003, and 2013). These contours were overlaid 
on a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) map of the base and vicinity. Input data to 
NOISEMAP include information on aircraft types; runway use; takeoff and 
landing flight tracks; ^raft altitude, speeds, and engine power settings; and 
number of daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 
operations. 

Surface vehicle traffic-noise levels for roadways In the vicinity of George AFB 
were analyzed using the FHWA’s Highway Noise Model (FHWA, 1978). This 


George AFB DisposaJ and Reuse FEIS 


4-155 









moctol incorporates vehicle mix. traffic volutne projections and speed to 
generate DNL 


Major Assumptions. Half at aU aircraft operations were assumed to be takeoife 
and half were landings. Aircraft operations and mix are included In Apperxlix J. 
All operations were assumed to foBow standard glide slopes and takeoff profiles 
provided by the model. 

Major roads leading to or around the base were analyzed. Traffic data used to 
project future noise levels were derived from information gathered In the traffic 
study presented in Section 4.2.3. Traffic data used in this analysis are presented 
In Apperxiix J. 

4.4.4.1 Proposed Action. Figures 4.4*7 through 4.4*9 outline the flight tracks 
for the Proposed Action. The results of the aircraft noise rrKXfeling for the 
Proposed Action are presented as noise contours in Figures 4.4*10 through 
4.4-13, for the years 1993,1998,2003, and 2013, respectively. Table 4.4-18 
presents the area arxi population affected by the Proposed Action air traffic 
noise by each representative year. The Proposed Action is estimated to expose 
approximately 552 acres arxi no people to a DNL of 65 dB or greater in the year 
1993. This is estimated to reach approximately 920 acres and no people by the 
year 2013. 


Table 4.4*18. Noise Exposure for the George AFB Alternative Development Plans 




Area WitMn Noise Contour 
(acres) 

DNL Range 

Approximate Population 
Exposed 

DNL Range 

Year 

Proposed Action and Alternatives 

65*70 

70*75 

>75 

65*70 

70*75 

>75 

1993 

Proposed Action* 

329 

155 

68 

0 

0 

0 


Intemationai Airport Alternative 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 


Commercial Airport with Residential AIL* 

328 

155 

68 

0 

0 

0 


General Aviation Alternative 

11 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1998 

Proposed Action 

460 

222 

69 

0 

0 

0 


Intemationai Airport Aitemative 

2,930 

1,260 

568 

64 

0 

0 


Commercial Airport with Residential Aft. 

458 

223 

69 

0 

0 

0 


General Aviation Alternative 

23 

11 

2 

0 

0 

0 

2003 

Proposed Action 

520 

242 

74 

0 

0 

0 


Intemationai Airport Aitemative 

4,985 

2,067 

1,097 

258 

35 

0 


Commercial Airport with Residential AIL 

521 

242 

74 

0 

0 

0 


General Aviation Aitemative 

51 

11 

7 

0 

0 

0 

2013 

Proposed Action 

571 

261 

88 

0 

0 

0 


Intemationai Airport Aitemative 

2,831 

1,825 

1,040 

128 

0 

0 


Commercial Airport with Residential AIL 

571 

261 

88 

0 

0 

0 


General Aviation Aitemative 

92 

14 

11 

0 

0 

0 


*Only airlin* training oparatiom would ba oonduetad in ttiia yaar. 


4*156 George AFB Disposal and Reuse FE/S 


















Departure Flight Tracks- 
Proposed Action, 
Commercial Airport with 
Residential Altemative, 
and General Aviation 
Center Alternative 


nj I 

0 125 2.5 5 Nautical MNas 



Hgure 4.4-7 


George AFBtXsfX^ and Reuse FEIS 


4-157 













Arrival Flight Tracks- 
Proposed Action, 
Commercial Airport with 
Residential Alternative, 
and General Aviation 
Center Alternative 



I ^2S 2.5 SNaulictf Miles 



Figure 4.4<8 


“158 


Geotge AFB D^possU and Reuse FEIS 











Touch-and-Go 

Flight Tracks- 
Proposed Action 
and Commercial Airport 
with Residential 

Alternative 

A 

0 125 ZJS SNmjIUMIm 

Hgure 4.4-9 


George AFB D^posal and Reuse FEIS 


4-159 
















DNL Noise Contours- 


Proposed Action and 


Commeiciai Airport 


with Residentiai 


Aitemative (1993) 

nj-i 9 

Figure 4.4-10 

4-160 

George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 





















DNL Noise Contours- 
Proposed Action and 
Commerciai Airport 
with Residentiai 

Aitemative (1998) 

ru-i ® 

0 1/4 1/2 IMto 

Figure 4.4>11 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FBS 


4-161 

















DNL Noise Contours- 
Proposed Action and 
Commerciai Airport 
with Residentiai 
Aitemative (2003) 


run 

0 1/4 1/2 1 Mto 

4-162 



Figure 4.4-12 


Geoq/e AFB Dispose emd Reuse FEIS 














DNL Noise Contours- 
Proposed Action and 
Commerciai Airport 
with Residentiai 
Aitemative (2013) 


nn 

0 1/4 1/2 11 




Figure 4.4-13 


Geo^ AFB Dispose and Reuse FEIS 


4-163 













The contours around the north/south runway (17/35) are due primarly to aktine 
training operations, in 1998.2003, and 2013 the mnups for the maintenance 
operations are evident in the higher noise contours around the rurujp pads near 
the ends of Runway 03/21. 

Analysis suggests that for the Proposed Action, some aircraft overflights would 
affect the sleep of some residents in the area. In 1993 the noisiest plane vwhM 
be the 747-200. In 1998 the noisiest plane would be the Stage 11727-200 
aircrafL This aircraft comprises less than 1 percent of the jet aircraft. Themost 
common jet aircraft in this year would be the 747-200 followed by the 737-200 
and 757-200. In 2003 the noisiest plane would stU be the 727-200. This aircraft 
comprises less than 1 percent of the jet aircraft The most common jet aircraft 
in this year would still be the 747-200 followed by the 737-200 and 757-200. in 
2013 the noisiest plane would be the 747-200. This aircraft is expected to be the 
most common jet aircraft in this year followed by the 737-200 and 757-200. The 
SEL was calcinated at representative noise-sensitive receptors for the most 
common and noisiest commercial aircraft and the results are presented in 
Table 4.4-19. 

Surface traffic sound levels are presented in Table 4.4-20. These levels are 
presented in terms of DNL as a function of distance from the centerline of the 
roadways analyzed. There would be an estimated 171 residents in areas 
exposed to noise levels of ONL 65 or greater due to surface traffic by the year 
2013. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no cumulative impacts expected from noise 
sources for the Proposed Action. 

Mitigation Measures. No impacts from aircraft noise have been identified 
based on the FAA land use guidelines presented in Table 3.4-8. Mitigation 
would not be required for aircraft noise for the Proposed Action. A barrier along 
Air Base Road and portions of U.S. 395 may be feasible and could reduce traffic 
noise levels at nearby residences to below DNL 65 dB. Barriers for other 
roadways are not considered to be feasible due to the number of driveways and 
intersections near the impacted roadways. Mitigation measures such as a 
sound attenuation program could be implemented to reduce interior ndse 
levels for sensitive receptors exposed to DNL 65 dB or greater. Preventative 
measures such as restricting residential and hospital development to areas 
outside DNL 65 dB and incoiporating barriers into community development can 
be used for future development. 

The effectiveness of the operational and management mitigation measures 
presented here cannot be completely determined without extensive modeling. 


4-164 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 




Tabi« 4.4-19. Sot^nd Exposura Lavela at Noiaa-^anailiva Recaptora 







SEL 


MO- 

ANamalivc 

Location 

009 

727 

737 

747 

797 

8043 

fVopOMd Action 

Adalanto Rd & BartMt Awa 

84 

99 

81 

87 

82 

87 

and Commcroial 

U.&386&BartiattAva. 

88 

88 

72 

78 

74 

78 

Akportwith 

U.S. 399 a Crippan Awa 

80 

82 

66 

72 

69 

72 

RMWantial 

Crippan Awa & Adalanto Rd 

86 

87 

74 

78 

76 

80 


Air Baaa Rd a Adalanto Rd 

102 

106 

89 

96 

89 

94 


Cobalt Rd a Route 18 

73 

75 

68 

78 

66 

68 


U.S.386aRouta18 

73 

75 

88 

77 

85 

88 


Mojava Or a Bavado Rd 

81 

63 

45 

59 

SO 

51 


Baar VaUay Cutoff and MS 

57 

60 

91 

61 

49 

52 


Shadow Min Rd a Sllvar Laka Pkwy 

75 

80 

62 

66 

63 

70 


Shay Rd off of Runway 03/21 

75 

77 

62 

68 

65 

67 


Tha Bureau of Priaona Faculty 

74 

75 

61 

73 

66 

67 


Alaaka Ciicia Houakig 

73 

75 

60 

70 

89 

67 


San Bamardino Work Furlough 
Dormitoriaa 

82 

84 

69 

75 

76 

76 


Privata Medical Institution 

75 

77 

62 

71 

68 

68 


VIctorvilla Hospital 

54 

54 

33 

45 

39 

43 

tntamationai 

Adalanto Rd a Bartlett Ava 

104 

110 

90 

99 

90 

96 

Airport 

U.S.38SaBartlattAva 

94 

95 

50 

57 

60 

85 


U.S. 39S a Crippan Ava 

66 

77 

73 

79 

74 

78 


Crippan Ava a Adalanto Rd 

97 

97 

83 

90 

84 

90 


Air Baaa Rd a Adalanto Rd 

101 

105 

88 

95 

87 

93 


Cobalt Rd a Routa 18 

73 

75 

88 

70 

68 

68 


U.S. 395 a Routa 18 

82 

85 

78 

80 

76 

77 


MpjavaOraeavadoHd 

61 

63 

45 

53 

50 

52 


Baar VWlay Cutoff and 1-15 

58 

60 

52 

55 

90 

S3 


Shadow Mtn Rd a Silvar Lake Pkwy 

87 

95 

74 

85 

73 

80 


Shay Rd off of Runway 03/21 

81 

73 

56 

62 

60 

76 


Tha Bureau of Prisons Facility 

75 

76 

63 

67 

68 

68 


Alaska Circle Housing 

75 

75 

62 

66 

65 

67 


San Bamardino Work Furlough 

85 

84 

66 

75 

81 

77 


Dormitorias 








Privata Medical Institution 

77 

78 

65 

69 

71 

69 


Victonrilla Hospital 

52 

54 

34 

42 

39 

43 

Ganaral Aviation 

Adalanto Rd a Bartlett Ava 



81 

87 




U.S. 395 a Bartlett Ava 



72 

78 




U.S. 395 a Crippan Ava 



66 

72 




Crippan Ava a Adalanto Rd 



74 

78 




Air Base Rd a Adalanto Rd 



89 

96 




Cobalt Rd a Routa 18 



68 

78 




U.S.39SaRouta18 



68 

77 




Mojave Or a Bavado Rd 



45 

59 




Baar Valley Cutoff and 1-15 



51 

51 




Shadow Mtn Rd a Silvar Lake Pkwy 



62 

68 




Shay Rd off of Runway 03/21 



62 

68 




Tha Bureau of Prisons Facility 



61 

73 




Alaska Orda Housing 



80 

70 




San Bamardino Work Furlough 
Dormitorias 



69 

75 




Privata Medical Institution 



62 

71 







_S_ 

_45_ 





George AFB Di^iosal and Reuse FEIS 4-165 













Tabto 4.4>20. Oittanca to DNL from Roadway Cerrteriina - Propoaad Action 






Distance (feet) 



Year 

Roadway 

DNL 65 

No. Of 
Residences 

DNL 70 

No. Of 
Residences 

DNL 75 

No. of 
Residences 

1998 

Ah’ Base Road West 

70 

0 

* 


* 

— 


Air Base Road East 

160 

3 

50 

0 

* 

— 


U.S.39S 

270 

21 

80 

0 

30 

0 


B Mirage Road 

40 

0 

* 

- 

* 

- 


Helendale Road 

* 

— 

* 

— 

* 

— 


Vllage Drive** 

90 

2 

* 

- 

* 

- 


Shay Road 

40 

0 

* 


* 


2003 

Air Base Road West 

120 

2 

40 

0 

* 

— 


Air Base Road East 

260 

S 

90 

2 

* 

— 


U.S.395 

340 

21 

100 

0 

30 



B Mirage Road 

80 

0 

* 

- 

* 

- 


Helendale Road 

40 

0 

* 

— 

* 

— 


Vllage Drive** 

150 

2 

60 


* 

— 


Shay Road 

70 

0 

* 


* 

— 

2013 

Air Base Road West 

170 

6 

60 

0 

* 



Air Base Road East 

360 

6 

130 

2 

* 



U.S. 395 

430 

43 

130 

0 

40 

0 


El Mirage Road 

110 

0 

30 

0 

* 



Helendale Road 

60 

0 


— 

* 

— 


Vllage Drive** 

210 

2 

80 

0 

* 

- 


Shav Road 

110 

0 

30 

0 

* 

- 


*ContairMd within roadway. 

**Numbar of housas batvraan Air Basa Road and power iines south of Clovis Street (approximately 1.5 miles). 


4.4.4.2 International Airport Alternative. Figures 4.4-14 and 4.4-15 present 
the flight tracks for the International Airport Alternative. The results of the 
aircraft noise modeling for the International Airport Alternative are presented as 
noise contours in Figures 4.4-16 through 4.4-18. 

The contours around the north end of the north/south runways (17R, 17L, 35R, 
and 35L) are due primarily to arrivals. Around the south end of the north/south 
runways the contours are due primarily to takeoffs. The break In the contours 
near the north end of the runways is an artifact of the model, since it stops 
considering noise from landing aircraft at the point where they touch down. 
Runups for the maintenance operations are evident in the circular noise 
contours south of the proposed terminal. The contours to the southwest of 
runways 03L, 03R, 21L, and 21R are due primarily to departing aircraft. 

it is estimated that the International Airport Alternative would expose 
approximately 4,758 acres and 64 people to a DNL of 65 dB or greater in the 
year 1998. This is estimated to be approximately 5,696 acres and 128 people by 
the year 2013. Table 4.4-18 presents the approximate number of acres and 


4-166 


George AFB Disposal suid Reuse FEIS 






Departure Flight Tracks- 
International Airport 
Alternative 


SNauUcalMito 



Rgure 4.4-14 


0 12S 2^ 


George AFB Disposed and Reuse FEIS 


4-167 
















Arrival Flight Tracks- 
International Airport 

Alternative 

nj—] o 

Rgure 4.4-15 

4-168 

George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 
















DNL Noise Contours 
International Airport 
Alternative (1998) 


nn 

0 2,500 5.000 10,000 Feet 




Figure 4.4-16 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-169 


























DNL Noise Contours 
International Airport 
Alternative (2003) 


0 2,500 5,000 10,000 



Figure 4.4>17 


4-170 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 























DNL Noise Contours 
International Airport 
Alternative (2013) 


run 

0 2,500 5,000 10,000 FM 




Figure 4.4-18 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-171 





















people resUing within each DNL compgUbllly range Ibr each representati^ 
year. Based on the results praeenlad in Table 4.2-16 and the FAA land use 
guidelines, the residential land usee wtNn the 66 dB cortour present an 
incornpatfeie land use. 

Analysis suggests that for die international Airport Alternative, some aircralt 
overflights would affect the sleep of some resideres In the area. In1996the 
noisiest plane would be the 727-200. This aircralt comprises less than 1 percent 
of the norvgenerai aviation aircralL The moat common Jet aircraft in this year 
would be the DC-9-30 fonawed by the 737-aoo and MD-60. In 2003 the noisiest 
piarte would be the 747-200. This aircraft comprises less than 1 percent of the 
JetalrcrafL The most common Jet aircraft in this year would stM be the 737-300 
followed by the DC-9-30, MD-60, and 757-200. in 2013 the noisiest plane would 
be the 747-200. The most common jet airciait in this year would be the 757-200 
foMowed by the 747-200 and MD-63. The SEL was calculated at representative 
noise-sensitive receptors for the most common and noisiest aircraft and the 
results are presented in Table 4.4-19. 


Surface traffic sound levels, presented In Table 4.4-21, are represented In terms 
of DNL as a function of distance from the centerline of the roadways analyzed. 
There would be an estimated 1,209 residents in the areas exposed to noise 
levels of DNL 65 or greater due to surface traffic by the year 2013. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no cumulative impacts expected from noise 
sources for the Intemationai Airport Alternative. 


Mitigation Measures. Measures that could be considered to reduce the 
effects of aircraft noise include; 

• Operatiorwl measures. Change takeoff, dimb-out, or laixling 
procedures; change flight tracks, limit or rotate primary runway usage, 
enforce prescribed flight track use and fan oifl departure flight tracks. 
Prohibit or limit Stage II aircraft operations. 

• Preventive measures. Acquire undeveloped land adjacent to the runway 
that is exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 dBA or greater. Restrict 
residential and hospital development to areas outside the DNL 65 contour. 

• Management measiaes. Impose curfews, impose noise-related landing 
fees, develop noise monitoring system, establish a community relations 
office. 

• Remedial measures. Acquire mobile home sites and single-fomly 
housing areas exposed to aircralt noise of DNL 70 dB or greater. 
Redevelop mobfle home sites to other compatible uses. Establish arxi 
conduct a sound attenuation program for singie-fomly residences, 
schools, hospitais, arxf churches in areas exposed to aircraft noise of 
65 dB or greater. 


4-172 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







TaM* 4.4-21. DManc* to DNL from Roadway Cantarlina - lidamationai Airport Attamathio 






Distance 0eet) 



Year 

Roadway 

DNL 65 

No. of 
Residences 

DNL 70 

No. Of 
Residences 

DNL 75 

No. Of 
ResUencas 

1998 

Air Base Road West 

100 

2 

40 

0 

* 



Air Base Road East 

200 

3 

70 

2 

* 



U.S.395 

1,010 

ISO 

330 

21 

100 

0 


B Mirage Roed 

300 

0 

100 

0 

40 

— 


Desert Rower 

310 

0 

100 

0 

40 

0 


VUaae Drive** 


2 

70 

0 

* 


2003 

Air Base Road West 

120 

2 

40 

0 

* 

_ 


Air Base Road East 

230 

4 

80 

0 

* 

- 


U.S.395 

1,170 

187 

380 

23 

120 

0 


B Mirage Road 

340 

0 

120 

0 

40 

0 


Desert Rower 

360 

0 

120 

0 

40 

0 


Vliaoe Drive** 

230 

2 


0 

* 


2013 

Air Base Road West 

190 

6 

70 

0 

30 

0 


Air Base Road East 

370 

6 

130 

0 

50 

0 


U.S.395 

1,880 

308 

630 

74 

200 

13 


B Mirage Road 

580 

0 

210 

0 

70 

0 


Desert Rower 

620 

0 

210 

0 

70 

0 


Vliaoe Drive** 

400 

8 

140 

2 

SO 

0 

*ContairMd wHMn roadway. 

**Numbar of houaaa batwaan Air Basa Road and powar linaa south of Clovis Straat (approximataly 1.5 milas). 


A barrier along Air Base Road and portions of U.S. 395 may be a feasible way to 
reduce surface traffic noise levels at nearby residences to below DNL 65 dB. 
Barriers for other roadways are not considered to be feasible due to the number 
of driveways and intersections near the Impacted roadways. .Mitigation 
measures such as a sound attenuation program similar to that identified for 
aircraft noise mitigation could be implemented to reduce interior noise levels for 
sensitive receptors exposed to DNL 65 dB or greater. Preventative measures 
such as restricting residential and hospital development to areas outside DNL 
65 dB and incorporating barriers into community development can be used for 
future development. 

The ^ectiveness of the operational and management mitigation measures 
presented here cannot be completely determined without extensive modeling. 
The preventative measures would reduce future impacts in areas where this 
measure is implemented. 'Rie remedial measures such as acquiring homes 
exposed to 70 dB or greater eliminates these impacts completely. Sound 
attenuation programs in areas exposed to 65 dBA can be effective at reducing 
the noise impacts to interior spaces. 

4.4.4.3 Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative. Right operations 
iNxIer this alternative are the same as for the Proposed Action; therefore. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-173 












FigurM 4.4-7 through 4.4^ ara also applicable for the flight tracks of the 
Conwnerdal Airport with Residential Alternative. The noise contours for the 
Commercial Airport with Residentiai Alternative are the same as those for the 
Proposed Action, and are also applicabie to Figures 4.4-10 through 4.4-13. 
Because some land uses are not the same under this alternative and the 
Proposed Action, the effects of the noise would be different for these two 
actions. 

It is estimated that the Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative would 
expose approximately 551 acresand nopeopletoaDNLof65dBorgreaterin 
the year 1993. This is estimated to reach 920 acres arwJ no people by the year 
2013. Table 4.4-18 presents the approximate number of acres and pe(^ 
residing within each DNL compatibBity range for each represertfatlve year. 
Analysis suggests that for the Commercial Airport with Residentiai Alternative, 
the noi^est overflight may affect the sleep of some residents in the area for the 
years 1998,2003, and 2013. The flight operations are the same as in the 
Proposed Action. The SEL was calculated at representative noise-sensitive 
receptor locations and the results are presented in Table 4.4-19. These results 
are identical to those shown for the Proposed Action, in Section 4.4.4.1. 

Surface traffic sound levels are presented in Table 4.4-22. These levels are 
presented in terms of DNL as a function of distance from the centerline of the 
roadways analyzed. There would be an estimated 281 residents in areas 
exposed to noise levels of DNL 65 or greater due to surface traffic by the year 
2013. 

Cumulative impacts. There are no cumulative impacts expected from noise 
sources for the Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. No impacts from aircraft noise have been identified 
based on the FAA land use guidelines presented in Table 3.4-8. Noise 
mitigation would not be required for aircraft noise for the Commercial Airport 
with Residentiai Alternative. A barrier along Air Base Road and portions of U.S. 
395 may be a feasible way to reduce noise levels at nearby residences to below 
DNL 65 dB. Barriers for other roadways are not considered to be feasible due 
to the number of driveways and intersections near the impacted roadways. 
Mitigation measures such as a sound attenuation program simBar to that 
identified for aircraft noise mitigation could be implemented to reduce interior 
noise levels for sensitive receptors exposed to DNL 65 dB or greater. 
Preventative measures such as restricting residential and hospital development 
to areas outside DNL 65 dB and incorporating barriers into community 
development can be used for future development. 

The effectiveness of the mitigation measures presented here cannot be 
completely determined without extensive modelling. 


4-174 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








Tabto 4.4^ UtlafiM to ONL from Roadtmy CwntarOfM • Comimrcial Airport wMi 

RosMonlial ARarrativo 






Distance (feet) 



Year 

Roadway 

DNL 65 

No. of 
Residences 

DNL 70 

No. of 
Residences 

DNL 75 

Naof 

Raaidenoee 

1998 

Air Base Road West 

140 

2 


0 

* 

- 


Air Base Road East 

300 

5 

100 

2 

• 

— 


U.S.395 

340 

21 

110 

0 


0 


El Mirage Road 

50 

0 

* 

0 

* 

- 


HelendaleRoad 

50 

0 

* 

— 

* 

— 


Vlage Drive** 

170 

2 

60 

0 

* 

- 


Shay Road 

80 

0 


0 

* 


2003 

Air Base Road West 

180 

6 

60 

0 

* 

— 


Air Base Road East 

380 

7 

130 

0 


0 


U.S.395 

390 

29 

130 

0 

50 

0 


0 Mirage Road 

60 

0 

30 

0 

* 

- 


HelendaleRoad 

60 

0 

* 

— 

* 

— 


VUage Drive** 

220 

2 

80 

0 

* 

- 


Shay Road 

110 

0 

40 

0 

* 

— 

2013 

Air Base Road West 

250 

9 

90 

2 

30 

0 


Air Base Road East 


17 

180 

3 

60 

0 


U.S.395 

500 

43 

160 

13 

50 

0 


0 Mirage Road 

80 

0 

30 

0 

* 

- 


Helendale Road 

80 

0 

30 



— 


Vllage Drive** 

mm 

8 

110 

2 

* 

- 


ShavRoad 


0 

50 

0 

* 

- 


*Contain«d wNMn roadwcy. 

**NMfntMr of houam boMioa n Air Bim Road and powar linaa aoutti of Oovia Streot (approximaitaly 1.5 mUoa). 


4.4.4.4 Gonaral Aviation Center Attemative. Rgures 4.4*7 and 4.4-8 show 
the flight tracks for the General Aviation Center Alternative. The results of the 
aircraft noise modeling for the General Aviation Center Alternative are presented 
as noise contours in Figures 4.4-19 through 4.4-22. 

The General Aviation Center Alternative is estimated to «(pose approximately 
13 acres and no people to a DNL of 65 dB or greater in the year 1993. Thisis 
estimated to be approximately 117 acres and no people by the year 2013. 

Table 4.4-18 presents the approximate number of acres and people residing 
within each DNL compatibility range. 

Analysis suggests that the noisiest overflight may affect the sleep of some 
residents in the area. The SEL was calculated at representative noise-sensitive 
receptor locations and the results are presented in Table 4.4-19. The number of 
aircraft types are reduced for this alternative, since commerciai aircraft 
operations are limited to maintenance activities. 


George AFB IXsposat aix/Reuse FEIS 


4-175 














DNL Noise Contours 

General Aviation 

Center Alternative 
(1993) 

an ^ 

Figure 4.4-19 

4-176 

George AFB Di^xjsal and Reuse FEIS 






















DNL Noise Contours 
General Aviation 
Center Alternative 
(1998) 


nrn 

0 750 1500 3000FM 



Figure 4.4-20 


George AFB Disposed and Reuse FEIS 


4-177 




















DNL Noise Contours 
General Aviation 
Center Alternative 
(2003) 


nn 

0 750 1500 aOOOFast 



Figure 4.4-21 


4-178 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 

















DNL Noise Contours 
General Aviation 
Center Alternative 
(2013) 


run 

0 750 1500 3000 FM 



Figure 4.4*22 


George AFB Disposd and Reuse FEIS 


4-179 



















Surface traffic sound levels are presented in Table 4.4-23. These levels are 
preserved In temis of ONL as a function of distance from the certerline of the 
roadways analyzed. There would be an estimated 325 residents in areas 
exposed to noise levels of DNL 65 or greater due to surhice baffic by the year 
2013. 

Cumulative impacts. There are no cumulative impacts expected from noisa 
sources for the General Aviation Center Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. No impacts from aircraft noise have been identified 
based on the FAA iarxi use guidelines presented in Table 3.4-8. Noise 
mitigation would not be required for aircraft noise for the General Aviation 
Center Alternative. A barrier along Air Base Road and portions of U.S. 395 may 
be a feasible way to reduce noise ievels at nearby residences to below DNL 65 
dB. Barriers for other roadways are not considered to be feasft)le due to the 
number of driveways and intersections near the impacted roadways. Mitigation 
measures such as a sound attenuation program similar to that identified for 
aircraft noise mitigation could be Implemented to reduce interior noise levels for 
sensitive receptors exposed to DNL 65 dB or greater. Preventative measures 
such as restricting residential and hospital development to areas outside DNL 
65 dB and incorporating barriers into community development can be used for 
future development 

The effectiveness of the mitigation measures presented cannot be completely 
determined without extensive modeiling. 

4.4.4.5 Non-Aviation AKemative. Under the Non-Aviation Alterrrative, there 
would be no airport activity and less surface traffic than the Proposed Action or 
International Airport Alternatives; therefore, there would be less noise impacts 
than under the aviation-related alternatives. Surface traffic sound levels are 
represented in terms of DNL as a function of distance from the centerline of the 
roadways analyzed (Table 4.4-24). There would be an estimated 394 residents 
in areas exposed to noise lev^s of DNL 65 or greater due to surface traffic by 
the year 2013. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no cumulative impacts expected from noise 
sources for the Non-Aviation Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. A barrier along Air Base Road and portions of U.S. 395 
may be a feasible way to reduce noise levels at nearby residences to below DNL 
65 dB. Barriers for other roadways are not considered to be feasible due to the 
number of driveways and Intersections near the impacted roadways. Mitigation 
measures such as a sound attenuation program similar to that identified for 
aircraft noise mitigation could be implemented to reduce interior noise levels for 
sensitive receptors exposed to DNL 65 dB or greater. Preventative measures 
such as restricting residential and hospital development to areas outside DNL 


4-180 


George AFB Disposal artd Reuse FEIS 




TabI* 4.4^ Oiatanca to DNL from Roadway Centarllna • Ganeral Aviation Caidar Altamativo 






Distance (feet) 






No. Of 


No. of 


No. of 

Year 

Roadway 

DNL 65 

Residences 

DNL 70 

Residences 

DNL 75 

Residences 

1998 

Air Base Road West 

160 

6 

50 

0 

* 

- 


Air Base Road East 

320 

6 

100 

2 

* 

- 


U.S. 395 

360 

23 

110 

0 

30 

0 


Crippen Avenue 

80 

12 

* 

- 

* 

- 


Village Drive** 

180 

2 

60 

0 

* 

- 


Shay Road 

40 

0 

* 

— 


— 

2003 

Air Base Road West 

210 

6 

70 

0 

* 

- 


Air Base Road East 

370 

6 

120 

2 

* 

- 


U.S. 395 

410 

33 

130 

0 

40 

0 


Crippen Avenue 

100 

39 

30 

0 

* 

- 


Village Drive** 

210 

2 

70 

0 

* 

- 


Shay Road 

60 

0 

• 

- 

* 

- 

2013 

Air Base Road West 

220 

6 

70 

0 

« 

- 


Air Base Road East 

380 

7 

130 

2 

50 

0 


U.S. 395 

460 

43 

150 

13 

40 

0 


Crippen Avenue 

110 

39 

30 

0 

* 

- 


Village Drive** 

210 

2 

80 

0 

* 

- 


Shav Road 

60 

0 

* 

- 

* 

- 


*Contain«d witfiin roadway. 

**Numbar of housas batwaan Air Basa Road and powar lines south of Clovis Street (approximately 1.5 miles). 


65 dB and incorporating barriers into community development can be used for 
future deveiopment. 

The effectiveness of the mitigation measures presented cannot be completely 
determined without extensive modeliing. 

4.4.4.6 Other Land Use Concepts 

U.S. Department of Justice. The proposed FCC is not planned to be located 
within the 65 dB contour for the Proposed Action or alternatives. As such, no 
noise impacts on the prison have been identified. Based upon the avalable 
details of this transfer, no noise impacts have been identified from the prison on 
the surrounding areas. 

U.S. Department of Interior. The recreational facilities proposed to be 
transferred do not lie within the 65 dB contours for any of the alternatives. No 
noise impacts on these facilities have been identified. Additionally, based upon 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-181 








Tabl« 4.4-24. Oiatanc* to DNL from Roadway Centerllna - Non-Aviation Aftemativa 


Year 

Roadway 



Distance (fe^) 



DNL 65 

No. of 
Residences 

DNL 70 

No. of 
Residences 

DNL 75 

I3555B3 

1998 

Air Base Road West 

100 

2 

30 

0 

* 

* 


Air Base Road East 

210 

3 

70 

0 

* 

— 


U.S. 395 

300 

5 

100 

0 

30 

0 


El Mirage Road 

100 

0 

40 

0 

* 

- 


Helerxjale Road 

30 

0 

* 

— 

* 

- 


VSIage Drive** 

110 

2 

* 

— 

* 

- 


Shay Road 

30 

0 

* 

— 

* 

- 


Criooen Avenue 

70 

0 

30 

0 

* 


2003 

Air Base Road West 

160 

6 

50 

0 

* 

— 


Air Base Road East 

350 

6 

120 

0 

50 

0 


U.S. 395 

380 

23 

120 

0 

40 

0 


El Mirage Road 

130 

0 

50 

0 

* 

0 


Heiendale Road 

50 

0 

* 

— 

* 

— 


Village Drive** 

190 

2 

60 

0 

* 

- 


Shay Road 

50 

0 

* 

- 

* 

- 


Criooen Avenue 

120 

39 

40 

0 

* 

. 

2013 

Air Base Road West 

270 

9 

80 

2 

30 

0 


Air Base Road East 

550 

17 

180 

3 

60 

0 


U.S. 395 

520 

43 

160 

13 

50 

0 


El Mirage Road 

290 

0 

100 

0 

40 

0 


Heiendale Road 

90 

0 

30 

0 

• 

- 


VPIage Drive** 

320 

8 

100 

0 

* 

- 


Shay Road 

90 

0 

30 

0 

* 

- 




39 

_JL 

0 

30 

0 


*Contain«d within roadway. 

**Numbar of houses between Air Base Road and power lines south of Qovis Street (approximately 1.5 miles). 


the available details of this transfer, no noise impacts have been identified from 
the recreational facilities on the surrounding areas. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The residences 
requested for transference lie outside the 65 dB contours for airport noise. 

Some of the residences nearest Air Base Road could be exposed to noise levels 
above DNL 65, but as described in the alternatives, a noise barrier could be 
used as mitigation. No noise impacts have been identified from the housing on 
the surrounding areas. 

U. S. Department of Transportation. The facility requested for transference 
lies outside the 65 dB contours. No noise impacts have been identified for this 
facility. Based upon the avaflabie details of this transfer, no noise impacts have 
been identified from this facSity on the surrounding areas. 

U.S. Department of Education. The facilities proposed to be transferred for 
the Department of Education do not lie within the 65 dB contours for any of the 


4-182 


George AFB Disposed and Reuse FEIS 









alternatives. No noise impacts on these facilities have been identified. 
Additionally, based upon the avaKable detafls of this transfer, no noise impacts 
have been identified from the educational facilities on the surrounding areas. 

San Bernardino County Work Furlough Program. The dormitory or barracks 
of the proposed work furlough program are not proposed to be located within 
the 65 dB contour for the Proposed Action or alternatives. No noise impacts on 
these feicilities have been identHted. Additionally, based upon the avaSabie 
details of this conveyance, no noise impacts have been identified from these 
facilities on the surrounding areas. 

Medical Facilities. The base hospital does not lie within the 65 dB contours for 
any of the alternatives. No noise impacts on this facility have been identified. 
Additionally, no noise impacts have been identified from the hospital on the 
surrounding areas. 

4.4.4.7 No*Action Alternative. There would be no airport activity and minimal 
surface traffic under the No-Action Alternative. The anticipated surface traffic 
noise is estimated to be less than that of any of the other alternatives. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no cumulative impacts expected from 
transportation noise sources under the No-Action Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. Noise mitigation measures would not be required under 
the No-Action Alternative because there are no adverse effects associated with 
this alternative. 

4.4.5 Biological Resources 

The Proposed Action and alternatives (except No-Action) would result in 
alteration or loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat, including habitat for the 
desert tortoise, a federally and state-listed threatened species. These impacts 
are described below for each alternative. 

Assumptions used in analyzing the effects of the Proposed Action and 
alternatives include: 

• All staging and other areas disturbed temporarily by construction would be 
placed in previously disturbed areas (e.g., paved or cleared areas), to the 
fullest extent possible. 

• Proportions of disturbance associated with each land use category were 
determined based on accepted land use planning concepts. Development 
within each parcel could occur at one or more locations anywhere within 
that category, unless designated as vacant land on the project maps. 

4.4.5.1 Proposed Action. Development of a commercial airport at George 
AFB would affect biological resources primarily through vegetation/habitat loss, 
aircraft noise, and air pollutant emissions. The project area includes 5,073 acres 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-183 









on the base, and an additional 2,352 acres off base (2,217 acres to the txMth 
aixl 135 acres to the south). Construction activities would disturb 
approximately 2,439 acres on base and 202 acres off base. The primary 
impacts of disturbance would be loss of native vegetation and its associated 
value as wildlife habitat and loss of habitat for the desert tortoise. 

Vegetation. Overall, the Proposed Action would result in a maximum loss of 
approximately 1,290 acres of creosote bush scrub with scattered Joshua trees 
(native desert habitat) on base and another 202 acres off base, and 2 acres of 
riparian and wetland vegetation on base. The remainder of the construction 
disturbance (1,147 acres on base) would be in ruderal vegetation or presently 
disturbed areas that have low biological value. Disturbances would be spread 
over time in three development phases as shown in Table 4.4-25. These losses 
would result from new construction and renovation of existing airfield, aviation 
support, industrial, and commercial facilities. The least impact on native 
vegetation would occur in Phase 1 when most of the development involves use 
of previously disturbed areas. Losses of native vegetation increase in the next 
phases as more relatively undisturbed areas are used. During operations, 
vegetation maintenance around the airfield for safety could convert creosote 
bush scrub to ruderal vegetation through mowing or use of oil palliatives for 
dust control. In addition, Joshua trees in this area may be removed as part of 
those maintenance activities. 


Table 4.4-25. Direct Impacts of the Proposed Action on Vegetation by 

Phase (acres) 


Habitat 

Phase 1 

Phase 2 

Phase 3 

Native Vegetation^*^ 

120 


857 

Previously Disturbed^^ 

483 

287 

394 

Total 

603 

787 

1,251 


(a) Includes creosote bush scrub, Joshua trees, and riparian and wetland vegetation. 

(b) Includes ruderal vegetation and disturbed areas (paved, barren, or buildings). 


About 1 to 2 acres of riparian and wetland vegetation in the two drainages on 
the east side of existing housing and the one east of the crosswind runway 
could be directly affected if these drainages were modified (e.g., channelized) to 
accommodate increased peak stormwater runoff resulting from a greater area of 
impervious sur^ces. Diversion of runoff to other (new) drainage structures 
could reduce the annual water flow in these drainages with detrimental indirect 
effects on the existing vegetation. These effects could occur during any of the 
phases and some would likely occur in each phase. 

Most of the 374 acres in the eastern part of the base identified as 
recreation/vacant land (Including the 77-acre golf course) are assumed to 
remain in their present state, but up to 15 acres of creosote bush scrub could 


4-184 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 











be lost in Phase 1. However, use of off-road vehicles, such as mountain bikes 
and motorcycles, in the 220 acres of creosote bush scrub and small riparian 
scrub areas (about 1 acre) would likely continue and could increase with greater 
ease of access, thus accelerating erosion and loss of native vegetation in the 
area. Indirect effects would also occur as a resiA of sediment and chemicals 
(e.g., cement, and fuels or lubricants leaked or spilled) carried in runoff from 
construction sites and paved surfaces during operations. 

Replacement of vegetation with facilities, maintenance of vegetation near the 
runways for safety, altered runoff and drainage patterns, and runoff of pollutants 
would have long-term effects that would continue during operation. The 
resulting loss of native vegetation, particulariy Joshua trees, pencil cholla, and 
riparian and wetland vegetation, would constitute adverse impacts. 

Wildlife 

Habitat Alteration and Loss . Wildlife would be affected by a long-term loss or 
alteration of habitat (see Vegetation discussed above) within the base 
boundaries and the 473 acres to be developed off-site (of which 202 would be 
disturbed by construction), except where drainages are indirectly altered off 
site. Loss or alteration of habitat would affect common wildlife species by 
displacement of mobile species to adjacent areas and mortality of less mobile 
species. If the adjacent habitat is already at its carrying capacity, the displaced 
animals would compete with the residents for available resources, causing 
ecological disruption until the populations decrease and equilibrium is 
re-established. Species that would be affected, if present, include those with 
relatively small home ranges such as some birds (e.g., roadrunner, cactus wren, 
American kestrel, and burrowing owl), mammals (e.g., jackrabbit and kangaroo 
rat), and reptiles. The loss of habitat could also affect wider-ranging species 
that forage in the area such as raptors (e.g., golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, 
and red-tailed hawk) and predatory mammals (e.g., coyote and kit fox). The 
ultimate effect would be a decrease in local populations of these species. 

Loss of on-base landscaped areas would reduce the habitat available for 
species adapted to urban settings. Effects on their populations would be 
negligible because the area lost would be small compared to that available in 
the area and most, if not all, would be replaced by new landscaping. 

Converting a maximum of 1,492 acres of creosote bush scrub to aviation 
support, industrial, and commercial development and fragmenting 
approximately 1,240 acres as vacant lands scattered among the developments 
would increase the abundance of species tolerant of these changes such as 
common ravens, house sparrows, European starlings, rock doves (domestic 
pigeons), and rodents. An increase in their population size in the area could 
adversely affect native species through predation (e.g., ravens on desert 
tortoise) or competition. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-185 



Noise/Activity . Activities and noise associated with demolition and constniction 
of faculties would have short-term effects on local wildlife by causing those 
intolerant of such disturbances to avoid the vicinity of the project. Noise, 
activities, and iighting associated with operation of the airport and 
industrial/commercial facilities would continue these effects indefinitely. 
Operation of the airport would continue the aircraft noise and visual-presence 
effects presently occurring as a result of flight operations at George AFB. The 
type and frequency of noise events, however, would change because different 
aircraft would be involved. Most flight activity would be associated with tfra 
north-south runway and occur between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. About 70 percent of 
these flights would be small, non-jet aircraft (see Table 4.2-3) that produce 
much less noise than commercial or military jet aircraft. The maximum (single 
event) estimated sound level over the Mojave River is 73 dB. This would occur 
infrequently because jet use of the airport would be a small proportion of the 
total flights and most activity would be on the north-south runway. 
Consequently, overall effects on wildlife populations adjacent to the base would 
be short term because most would be expected to habituate to the disturbance 
and return to their former habitats. 

Effects on Aquatic Biota . No perennial aquatic habitats would be directly 
affected by the Proposed Action. Loss or alteration of the ephemeral drainages 
in the area would have minimal effects on aquatic biota. 

Threatened and Endangered Species. Several federally and state-listed 
endangered, threatened, or candidate species in the vicinity of George AFB 
could be affected by the Proposed Action. The desert tortoise, a threatened 
(federal and state) species is known to be present and would be affected by the 
Proposed Action as described below. Other listed or candidate species that 
may be present but have not been documented to be on the base (see 
Appendix K) could also be affected by the project. 

Desert Tortoise . Surveys on George AFB and in its immediate vicinity have 
located populations of the desert tortoise, a federally listed threatened species. 
Tortoises occur in low density (20 to 50 tortoises per square mile) in the north 
and southwest areas of the base, with one high-density area (50 to 100 per 
square mile) in the northeast corner. 

Development of a commercial airport on George AFB could result in 
disturbance or loss of 753 acres of known habitat for the federally listed 
(threatened) desert tortoise, including 188 acres of high-density habitat by 2013. 
This would leave 116 acres of high density habitat and 165 acres of low density 
habitat intact outside the base boundary. The low density habitat would be lost 
in Phase 2 and the high density habitat in Phase 3. New taxiways to the aviation 
support areas and the perimeter road, to be relocated, may pass through one or 
both tortoise habitats during Phase I. Construction and use of these facilities 
could result in a permanent loss of habitat and tortoise mortality through road 


4-186 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







Mis. for example. The amount of habitat affected would depend on location of 
the road and taxiways. No construction of other fadities is expected to occur 
in this area. Sol disturbance could irtcrease erosion and decrease plant (food) 
productivity. In addition, construction workers may coNect tortoises for pets. 
Even handling them could result in stress or damage that would reduce their 
sun/ival. 

In addition to the disturbarKe or loss of known habitat, a maximum of 857 acres 
of unsurveyed potential tortoise habitat could also be disturbed or lost New 
taxiways would be bult in the airfield area during Phase 3. resulting in loss of up 
to 100 acres and fragmentation of 177 acres. Another 580 acres are in the 
proposed business park area, arxl this habitat would be permanently lost: 

135 acres in Phase 1, about 225 acres in Phase 2. and 220 acres in Phase 3. 

Indirect effects of the Proposed Action could also affect the desert tortoise. Any 
project-related increase in the local raven populatiorts coiM adversdy affect the 
desert tortoise through increased predation. Increasing human presence in the 
area wouid increase the potential for llegal collection of tortoises for pets. 

These effects would add to those of habitat loss. 

The loss or disturbance of habitat arxl individual tortoises woidd constitute an 
adverse impact on this species. Ail tortoises within the area that would be 
disturbed during construction would need to be counted to quantify the impact, 
and this impact would likely require mitigation as described below. The Air 
Force has cotKiucted informal Section 7 consultation with USFWS for potential 
land conveyance to private parties. 

If portions of the property containing desert tortoises are transferred to another 
federal agency, that agency may be required to conduct additional consultation 
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act prior to irreversible or 
irretrievable commitment of resources to any project that could adversely affect 
the desert tortoise. Formal consultation urxler Section 7 of the Endangered 
Species Act is required if the federal agency determines that its action may 
affect listed species or critical habitat or if formal consultation is requested by 
the Director of the USFWS. Formal consultation is a process between the 
USFWS arxf the federal agency that concludes with the USFWS's issuance of a 
biological opinion that states whether or not the federal action is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction 
or adverse modification of criticai habitat A no-jeopardy opinion may include 
restrictions on the amount of incidental adverse effects to listed species and 
critical habitat A USFWS opinion that the project could jeopardize the 
continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of criticai habitat known as a jeopardy r^nion, wouid also include 
reasonable and prudent alternatives, if any, that the federal agency could 
implement to avoid jeopardizing the listed species or criticai habitat If a 
jeopardy opinion is issued, the federal agency will either alter or cease its action 


George AFB Disposal end Reuse FEIS 


4-187 







to comply vvith the no-leopardy mandat* in Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 
Species Act or seek an exemption from thia mandate under Section 7(h) of the 
Act 

For properties conveyed to non^ederal and private parties, those parties would 
be subject to the prohibkions listed in Section 9 of the Endangered Species A^ 
(16 use §1538) and SO CFR Part 17, Subparts C,O.F. and G. For certain 
activities involving the export possesskNi, taking, sale, or transport of 
threatened or endangered animal species, inciuding the desert tortoise, 
non^ederai and private parties would be required to obtain a permit under 
Section 10 of the Erxlangered Species Act (16 USC §1539) arxi 50 CFR Part 17, 
Subparts C and D. 

Other Species. Habitat loss could affect the Mohave ground squirrel (a 
Category 2 candidate for federal listing arxl state-listed as threatened), San 
Diego coast homed lizard (federal candidate for listing and state designated as 
a species of special concern), and other candidate or sensitive species 
(Appendix K) if any of these species are present in or use the areas proposed 
for development 

Sensitive Habitats. The three small, on-base wetlands would likely be 
disturbed or possibly lost as a result of project construction and operation. 
Drainage patterns would likely be altered during development of the airport and 
runoff would be increased as a result of greater areas of impervious surfaces. 
The existing drainages may be lined with concrete for flood and erosion control, 
which would eliminate the present wetlands and associated riparian habitat; a 
maximum of 1.32 acres wetlands could be affected. In addition, the wetlands 
could be adversely affected by sedimentation associated with construction, 
scour from increased runoff, and possibly accidental spills of toxic materials 
(during construction arxi operations). Although the area lost or degraded would 
be small and relatively Insignificant bioiogically, this would be an adverse effect 
because federal and state policies dictate no net loss of wetlands. As noted 
above for vegetation, impacts would likely be spread over all three phases. 

Faiing of wetland areas t<Haliing less than 10 acres does not require an 
irxlividuai COE permit, sirx» this is an activity covered by the existing 
authorization of a nationwide permit Filing of a wetland between 1 and 
10 acres requires prior rxitificaition to the COE, whereas filing of a wetland 
under 1 acre does not However, notffication of the COE is recommended even 
in those cases where filing of less than 1 acre is anticipated. 

Cumulative Impacts. Vegetation arxl widlife habitat loss or alteration resultir>g 
from developing a commercial airport at George AFB would add to the small 
losses associated with planned highway upgrading and construction of other 
projects such as the SST. The increase in vehicular traffic associated with the 
proposed airport could be offset somewhat by predicted decreases in traffic, if 
and when the SST is completed. 

4-188 George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 












Mitigation Maaaurat. Because the desert tortoise is a federally listed species. 
USFWS may require mitigation or cortservation measures to protect the 
species. Such measures could range from complete avoidance of known 
habitat areas to preparation and implementation of a habitat conservation plan 
by the new property owner for habitat that would be lost to any proposed 
development For the latter, dte project developer would have to cortsult with 
USFWS, Califomia Departmei^ of Fish and Game, and possibly BLM to develop 
a habitat conservation plan prior to construction. The contents of this plan 
would deperKi on the official policy of the USFWS at that time regarding this 
species. Mitigation measures could range from redesign of the Proposed 
Action to avoid disturbance of tortoise habitat, to a capture and relocation 
program. The latter would include (l)surveys conducted in all areas that woidd 
be developed to locate tortoises. (2) collection and relocation of ail indMduais 
located to nearby suitable habitat using methods approved by these agencies, 
and (3) a monitoring plan for the relocation site(s) to be conducted for 3 years 
to determine survival rate and to identify further mitigation if necessary. Another 
potential mitigation measure would be to set aside and improve compensation 
habitat. 

Surveys would also need to be conducted by the project developer in the 
appropriate season to determine if any federal candidate plant or animal species 
are present in the proposed development area. If any are found, a mitigation 
plan would need to be developed and implemented. 

Complete avoidance of disturbance to known desert tortoise habitat would be 
highly effective in preventing impacts to the species. To be 100 percent 
effective, however, indirect impacts (e.g., ORV use. including bicycles, and 
collecting) would also need to be controiied. Development of a habitat 
conservation plan would also protect desert tortoises, but the effectiveness 
cannot be quantified untS such a plan is developed and specific measure in the 
plan are evaluated. 

Wetlands on base would be protected in compliance with Executive Order 
11990 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Mitigations could include 
(1) avoidance of direct and irxJirect disturbance of wetlands through facility 
design; (2) on-site (if possible) replacement of any wetlands lost at a ratio 
determined through consultation with USFWS and COE; (3) recreation of 
wetland habitat elsewhere on site or purchase and fencing of any off-site 
replacement habitat; and (4) monitoring (until habitat becomes well established) 
of any replacement wetlands required to determine the effectiveness of 
replacement and any remedial measures necessary. Avoidance of disturbance 
could include controiiing runoff from construction sites into drainages through 
use of berms, silt curtains, straw bales and other appropriate techniques. 
Equipment could be washed in areas where wash water could be contained and 
treated or evaporated. 


George AF6 Dispose and Reuse FEIS 






Protection under Executive Order 11990 would deperrd on the type of 
stipulations placed on the land conveyance. Effectiveness could range from 0 
tolOOpercent Section 404 of the Clean Water Act generally applies only to 
wetlands larger than 1 acre, arxj thus, would not be effective in protecting the 
small wetlarxls on George AFB. 

Avoidance of direct and indirect impacts to wetlands would be 100 percent 
^ective in protecting these habitats. ControUing runoff of pollutants to 
wetlands can be accomplished with existirrg techniques, but monitoring is 
necessary to ensure that the measures are employed correctly arxl that 
structures are maintained adequately. Re-creation of wetland habitats (either on 
or off site), however, can have varying success in mitigating that loss. Unless 
the new habitat is fully developed prior to the loss, no mitigation is otXained for 
the temporal loss of this habitat. Re-creation of wetlands has fUKi varying 
degrees of success in the past 

4.4.5.2 International Airport Alternative. Conversion of George AFB anri the 
surrounding area to an international airport would affect biological resources 
primarily through vegetation/habitat loss including 5,755 acres of habitat having 
value to wildlife as compared to a total of 1,492 acres for the Proposed Action. 
Effects of operation are not expected to have substantial impacts on wildlife 
populations as described below. 

Vegetation. Development of the HDIA, its support facilities, and related 
commercial developments would result in the use of 13,426 acres of land: 8,353 
acres off base arxl 5,073 acres on base. Construction activities could cause a 
maximum loss of 1,424 acres of creosote bush scrub and 1 acre of wetlarxis on 
base, and 3,680 acres d creosote bush scrub plus 650 acres of Joshua tree 
woodland off base, through vegetation clearing and grading for facflity sites arxl 
staging areas (e.g., materials and equipment storage). The remainder of the on- 
and off-base areas that would be disturbed during construction (1,332 acres) is 
landscaped or does not support vegetation due to the presence of pavement 
arxl buildings. As for the Proposed Action, these disturt}arx;es would be spread 
over time in three development phases (Table 4.4-26). Most of the development 
In each phase would be in areas of native vegetation. Phase 2 is predominantly 
airfield development 

Vegetation maintenance around the runways for safety during operation of the 
airport would adversely affect at least part of the remaining airfield ^pension 
area. In addition, areas of native vegetation temporarily disturbed during 
construction may not recover to pre-project conditions and would thus remain 
weedy or semi-barren. The loss of native vegetation would have an adverse 
impact, particularly for Joshua trees and penci cholla. The latter two species 
occur scattered throughout the creosote bush scrub and are given special 
consideration under the California Desert Native Plant Act. 

I 

j 

I 


4-190 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 












Tabit 4.4-26. Diract Impaeta of tha Intamational Airport Altamatfva on 
Vagatation by Phaaa (acraa) 


Habitat 

Phase 1 

Phase 2 

Phases 

Native Vegetation^*^ 

1,185 

3,694 

875 

Previously Oisturbed^^ 

247 

960 

125 

Total 

1,432 

4,654 

1,001 


(a) InciudM craotota bush KTub, Joshua tTM*. and riparian and wattand vagclalion. 

(b) indudM rudsnl vagatation and disturbsd araas (pavad, barran, or buildings). 


Construction of the airport would result in changes in the topography and/or 
drainage patterns of lands on the base and within the ADO. particularly through 
development of drainages to carry storm runoff from impermeable surfoces. 
This would likely cause adverse effects on the ephemeral washes and their 
associated sparse riparian/wetiand plant assemblages by removing vegetation 
or altering the natural flow regime. The increased peak runoff may require 
channelization and maintenance of existing or new drainages to control erosion 
and flooding. This could residt in a loss of native vegetation and prevent its 
reestablishment. IncreasirHj temporal flow in existing drainages could cause a 
periodic removal of vegetation through scour while increased moisture could 
stimulate plant growth. A decrease in temporal flow in natural channels through 
diversion to other drainage structures could reduce the water supply to 
vegetation along the natural channels, thereby affecting its growth and 
productivity. Runoff of sediments from disturbed soils, construction materials 
such as cement, and fuels or lubricants leaked onto paved surfaces could also 
affect vegetation in these drainages. Existing drainages that contain 
wetland/riparian vegetation supported by runoff from developments (e.g., 
housing and runways) could be adversely affected through alteration of runoff 
patterns and channelization. Impacts could be minimized by controlling 
development and regulating runoff near these areas. Wetlands are discussed 
under Sensitive Habitats within this section. 

Wildlife 

Habitat Alteration and Loss . The primary effects of the International Airport 
/Mtemative on wildlife would be a long-term habitat alteration or loss that could 
cause a decrease in the locai population size of species associated with desert 
scrub communities (see Vegetation above for areas affected) as described for 
the Proposed Action. The area affected, however, would be much larger. In 
addition, fragmentation of desert scrub habitat (i.e., 3,777 acres in parcels of 
vacant land interspersed with development) would reduce its value to wildlife 
atxl the carrying capacity for most native species. Effects would be additive to 
those of direct habitat loss. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-191 









As for the Proposed Action, renxjval of on-base landscape trees, shrubs, aiKf 
grasses would result in habitat loss for species adapted to urban settings with 
potential effects on their populations. Likewise, the change in habitat from 
native vegetation to industrial development would result in an increase in 
specie tolerant of these changes resulting in additional adverse effects on 
native species. 

Noise/ActMty . Corwtruction activities and the associated noise woUkl have 
short-term effects on local widlife, as described for the Proposed Action but 
over a larger area. Noise, activities, and lighting associated with the operation 
of an airport woidd continue these effects indefinitely. 

During airport operations, aircraft noise and visual presence could startle and 
negatively affect wildlife living near the airport, particularly in the Mojave River 
riparian zone. However, most species that inhabit the area are probably already 
noise-tolerant as a result of the present jet noise from George AFB. 

Jet use of the airport would increase from about 57 percent of the estimated 
annual operations in 1998 to 79 percent in 2013 (see Table 4.2-5). Most of the 
noise would be concentrated to the north of the north-south runways and 
southwest of the crosswind runway (see Rgures 4.4-14 through 16). The 
maximum (single event) estimated sound level over the Mojave River is 73 dB. 
Most flight activity would occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. with 
few flights (primarily landings) crossing the Mojave River. Noise events from the 
proposed international airport thus would generally be lower in magnitude but 
more frequent than from the present military jet operations at George AFB. The 
greater frequency (number) of noise events over time may cause some wildlife 
(individuals) to avoid the ends of the runways, but populations of these animals 
in the region would not be adversely affected. Most animals would adapt to the 
noise. Wildlife use of the Mojave River riparian forest would not be adversely 
affected as described for the Proposed Action. 

Effects on Aquatic Biota. No perennial aquatic habitats are present in the area 
that would be developed under the proposed international airport, other than 
the maintained pond for golf course irrigation. Loss or alteration of the 
ephemeral drainages on the site would have minimal effects on aquatic biota. 
Increased runoff from impervious surfaces of the proposed development could 
provide more water for aquatic biota. 

Threatened and Endangered Species. Several federally and state-listed 
threatened, endangered, and candidate species are known to occur within the 
vicinity of George AFB and could be affected by development of the proposed 
international airport particulariy the desert tortoise. 

Desert Tortoise. The entire planning area for the ADD has not been surveyed 
specifically for the desert tortoise, but suitable habitat is present and may 
contain additional tortoises. Development of the international airport would 


4-192 


George AFB Dispose arKi Reuse FEIS 







result in the physical di^urbance of 4,583 acres. Because of fragntentation, 
hoerever, the disturbarK:e or loss of suitable tortoise habitat could be 9,040 
acres, including the entire 304 acres of high-density habitat and 585 acres of 
low-density habitat. The remaining 8,150 acres affected by the prefect are 
unsurveyed suitable habitat that could support low tortoise densities. 

Approximately 415 acres of the iow-density habitat and ail 304 acres of the 
high-density habitat would be within the airfield category to be developed in 
Phase 2. Extension of the existing crosswind runway and construction of a new 
runway parallel to it would fragment and reduce these habitats by as much as 
50 percent or more. Other facilities would not be constructed in these areas, 
but habitat disturbance could occur as a result of maintenance activities such as 
mowing and use of oil palliatives. As described for the Proposed Action, 
possible collection by workers would adversely affect the tortoise populations. 
The remaining approximately 170 acres of low-density habitat would be 
permanently lost due to construction of industrial aviation facilities. 

About 5,565 acres of suitable tortoise habitat are in the airfield area north of the 
base where new runways would be built in Phase 2. Approximately 50 percent 
(2,783 acres) of this habitat would be permanently lost and additional areas 
would be disturbed by construction activities. Another 2,585 acres of suitable 
habitat are present in areas where aviation support, industrial, and industrial 
aviation facilities would be built. Approximately 1,800 acres of this would be 
permanently lost: 625 acres in Phase 1,1,300 acres in Phase 2, and 875 acres 
in Phase 3. Fragmentation of the habitat within these development areas could 
increase the loss of viable habitat (i.e., large enough to support a population of 
desert tortoises) substantially. 

Indirect effects on the desert tortoise would be similar to those described for the 
Proposed Action, but the larger area proposed for development would increase 
the potential for such impacts. Such effects would be additive to the direct 
impacts of habitat disturbance and loss. 

In summary, a minimum of 377 acres of low-density habitat, 152 acres of high 
density habitat, and 4,583 acres of suitable habitat but unsurveyed would be lost 
during construction of the airport as detailed in the preceding paragraphs. This 
habitat loss would be an adverse impact requiring formal consultation with the 
USFWS, as described for the Proposed Action. Mitigation for these losses 
would be required (see Mitigations). 

Other Species . The Mohave ground squirrel, a species listed by Caiifomia as 
threatened and a Category 2 candidate for federal listing, also occurs within the 
project area. The relatively undisturbed acreage within the ADD is suitable 
habitat for the squirrel, and any loss of habitat would constitute an adverse 
impact. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-193 






The San Diego coast homed lizard has been observed jmt outside the proiect 
area and is probably common throughout the area, as suitable habitat is 
present Development of the airpc ' could possibly adversely affect this federal 
candidate species through habitat loss and increased predation by ravens 
attracted to the project or by other species displaced by the project 

Two annual plant species that are candidates for federal listing, the desert 
cymopterus and the Mojave monkeyflower, are likely to occur in the ADD 
according to known habitat, distribution, and nearby reported occurrences; 
however, surveys for these plants have not been undertaken at the optimum 
time of year. These species could possibly be adversely affected by 
development of an airport. 

Several additional sensitive species that occur within the ADD (primarily 
Califomia Species of Special Concern, see Appendix K) could also be negatively 
affected by the international airport through habitat loss. 

Sensitive Habitats. Construction of the international airport would likely affect 
the small wetlands on the base. The base residential area would not be 
preserved and incorporated into the airport plans, and the two small wetlands 
on the east side of the housing area would likely be adversely affected during 
demolition of the residential area and replacement with commercial facilities in 
Phase 1. In addition, the increase in impervious surfaces would generate more 
runoff than from the housing area, and this would probably be channeled into 
these natural drainages. Effects on the wetlands could be positive, negative, or 
negligible, depending on the quantity and quality of this runoff. The 0.87-acre 
wetland in a drainage in the northeastern part of the base would likely be 
removed by new construction in Phase 2. However, the creation of larger 
runways and other impervious surfaces in the same vicinity would probably lead 
to increased runoff that would create similar conditions elsewhere in the 
drainage, assuming the drainages would not be lined with concrete. If the 
wetlands were not directly removed during construction of the airport and 
associated facilities, they could be adversely affected by sedimentation 
associated with construction or scour from increased runoff. Impacts and 
permit requirements would be as described for the Proposed Action. 

The wetland and riparian areas associated with the Mojave River would not be 
directly impacted by construction or normal operation of the international 
airport because the river is not included in the ADD. Runoff from the airport 
during construction and operations would be unlikely to add sediments (sand, 
soils and construction material) and pollutants to the Mojave River, but if they 
occur would likely be local and short term. 

Cumulative Impacts. Vegetation and wildlife habitat loss or alteration resulting 
from the development of an international airport at George AFB would add to 
the small losses associated with planned highway upgrading and construction 
of other projects such as the SST. The increase in vehicular traffic associated 


4-194 


George AFB Disposal arid Reuse FEIS 





with the airport could be offset somewhat by predicted decreases in traffic if and 
when the SST is completed. 


Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures to offs^ adverse effects would be 
simlar to those described for the Proposed Action. 

4.4.5.3 Commercial Airport with Residential Aitemative. Effects of 
construction and operation of this aitemative on biological resources would be 
similar to those discussed for the Proposed Action (Section 4.4.5.1). The t(^ 
amount of natural vegetation and habitat lost or altered would be nearly the 
same. The 473 acres off base would not be used in this aitemative, but most of 
the 297 acres of vacant land (primarily creosote bush scrub) in the Proposed 
Action would be used for residential development. This would increase the loss 
of native vegetation and wildlife habitat by about 46 acres. Native vegetation 
losses would occur in each of the three developnnent phases as shown in 
Table 4.4-27. The quantity lost in the first two phases is due to new residentisd 
development while the loss in Phase 3 would result from residential and 
industrial development. 


Table 4.4-27. Direct Impacts of the Commercial Airport with Residential 
Aitemative on Vegetation by Phase (acres) 


Habitat 

Phase 1 

Phase 2 

Phase 3 

Native Vegetation^** 

143 

428 

969 

Previously Disturbed^^** 

287 

457 

284 

Total 

430 

885 

1,253 


(a) Includes creosote bush scrub, Joshua trees, and riparian and wetland vegetation. 

(b) Includes ruderal vegetation artd disturbed areas (paved, barren, or buildings). 


Loss or alteration of 1.540 acres of native vegetation and fragmentation of the 
remaining 717 acres of this vegetation type on the base would reduce its value 
to wildlife and thus the local abundance of native animals. Non-native species 
would be favored by the habitat change and could adversely affect native 
wildlife through predation or competition as described for the Proposed Action. 

The potential for disturbance of high-dens'ity desert tortoise habitat (188 acres) 
would be the same as for the Proposed Action prior to full development (i.e., 
disturbance of 63 acres in Phase 1 and loss of 125 acres in Phase 3). About 
185 acres of low-density habitat in the southwest portion of the base would be 
permanently lost to industrial development in Phase 3. The remaining 1(X) acres 
of this habitat would be in the safety clear zone south of the runways and 
surrounded by development. Fragmentation of the habitat in this manner would 
likely result in an area too small to support a viable tortoise population because 
individual home ranges are generally on the order of 1(X) to 640 acres (Burge, 
1977; Berry, 1974). Thus, the entire 285 acres of low-density habitat would be 
lost. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-195 



The 430-acre, low-density tortoise habitat in arid adjacent to the rv^rtheast 
comer of the base wouid also be fragmented by this alternative. Part would be 
permanently lost as a result of industrial (Phase 3) and residential (Phase 1) 
development, and part would be In the safety clear zone at the end of the 
crosswind runway. Approximately 70 acres would be left as a linear corridor of 
vacant land nearly surrounded by development (mostly residential), and 
150 acres along the eastern base boundary would remain undeveloped. 
Recreational activities of residents, such as mountain biking and dirt biking 
(motorcycles), would degrade the undisturbed habitat and possibly cause direct 
mortality of tortoises. Furthermore, handling or collection of desert tortoises for 
pets by local residents would likely occur. Thus, the tortoise population in this 
area would likely be eliminated due to residential development. 

The amount of suitable habitat permanently lost would be about 480 acres. 
Indirect effects would be similar to those discussed for the Proposed Action and 
would add to the direct habitat loss impacts. Overall habitat loss, including 
indirect effects of collection or handling and increased predation, would have an 
adverse impact on the desert tortoise. Formal consultation with USFWS and 
mitigation wouid be required, as described for the Proposed Action. Other 
sensitive species would be affected the same as for the Proposed Action. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts are the same as for the Proposed 
Action. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures would be the same as for the 
Proposed Action, but would be required only within the base boundaries. 

4.4.5.4 General Aviation Center Alternative. Construction and operation of 
this alternative would affect biological resources through vegetation/habitat loss, 
aircraft noise, and air pollutant emissions. The area to be used would be 
approximately 2,840 acres (of which 220 acres would be subject to disturbance) 
with the remaining 2,233 acres to be left in its present state. Loss of creosote 
bush scrub and impacts to the desert tortoise are the primary impacts of this 
project, and all would occur in Phase 1. 

Vegetation. Vegetation within the 1,573-acre airfield designation would not be 
directly affected by construction activities. During operations, however, 
vegetation maintenance for safety could convert creosote bush scrub to ruderal 
vegetation through mowing or use of oil dust palliatives. Development of 
aviation support facilities would affect 15 acres of creosote bush scrub and 
205 acres of ruderal vegetation and disturbed areas. 

Minor disturbances to existing landscaping could occur during modifications to 
existing buildings, including housing units. The small wetland and riparian 
scrub areas on the base are not likely to be affected by these construction 
activities. 


4-196 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







Use of the creosote bush scrub areas for movie sets in otherwise undeveioped 
area couid disturb the native vegetation and soiis. ieading to a weedy or 
semi-barren condition, in addition, use of off road vehicles in the vacant land 
adjacent to the housing area would likely continue and could increase due to 
greater ease of access. This activity would increase erosion and loss of native 
vegetation in both creosote bush scrub and riparian scrub plant communities. 
Loss or long-term disturbance of native vegetation, particularly Joshua trees, 
pencil choila, and riparian vegetation, would have adverse effects on the local 
vegetation. 

Wildlife. Wildlife would be affected by the long-term alteration or loss of habitat 
(primarily vegetation as discussed above). Construction activities (Phase 1) 
would displace mobile species to adjacent areas and cause mortality of less 
mobile species as described for the Proposed Action. The amount of habitat 
and number of animals, however, would be smaller. Activities and noise 
associated with construction would cause those animals intolerant of such 
disturbances to temporarily avoid the area. Operation of the facilities proposed 
would continue many of the current noise, lighting, and visual effects on wildlife, 
but the type and frequency of noise events would change. Most of the flights 
wouid be small non-jet aircraft that produce much lower sound levels than do 
military jets. Right activity would be primarily along the crosswind runway and 
during the day. Overall effects on wildlife populations on or adjacent to the 
base wouid be short term because most animals would habituate to the 
disturbance and return to their former habitats. The General Aviation Center 
Alternative would not directly affect aquatic habitats on or adjacent to the base. 

Threatened and Endangered Species. Development of the General Aviation 
Center Alternative on George AFB would be unlikely to adversely affect most of 
the listed or sensitive species known from the vicinity of the base (Appendix K). 

Desert Tortoise . The proposed development (all in Phase 1) would cause a 
permanent loss of approximately 9 acres of low-density desert tortoise habitat 
and divide the habitat into two segments as a result of new road construction to 
connect Shay Road with reskfentlai and commercial areas. The airfield would 
encompass 118 acres of hIgh-density and 330 acres of low-density tortoise 
habitat, but no construction activities are expected to occur in these areas. 
Construction-related activities, including indirect effects however, could 
adversely affect the desert tortoise and their habitat as described for the 
Proposed Action. 

The loss or disturbance of habitat and individual tortoises would constitute an 
adverse impact on this species. Formal consultation with the USFWS and 
mitigation under Section 7 or Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, as 
amended, would be required. 

Other Species . Habitat disturbance or loss could affect the Mohave ground 
squirrel, San Diego coast horned lizard, and other candidate or sensitive 
George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-197 











species. If any of these species are present in or use the areas proposed for 
development 

Sensitive Habitats. The three small wetlands on the base are not likely to be 
directly affected by the General Aviation Center Alternative. The wetland in the 
drainage ditch along the northeast side of the crosswind runway could be 
affected by runoff of sediment from runway or commercial construction and 
possibly by accidental spills of toxic materials during construction. 

Cumulative Impacts. Vegetation and wildlife habitat loss or alteration resulting 
from developing an aviation center at George AFB would add to the small 
losses associated with planned highway upgrading and construction of the SST 
project. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures would be similar to those described 
for the Proposed Action. Mitigation, however, would be required only within 
base boundaries and on a lesser scale as a result of the lower impacts 
associated with the General Aviation Center Alternative. 

4.4.S.5 Non-Aviation Ait^native. Development of non-aviation facilities and 
residential areas on the base would require demolition of some existing 
aircraft-related facilities and construction of new industrial and institutional 
facilities and of residents units. Of the 3,762 acres to be disturbed during 
construction, a maximum of 1,819 acres would be creosote bush scrub. The 
remainder of the disturbance would be in ruderal vegetation, urban/landscaped 
areas, and disturbed areas. The distribution of the impacts in the three 
development phases is shown in Tabie 4.4-28. The loss of native vegetation is 
related primarily to residential development although industrial development in 
Phase 3 contributed 120 acres. Landscaping of residential areas would provide 
habitat for species (primarily non-native) tolerant of human activity and adapted 
to this type of environment. An increase in these species could adversely affect 
local populations of native species through competition or predation. The 
existing 1.32 acres of wetlands and associated riparian habitat on base would 
likely be lost or altered, as described for the Proposed Action. 


Table 4.4-28. Direct Impacts of the Non-Aviation Attemative on 
Vegetation by Phase (acres) 


Habitat 

Phase 1 

Phase 2 

Phase 3 

Native Vegetation^** 

45 

579 

1,195 

Previously Disturbed^*** 

930 

585 

428 

Total 

975 

1,164 

1,623 


(a) Indudes creosote bust) scrub, Joshua trees, and riparian and wetland vegetation. 

(b) Indudes ruderal vegetation and disturbed areas (paved, barren, or buildings). 

On-base desert tortoise populations would be directly and indirectly affected by 
the Non-Aviation Alternative. In Phase 3 approximately 160 acres of 

4-198 Goorge AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








high-density habitat wouid be permanently lost, and 28 acres would remain in a 
strip between two residential areas. About 475 acres of low-density habitat 
wouid be lost (300 acres in Phase 1,50 acres in Phase 2, and 125 acres in 
Phase 3) with 90 acres remaining in a strip of vacant land between residential 
areas. As for the Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative, approximately 
480 acres of suitable habitat would be permanently lost (Phase 2). The narrow 
band of habitat remaining between residential areas is unlikely to support a 
viable tortoise population in the long term as a result of small habitat size and 
indirect effects of human presence (e.g., collecting and off-road vehicle activity). 
Thus, this area would be added to the direct habitat loss. Placing residential 
areas adjacent to the remaining high- and low-density habitat along the 
northeast comer of the base would increase the potential for similar indirect 
effects in these habitats. Another indirect effect that could occur is an increase 
in the population of ravens or other tortoise predators. Overall impacts on the 
species would be adverse and require formal consultation with the USFWS, as 
described for the Proposed Action. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts are the same as for the Proposed 
Action. 

Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures would be the same as for the 
Proposed Action but within the base boundaries only. 

4.4.5.6 Other Land Use Concepts. As described in Section 2.3.5, several 
federal transfers and independent land use concepts have been identified. 
These actions may take place in addition to one of the integrated reuse 
alterations. 

U.S. Department of Justice. Potential impacts to biological resources may 
result from construction of the FCC on undeveloped land. The parcel consists 
of creosote brush scrub with a lesser area of ruderal habitat. The western and 
southern portions of the proposed site are unsurveyed, but assumed to be 
low-density tortoise habitat. The remaining acres are not assumed to be viable 
tortoise habitat. Construction of facilities and operational activities could result 
in a maximum loss of 580 acres of potential tortoise habitat as discussed for the 
Proposed Action. 

U.S. Department of Interior. This transfer would not result in any impacts to 
biological resources because no construction would be required. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This transfer would 
not result in any impacts to biological resources because renovations would be 
minor and limited to painting, carpeting, and fixture replacement. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. Because this transfer would not involve 
new construction, there wouid be no impact to biological resources. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-199 









U.S. Dapartment of Education. Impacts to biological resources are expected 
to be minimal or nonexistent because the majority of the properties/parceis are 
existing taciities. 

San Bernardino County Work Furlough Program. No impacts to biologicai 
resources would result from this action because new construction would be 
limited to minor renovation. 

Medical Facilities. No impacts to biologicai resources would result from the 
conveyance of the base hospital because new construction, if any, would be 
limited to minor renovation. 

4.4.S.7 No-Action Alternative. Maintenance of the base under the DMT would 
have minimal adverse effects on biological resources. A reduction in human 
activity and a cessation of aircraft flights would reduce disturbance (particuiaily 
by noise) to wildlife on and in the vicinity of the base. Habitat quality for wildlife 
could improve if mowing of nonlandscaped areas is terminated, thereby 
allowing vegetation to grow to its natural height. Cessation of landscape 
irrigation in the housing area would reduce the water supply to the two small 
wetlands (about 0.5 acre combined) adjacent to the housing. This could reduce 
the size of these wetlands or possibly eliminate them. No physical alteration of 
the habitat would occur, however, and wetland vegetation could reestablish if 
the water supply were restored. 

Cumulative Impacts. No cumulative impacts would result from the No-Action 
Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures would be required. 

4.4.6 Cultural Resources 

Potential impacts were assessed by (1) identifying types and possible locations 
of reuse activities that could directly or indirectly affect cultural resources, 

(2) identifying the nature and potential significance of cultural resources in 
potentially affected areas, and (3) classifying potential effects as significant, 
insignificant, or beneficial. 

Air Force requirements under Section 106 of the NHPA are completed, since 
SHPO concurred that the disposal of George AFB would have no effect on 
historic properties. However, reuse activities couid still affect cultural resources 
which may exist in off-base parcels to be acquired under certain plans. 

4.4.6.1 Proposed Action. Because there are no significant historic properties 
or paleontological resources on base, reuse activities will not affect cultural 
resources. Furthermore, no concern was expressed by Native Americans when 
consulted regarding reuse activities on base. Therefore, reuse activities would 
not affect Native American resources. 


4-200 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 











Off-base parcels identified for acquisition may contain cultural resources. The 
off-base area along the Mojave River terrace is known to be highly sensitive in 
regard to the presence of subsurface archaeoiogicai deposits. Eastern 
boundaries of the airfield and aviation support land areas iie dose to this 
terrace. However, no impact is foreseen in conjunction with the potential 
development of this property, because provisions of the NHPA and the 
Caiifomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provide for the consideration of 
cultural resources prior to any ground disturbance. Furthermore, df-base areas 
induded within the overall airport district would be subject to provisions of 
NEPA under FAA mandates regarding requirements for ALP approval. 

Cumulative Impacts. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in association 
with the implementation of the Proposed Action. 

Mitigation Measures. A complete cultural resource investigation in and around 
off-base areas proposed for development would be required of the reuse 
proponent prior to any construction or ground-disturbing activity. Sites 
potentially affected by these actions wiii thus be identified and mitigation 
measures to eliminate or reduce adverse effects may then be developed 
accordingly. 

If methods are developed In consultation with SHPO, this identification effort will 
ensure compliance with cultural resource requirements. 

4.4.6.2 International Airport AKemative. This alternative is similar in nature to 
the Proposed Action, with the major difference being the amount of and location 
of off-base land identified for acquisition. The off-base parcel proposed for the 
crosswind runway extension lies very close to the significant archaeological 
deposits along the Mojave River. In addition to the sensitivity of the Mojave 
River terrace area, the northern portions of the off-base properties are likely to 
contain historic resources. This likelihood is based on historic map and archival 
research that indicates use of this area dating back to the 1880s. 

Beyond this additional area of probability where cultural resources may be 
found, the discussion regarding impacts for the Proposed Action 
(Section 4.4.6.1) is equally appropriate for this alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in association 
with the implementation of the International Airport Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. Appropriate mitigation measures are the same as those 
outlined for the Proposed Action. 

4.4.6.3 Commercial Airport with Residential Alternative. This alternative is 
similar to the Proposed Action, except that all reuse plans are to be contained 
within current base boundaries. Therefore, reuse activities will have no effect on 
cultural resources. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-201 










Cumulativ* Impacts. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in association 
with the implementation of the Commerciai Airport with Residential Alternative. 

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required for this aitemative. 

4.4.6.4 General Aviation Center Aitemative. Since ail activity is contained 
within on-base property, this aitemative will have no effect on cultural resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in association 
with the implementation of the General Aviation Center Aitemative. 

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required for this aitemative. 

4.4.6.5 Non-Aviation Aitemative. Since all activity is contained within orvbase 
property, there will be no effect on cultural resources. 

Cumulative Impacts. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in association 
with the implementation of the Non-Aviation Aitemative. 

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required for this aitemative. 

4.4.6.6 Other Land Use Concepts. None of the proposed plans identified as 
federal transfers or independent land use concepts would have an impact on 
cultural resources. 

4.4.6.7 No-Action Aitemative. There would be no effect on cultural resources 
resulting from implementation of the No-Action Aitemative. 

Cumulative Impacts. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in association 
with the implementation of the No-Action Aitemative. 

Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures would be required under this 
aitemative. 

4.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments are related to the use of 
nonrenewable resources and the effects that use of these resources wili have on 
future generations. Irreversible effects primarily result from use or destruction of 
a specific resource (e.g., energy and minerals) that 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 
(e.g., extinction of a threatened or endangered species). 

Disposal of George AFB will not result in any irreversible and irretrievable 
commitments of resources. 


4-202 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









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

Short-term uses of the biophysical components of man's environment indude 
direct construction-related disturbances and direct impacts associated with an 
increase in population and activity that occurs over a period of less than 
5 years. Long-term uses of man's environment indude those impacts occurring 
over a period of more than 5 years, induding permanent resource loss. 

Construction effects from the Proposed Action and alternatives would result h 
short-term adverse impacts on local air quality, sol erosion, vegetation, desert 
tortoise habitat, and traffic. After construction Is completed, most of these 
impacts would subside, with the exception of vegetation and desert tortoise 
habitat loss. Effects on these resources would be greatest in off-base, high 
desert areas to be acquired. Mitigation measures, such as replanting vegetation 
and relocation of habitat set-aside for tortoises, wodd be implemented to 
reduce the overall impacts to these resources in the long term. The only other 
potential adverse long-term effect would be acceleration of aquifer drawdown in 
the Mojave basin. This aqutfer is already in a state of overdraft that would be 
exacerbated by the development of the George AFB property. Local water 
authorities have been seeking alternative methods of using/providing water to 
remedy this situation. 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


4-203 








THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


George AFB Disposai and Reuse FEIS 









CHAPTER 5 
CONSULTATION 
AND COORDINATION 






5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 


The federal, state and local agencies and private agertcies/ organizations that were contacted 
during the course of preparing this Environmental Impact Statement are listed below. 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 


Federal Aviation Administration 

Environmental Protection Agency 

National Solid Waste Management Association 

SoV Conservation Service 

United States Air Force. George AFB 

United States Department of the Interior/National Park Service 

United States Department of Transportation 

United States Fish and WHdlife Service 

Veterans Administration 

STATE AGENCIES 

Califomia Department of Airports 
Califomia Department of Rsh and Game 
California Department of Forestry and Rre Protection 
Califomia Department of Parks and Recreation 
Califomia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

Califomia Environmental Protection Agency 
Califomia State University • Planning Departmerrt 
State Office of Historic Preservation 


LOCAUREGIONAL AGENCIES 

Adeianto Water District 

Apple Valley Ranchos Water District 

City of Adeianto 

City of Hesperia 

City of Victorville 

County of San Bernardino 

County of Victor Valley 

Department of Health and Safety, Public Water Supply 
Hesperia Water District 
Mojave Water Agency 

Personal consultant to city of Adeianto, Dan Cortwright 

San Bernardino Associated Governments 

San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control District 


George AFB DisposeJ and Reuse FEIS 


5-1 





San BemaidiTK) County Solid Waste Pbmning and Recycling 
Soudiem Caiifbmia Association of Governments 
Town of Apple Valley 

Victor Valley Economic Development Authority (WEO^ 
Victor VaHey Wastewater Reclamation Authority (V ’WRA) 

PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS AND INOMOUALS 

Bechtel Corporation 
ERA 

P&D Technologies 
Southern CalMomia Edison Company 
Southwest Gas Corporation 
The Planning Center - Adelanto 


5-2 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










CHAPTER 6 
LIST OF PREPARERS 
AND CONTRIBUTORS 











6.0 UST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 


W. David ANbom, Project Environmental Professiorud, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.A., 1980, Geography, California State University, San Bernardino 
Years of Experience: 9 

Raui Alonzo, Environmental Specialist, The Earth Technology Corporation 

A. A, 1980, Graphic Arts, Santa Ana Community Cofiege, Califomia 
Years of Experience: 13 

Thomas J. Bartol, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force, Okactor Environmental Division, AFRCE-BMS/DEV 

B. S., 1972, CMi Engineering, U.S. Air Force Academy, Coiorado Springs 
M.S., 1980, Management, Purdue University, Indiana 

Years of Experience: 19 

Robert D. Becerra, Captain, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Air Force Environmental Planning, AF/CEVP 
B.A., 1980, Architecture, University of New Mexico 
M.A., 1990, Public Administration, Troy University, Alabama 
Years of Experience: 11 

Robert W. Blakely, Airspace Studies, Science Appliadlons International Corporation 
B.S., 1962, Aviation Management, Auburn University 
Years of Experience: 28 

Denise R. Caron, Disposal Management Team, Chief • Environmental, George AFB, California 
B.S., 1980, Chemistry, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 
B.S., 1980, Environmental Chemistry, State University of New York 
College of Environmental arxl Forestry, Syracuse, New York 
Years of Experience: 10 

Jon A. Ciarietta, Senior Technical Research Assistant, Acentech 
B.A., 1987, Psychology, Califomia State University, Northridge 
M.S., 1990, Experimental Psychology, Califomia State University, Northridge 
Years of Experience: 3 

Dale Clark, Captain, U.S. Air Force, Environmental Project Officer, AFRCE-BMS/DEVE 
B.S.. 1982, CMi Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn 
M.S., 1989, Civil Engineering, NC State University, Raleigh 
Years of Experience: 10 

Doug Cole, Program Manager, Chief Planning Branch. AFRCE-BMS/DEVE 

B.A., 1978. Economics/Geography, California State University, San Bernardino 
Years of Experience: 13 

Craig M. Congdon, Environmental Planner, Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. 

B.S., 1986, Geography/Geology, University of California, Riverside 
Years of Experience: 5 

Douglas E. Cover, Senior Air Quality Program Manager, Science Applications International Corporation 
B.S., 1976, Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University 
Years of Experience: 15 

Sandra Lee Cuttino, P.E., Environmental Manager, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S., 1979, Civil Engineering, University of Califomia, Davis 
Years of Experience: 12 


Geo^ AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


6-1 







Paul Davis, Daputy Program Maru^jer, Robert 0. Nlehujs, Inc. 

B.S.. 197B, Envkotvnemai Science, University of Callfomia, Riverside 
Masters of Envirorvnentai Adminisbation, 1984, University of Callfomia, Riverside 
Years of Experience: 13 

Jackie EkJridge, Senior Technical Editor. The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S.. 1971, Biology. Fairieigh Dickhison University. New Jersey 
M.S., 1979, Marine and Environmental Science, Ijong island University. New York 
M.BA, 1983, National Universfey, CaiVomia 
Years of Experience: 16 

Derence Fivehouse, Maior, U.S. Air Force. Staff Judge Advocate 
BA, 1978, irttemation^ Affairs, University of Colorado, Boulder 
J.O.. 1980, Law. University of Arkansas, FayettevHe 

U-M., 1990, Environmental Law, George Washinj^on University, Washington, DC 
Years of Experiertce: 10 

Nathan Gale, Resource Studies Manager, Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. 

B.A, 1978, Middle Eastern Studies, University of Callfomia, Santa Barbara 
M.A, 1979, Geography, University of Callfomia, Santa Barbara 
Ph.D., 1985. Geography, University of Callfomia. Santa Barbara 
Years of Experience: 11 

Aaron Goldschmidt. Environmental Analyst, Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. 

B.A, 1984, Geography, University of Callfomia. Santa Barbara 
M.A., 1987, Geography, University of Califomia, Santa Barbara 
Years of Experience: 6 

Larry Gorenfio, Regional Systems Analyst. Robert D. Niehaus, inc. 

M.A., 1981, Anthropology, University of Michigan 

Ph.D., 1985, Geography, University of Califomia, Saraa Barbara 

Years of Experience: 5 

Debi Ann Green, Project Environmental Specialist. The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.A, 1989, Chemistry. Califomia State University, Long Beach 
Years of Experience: 7 

Peter L Grill, Staff Environmental Specialist, The Earth Technology Corporation 
Environmental Studies, Califomia State University, San Bernardino 
Years of Experience: 3 

Tony Guiang, Senior Staff Geologist, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S., 1984, Geology, Western Illinois University, Macomb 
Years of Experience: 5 

William T. Johnstone, Arport Planner, Federal Aviation Administration 
B.S., 1957, Ub^ Arts, Ohio State University 
M.R.C.P., 1971, Urban Planning, Oklahoma University 
Years of Experience: 20 

Rachel Jordan, Senior Staff Environmental Specialist, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S., 1972, Biology, Christopher Newp^ College, Newport News, Virginia 
Years of Experience: 4 

Stephen Lind, Consultant. Acentech, Inc. 

B.A, 1984, Physics, University of Northern Iowa 
M.S., 1988, Engineering, University of Texas, Austin 
Years of Experience: 6 

6-2 George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 









WHIiam R. Livingstone. Principal Planner, Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. 

B.A., 1950, Architecture, University of SoUhem Caiifomia 

M.A., 1966, Urban and Regionai Planning, Urdversity of Southern Caiifomia 

Years of Experience: 41 

Loretta Martin. Deputy Program Manager, Robert D. Niehaus, inc. 

B.A., 1969, English, University of Caiifomia, Riverside 
Years of Experience: 10 

WOiiam Muir, Senior Project Geologist. The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S., 1980, Geology, Caiifomia ^te University, Long Beach 
M.S., 1984, Geology, Caiifomia State University, Long Beach 
Years of Experience: 11 

Jason Nakashima, 1st Lieutenant, U.S. Air Force, Environmental Project Officer. AFRCE-BMS/DEVE 
B.S., 1989, Electrical Engineering, University of Caiifonr^, Los Angeles 
Years of Experience: 2 

Robert D. Niehaus, Principal Ecorramist, Robert D. Niehaus. Inc. 

B.A., 1972, Government, Oberiin College, Ohio 

Ph.O., 1979, Economics, University of Maryland, Coiiege Park 

Years of Experience: 20 

Maurice E. Norton, III, Manager, Facility Engineering, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.A., 1966, Mathematics. Concordia College, Moorehead, Minnesota 
Years of Experience: 21 

Ramon E. Nugent, Supervisory Consultant, Acentech, Inc. 

B.S., 1969, Engineering Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 
Years of Experience: 22 

Sam C. Rupe, Major, U.S. Air Force, Staff Judge Advocate, AFRCE-BMS/DES 
B.S., 1977, History, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado 
J.D., 1984, Law, University of Miami, Miami, Rorida 

LLM., 1991, Environmental Law, George Washington University, Washington, DC 
Years of Experience: 7 

Bernard Siegl, Staff Anthropologist, The Earth Technology Corporation 

B.S., 1988, Anthropology, Caiifomia State Polytechnic University at Pomona 
Years of Experience: 3 

Robert M. Silsbee, Economic Analyst, Robert D. Niehaus, inc. 

B.A., 1980, Economics/Environmental Studies, University of Caiifomia, Santa Barbara 
M.A., 1989, Economics, University of Caiifomia, Santa Barbara 
Years of Experience: 12 

John K. Sollid, Chief Environmental Protection Branch, U.S. Air Force, AFRCE-BMS/DEVP 
B. Arch., 1968, Architecture, Tulane University, New Orleans 
Years of Experience: 20 

Ken Stoner, Major, U.S. Air Force, Staff Engineer 

B.S., 1978, Land Architecture, Ohio State University 

M.S., 1982, Engineering Management, Air Force institute of Technology 

Years of Experience: 15 

Dennis L Sullivan, Major, U.S. Air Force, Closure Program Manager, AFRCE-BMS/DEVE 
B.S., 1973, Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West LaFayette, Indiana 
M.S., 1979, Civil Engineering, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque 
Years of Experience: 18 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


6-3 









Rosemary Thompson. Senior Biologist. Science Applications International Corporation 
BA. 1967. Zoology. University of Missouri 
Ph.D.. 1972. Marine Biology. University of Caiifomia, San Diego 
Years of Experience: 21 

Robert A. Thompson. Environmental arxi Airspace Specialist, Science Applications International Corporation 
B.S., 1968, Mathematics. Heideiberg College 

M.S., 1979, Human Resources Management. Pepperdine University, Caiifomia 
Years of Experience: 22 

Mary L Vroman, Major, U.S. Air Force, Deputy, Programs and Environmental Division, AFRCE-BMS/DEVP 
B.S., 1977, Engineering Operations. Iowa State University 
M.S., 1986, Engineering Ktenagement. Air Force institute of Technology 
Years of Experience: 13 

Terri Caruso Wessei. Senior Project Environmental Specialist. The Earth Technology Corporation 
BA, 1979, Anthropology, Caiifomia State University, Northridge 
MA, 1988, Anthropology, Caiifomia State Universi^. Northridge 
Years of Experience: 14 

Hayley-Jane M. Wihongi, Environmental Analyst, Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. 

B.S., 1986, Sociology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 
Years of Experience: 4 

Craig F. Woodman, Cultural Resources, Science Applications international Corporation 
B.A., 1973, Anthropology, Wichita State University, Kansas 
M.A., 1989, Anthropology, University of Caiifomia, Santa Barbara 
Years of Experience: 16 

Barbara Zeman, Project Environmental Professional, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S., 1976, Electrical Engineering, Rutgers University. New Jersey 
M.S., 1978, Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern Caiifomia, Los Angeles 
Years of Experience: 10 

Stephen E. Ziemer, Senior Air Quality Specialist, Science Applications International Corporation 
B.S., 1976, Environmental Engineering, Southern Illinois University 
M.S., 1978, Environmental Engineering, Southern Illinois University 
Years of Experience: 12 

Keith R. Zwick, Site Planning Manager, The Earth Technology Corporation 
B.S., 1966, Landscape Architecture, Kansas State University, Manhattan 
Years of Experience: 23 


6-4 


George AFB Disposal artd Reuse FEIS 









CHAPTER 7 
REFERENCES 








REFERENCES 


7.0 


Acentech, 1991. Air Installation CompatlMe Use Zone fAlCUZI for the Extetina Operations at George AFB. 
Report No. 61. 

Adelanto, City of, 1990. High Desert In ternational Alfpwt. Reuse Plan for Georoe Air Force Base. 

Air Resources Board, 1969. Proposed Ide ntMcatlon of Districts Affected bv Transported Air Pollutanta which 
Contribute to Violations of th e State Ambient Air Qualltv Standard tor Ozone. Meteorology Section, 
Modeling and Meteorology Branch, Technical Support Division, Sacramento, Califomia, October. 

Air Resources Board, 1990. Emission Inventory 1987. Technicai Support Division, Emission Inventory Branch, 
California, March. 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1980. Sound Level Descriptors for Determin ation of Compatible 
Land Use. ANSI S3.23-1980. 

Ames, D.R., 1974. Sound Stress and Meat Animals, Proceedings of the International Livesto ck Environment 
Symposium. Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Ando, Y., Y. Nakane, and J. Egawa, 1975. Effects of Mrcraft Noise on the Mental Work of PupBs, Journal of 
Sound and Vibration. 43(4), 683-616. 

Anton-Guirgis, H., B. Culver, S. Wang, and T. Taylor, 1986. Exploratory Study of the Potential Effects of 

Exposure to Sonic Boom on Human H ealth. Vol 2. EpidemioloQicai Study. Report No. AAMRL-TR-86-020. 

Amoult. M., L Gillfillan, and J. Voorhees, 1986. Annoyingness of Aircraft Noise in Relation to Cognitive Activity, 
Perceptual and Motor Skills. 63, 899-616. 

Apple Valley Airport, 1991. Personal communication with D. Brawley, owner and operator, Apple Valley, 
California, 9 July. 

ARB, See Air Resources Board. 

Archaeological Information Center, 1991. Cultural resources records search, prepared for The Earth 
Technology Corporation by Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino County Museum, 
Redlands, Califomia, 17 AprB and 25 April. 

Babisch, W., and J. Gailacher, 1990. Traffic Noise, Blood Pressure and Other Risk Factors - The Caerphilly 
and Speedwell Collaborative Heart Disease Judies, Noise *88. New Advances in Noise Research. 
Stockholm, Sweden, Swedish Counci for Buiding Research. 

Bader, J., et ai., 1958. Data on Water Wells In the Upper Mol ave Valiev Area. San Bernardino County. 

California. Califomia Department of Water Resources in Cooperation with the U.S. Geoiogicai Survey, 
Groundwater Branch, U.S. Geoiogicai Survey Open-Fie Report. 

Barnes, G., 1991. Personal communication, VictorvBie Disposal, Inc., Victorvile, Calfomia. 

Belanovskii & Omei’yanenko, 1982. Acoustic Stress in Commercial Poultry Production, Soviet Agriciiture 

Science- 

Beranek, L, 1947. Airplane Quieting II, Specification of Acceptable Noise Levels, Trans. ASME. 67,97-100. 


George AFB Disposal aixf Reuse FEIS 


7-1 












Berry, K.. 1974. Desert Tortotea Relocation Profact Status Bepott ter 1972. Division of Highways, State of 
CalWomia Coraract F-9353. 

Bishop, D., 1964. Development of Aircraft Noise Compa^ity for Varied Land Uses, FAA SRDS Report 
RD-64-14a. II. 

Bortugno, E., and T. Spittler, 1986. Geologic Map of the San Bernardino Quadrangle. Regional Geologic Map 
Series, Map No. 3A (Geology), 1:2S0,000 Scale, Califomia Division of Mines and Geology. 

Bowies, A., P. Yochem, and F. Awbrey, 1990. The Effects of Aircraft Qverillahta and Sonic Booms on 
Domestic Animais. NSBIT Technical Operating Report No. 13, BBN Laboratories, Inc. 

Brown, J. Ill, R. Thompson, and E. Folk, 1975. Certain Non-Auditory Physioiogicai Responses to Noises, 
Journal of the American Industrial Hyg iene Association. 36, 285-291. 

Burge, B., 1977. DaHy and Seasonal Behavior, and Areas UtBized by the Desert Tortoise, Gopherus agassizi 
in Southern Nevada, Proceedings of the 1977 Symposium. Desert Tortois e Council. 

Califomia Department of Health Services, 1983. "Well Data”, George AFB, February. 

Califomia Department of Water Resources, 1967. Mojave River Ground Water Basins Investigation. 

Bulletin No. 84. 

Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, 1983. Map of San Bernardino Quadrangle, 1:250,000. 

Califomia Energy Commission, 1990. Electricity • 1990 Report, Pi06-90-002, October. 

Caiifornia-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, 1990a. Request for Quallficatlons-Professlonal Sen/ices in 
the Preparation of an Environmental impact Report Statement, prepared by Paul Taylor, Executive 
Director. 

Caiifornia-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, 1990b. RIdershIp Economic Development and 

Environmental Impacts of Super-Soeed Train Service for Sel ected Sites In the Southern Califomla-Las 
Vegas Valley Corridor, prepared by Guided Ground Transport and Robert D. Niehaus, tnc. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Lahonton Region, 1969. A pplication for Wastewater 
Discharge Requirements to Discharge to State Waters. Public Notice No. 6-89-19, Application No. 
Califomia 0102822. 

Califomia State Polytechnic University-Pomona, 1987. Mojave River Basin - Design for Desert Water 

Management. Department of Landscape Architecture, prepared for Mojave Water Agency, Victorville, 
Califomia. 

Caron, 1991. Telephone conversation between D. Caron, George AFB, and D. Green, The Earth Technology 
Corporation, regarding the status of the installation program, 11 April. 

CDWR, see Califomia Department of Water Resources. 

CHaM Hili, 1982. Instaliation Restoration Program Records Search for George Air Force Base. Califomia. 
Contract No. F0863780 (30010009, prepared for Air Force Engineering and Services Center, Directorate 
of Environmental Planning, Tyndall AFB, Rorida. 

City of Adelanto, see Adelanto, City of. 

City of Victorville, see Victorville, City of. 


7-2 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 








dine. C.. 1990. 


Cohen, S.. G. Evans. D. Kraniz, and D. Stokols, 1980. Psychological, Motivational, and Cognitive Effects of 
Aircraft Noise on Chidren; Mnwinq fcnm tha i^hotrtory to the Held. Ainarimn Psychoioriiv. do. 3S. 
231-243. 

Cole, H.S. and J.E. Summerhays, 1979. Review of techniques for the estimation of short term NOa 
concentrations . Joumai of the Air PoMuMon Confrol Assoctation. (29): 812-817. 

Cotton, Beiand and Associate. Inc., 198a VictofvMe General Plan. 

CouncI on Environmental Quaifty, 1978. Ra<?ulatiQna fa r tmnlementing the Procedural Proyteions of the 
National Environmen tal Poilcv Act 

Crook. M., and F. Langdon, 1974. The Effects of Aircraft Noise on Schools Around London Airport, Joumai of 
Sound and Vibration. 34(2), 221-232. 

Davis, J., J. Bennett, G. Borchardt. J. Kahle, S. Rice, and M. Siva, 1982. Earthquake Planning Scenario for a 
Magnitude 8.3 Earthquake on the San Andres Fault in Southern Califomla. Special Publication 60, 
California Division of Mirtes and Geology. 

Departments of the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy. 1978. Erryironmen tal Protection. Planning in the Noise 
Erryironmertt. AFM 19-10. TM 5-^ -2. NAVPAC P-970. June. 

Department of Commerce, 1990. Sectional Aeronautical Chart (Los Angeles), December. 

Edwards FAA RAPCON, 1991. Personal communication with J. Snavely, Edwards AFB, Califomia, 8 July. 

Engineering-Sciences, Inc., 1991. Draft Environmented Impact Report fo r Terminals. Other FacBities and 
Operations to SuppotLl2 Mailon Annual Passengers, prepared for City of Los Angeles, Department of 
Airports, Environmental Management Bureau. Los Angeles. Califomia. 

Entech, 1990a. Hayarrimw Waste Management Survey. George AFB. October. 

Entech. 1990b. Hazardous Waste Minimization Guidance. September. 

Entech, 1990c. Underground Storage Tank Management Plan. September. 

FAA, see Federal Aviation Administration. 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1982. integrated Noise Model Version 3.9 User's Guide. Report 
No. FAA-EE-81-17. 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1983. Airport Capacity and Delay. (Advisory Circular 150/5060-5). 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1984. Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. (Handbook 7400 2c). 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1990. Standard for Specifying Construct ion of Almorts. (Change 10), 

Temporary Air and Water Pollution, SoB Erosion and SItation Control, Advisory Circular 150/5370-10, 
June. 

Federal Highway Administration, 1978. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Predic tion Model. Report 
No. FHWA-RD-77-118, December. 


George AFB D/s 


nd Reuse FEIS 


7-3 










F<»d«rallnteraggncyCofnfnlttMforWeliandO«li^^ Fadarai Manu «i w iriantiMn^ anH 

JuriadiiitlHn ai wadanHa u.S. Army Corps of EngbiMra, U.8. EwMronmsrt s i Proloction Agorwy. U.S. Fish 
and WUMs Ssrvics, and U.S.D A Sol ConsarvaHon Ssrvtes, Viteahinglort, DC. Cooparadva Tachnicai 
Publictfloa 

Federal Interagency Committea on Urban Noisa, 1980. 

FHWA, see Federal Highway Administratioa 

FkJeil, S.. J. Schultz, and D. Green. 1968. A Theoretical Inlarpratation of the Prevalence Rate of Noise-induced 
Annoyance in Residentiai Populations. Journal of the AcouattealSoclatv of Amarir^. 84^^^^ 

Frerichs. R.. B. Beeman. and A. Coulson. 1980. Los Artgeies Airport Noise and Mortality-FauKy Analysis and 
Public Policy. American Journal of Public Health. 70.357-362. 

Garrett. K., and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of SotShem Callfomla! Status and Distribution. Los Angeles Audubon 
Society. 

Goldman, H.. 1968. Sand and Gravel in Caiifomia. An Irwertoiv of Deposits. Part C. Southern California. 
Bulletin 180-C. Caiifomia Division of Mtoies and Geology. 

Goldstein. J., and J. Lukas. 1980. Noise and Sleep: Inform^ion Needs for Noise Control, Proceedings of the 
Third International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. ASHA Report No. 10.442-448. 

Griefahn. B., and A. Muzet, 1978. Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbartces and Their Effect on Health. Journal of 
Sound and Vibration. 59(1). 99-106. 

Hail, F., S. Taylor, and S. Bimie. 1985. Activity Interference and Noise Annoyance. Journal of Sound and 
Vibration. 103(2). 

Hatano. M., 1982. Noise impact of Rai Passenger Service. Intemoise 1982 Proceedings, pp. 201-224. 

Hesperia Airport 1991. Personal communication with R. Poilzin, Airport Manager, Hesperia. Caiifomia. 3 July. 

IT Corporation, 1990. Site Characterization Oper able Unit No. 2. George AFB. CaUfomla. Project No. 301353, 
Prepared for Headquarters, Tacticai Air Command HQ-TAC/DEVR, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. 

Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1987. Trio Generation. 4th Editioa 

International Conference of Bu^d»ng Officials, 1985. UnMed Buidinq Code (UBC). international Conference of 
Bunding Officials. '^Momia. 

ising, H., and R. Michalak. 1990. Effects of Noise from Mlkary Low-Level Rights on Humans. Noise 1988. New 
Advances in Noise Research. Stockholm, Sweden. Sw^ish Cound for Bulding Research. 

JMM, see Montgomery, J., Consulting Engineers and Associa te s. 

Karagodina. I., S. Sddatkina. I. Vinokur, and A. Nimukhin. 1969. Effect of Aircraft Noise on the Population 
Near Airports, Hygiene and Sanitation. 34,182-187. 

Kent. S., H. Von Gierke, and G. Tolan, 1986. Analysis of the Potentiai Association Between Noise-Induced 
Hearing Loss and Cardiovascuiar Disease in USAF Aircrew Members, Aviation. Space, and 
Environmental Medicine. 57(4), 348-361. 


Klatt, M., K. Steverts. and C. Wiliams, 1969. Judgments of the Acceptablity of Aircraft Noise in the Presence of 

Speech. Journal of Sound and Vibratton. 9(2), 263-275. __ 

7-4 George AFB Disposai and Bausa FEIS 










KnipschU, P.. 1977. Medical Bfects of Aircraft Noise. Communlfy CaidiOMaacular Survey, General Practice 
Survey, intarnattonai Archtvea of Ocrimtinniil and Enjkoimaitai Haahh 40.185-196. 

Knipechid. P. and N. Oudshoorrt, 1977. Medicai Effects of Akcralt Noise, Drug Survey, intamatjonal Arehlvas 
cafOccupationai and Environrnantal Health 40,197-20a 

Kryter, K.. and C. WHiams. 1966. Masking of Speech by Aircraft Noise. Journal of thaAccw^ticalSoeiaty of 
America. 39.138-150. 

Kurtz. 1991. Personal communication with Kevin Kurtz, General Managar of Victor Valley Wastevraier 
Reclamation Authority. 19 February. 

Lee and Ro Consulting Engineers, 1964. Report on Water SupdIv Imorcvamania. George Ak Force Base. 
Prepared for U.S. Department of the Air Force, George AFB. 

Los Angeles Department of Airports. 1988. Annual Report 

LSA Associates, Inc., 1988. Bioioolcal Assessment of the Georoe Air Force Base Gallant Eade Exercises 
ActMtY Areas. 

Lukas, J., 1975. Noise atxf Sleep: A Literature Review and A Proposed Criterion for Assessktg Effect Journal 
of the Acous tical Society of America. 58(6). 

Meecham, W., and N. Shaw, 1988. increase in Disease Mortality Rates due to Aircraft Noise, Proceedings of 
the International Congress of Noise as a Public HeaMi Problem, Stockholm. Sweden. Swedish CouncI 
for Building Research, August 21-25. 

Military Traffic Management Command Transportation Engineering Agency, 1987. Traffic Engineering Study 
George AFB. Caiifomia. Mlitary Traffic Management Command Trarttportation Engineering Agency, 
MTMCTEA Report SE 87-€a-20. Newport News, Virginia. 23602-0276, November. 

Miller, J., 1974. Effects of Noise on People, Journal of the Acoustkai Society of America. 56(3), 729-764. 

Mills, J., 1975. Noise and Children: A Review of Literature, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 58(4), 
767-779. 


Mojave Water Agency, 1990. Master Plan f or DaHvery of Imported Water Rnal Report 

Mojave Water Agency, 1991. Personal communication between B. Muir, The Earth Technology Corporation 
and N. Carourwette. 

Montgomery, J., Consulting Engineers and Associates, 1988a. Installation Restoration Program. Phase IV-A. 
Feasibaitv Study Sit e Investjgation Report North east Disposai Area Uppe r Aquifer Reme diation. George 
Air Force Base. San Bernardino County, Caiifomia. prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha 
District, Omaha. Nebraska. 

Montgomery, J., Consulting Engineers and Associates, 1988b. Installation Restoration Program Remedial 
Investigation Repor t Volume I. Georoe Air Force Base. San Bernardino County. Caiifomia. prepared for 
U.S. Army Corps of Ertgineers, Omaha DistricL Omaha, NE. 

Montgomery, J., Consufting Engineers and Associates, 1989. installation R estoration Pro gram Multiple Sites 
Decision Document s for George AFB. February. 

Moyle, P., 1976. Inland Rshes of Caiifomia. University of Caiifomia Press, Berkeley. 

MTMCTEA. see Military Traffic Management Command Transportation Engineering Agency 

George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


7-5 












Munz, P.. 1974. 


Murk. J.. Engineer«, Inc., 1986. Hhtoric and PntHMt Cnr^HHona Utioar Motava Rtvwr Basin, prepared for 
Mojave Water Agency. VIctorvIe, CaUfomia. 

MWA. see Mojave Water Agency. 

National Academy d Sciences. 1977. Guidalinea for Prenarino Environmariai Impact Statemarts on Noisa. 
Report of Working Group on Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustica. and Biomechanics, National 
Research Coundl, Washington. D.C. 

Nationai Academy Sciences. 1981. The Effects on Human Health from Lonq-tarm Exposure to Noise. Report 
of Working Group 81, Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustica and Biomechanics, The Nationai Research 
Cound. Washktgton, D.C. 

Ontario FAA, 1991. Personal communication with D. Fowier, Ontario TRACON, Ontario international Airport, 
Califomia, 8 July. 

P&DTechnoiogies, 1990. Airport Mast er Plan for CMIan Use of George Air Fo rce Base. December. 

Paiisades Ranch. 1991. Personai communication with S. Older, akfleid owner, 3 July. 

Pamel, Nagel, and Cohen, 1972. Evaluation of Hearing Leve ls of Residen ts Uvinq Near a Major Almort. 

Report FAA-RO-72-72. 

Pearsons. K, and R. Bennett, 1974. Handbook of Noise Ratin( ; is. Report No. NASA CR-2376, Washington. DC, 
National Aeronautics and Space Admirtistration. 

Pearsons. K. D. Barber, and B. Tabachnick, 1989. Analyses of the Predictahillty of Noise-induced Sleep 
Disturbance. Report No. HSD-TR-89-029, Canoga Park, California, BBN Systems and Technologies 
Corporation. 

Peterson, E., J. Augenstein, and C. Hazelton, 1984. Some Cardiovascular Effects of Noise, Joumai of Auditory 
Research. 24,35-62. 

Pimie, M.. Environmental Engineers, Scientists, and Planners, 1990. Master Plan for Deitvery of imported 
Water. Final Report, Prepared for Mojave Water A(^ncy, Victorvlle, Califomia. 

The Planning Center, 1990a. Adelanto flnteriml General Plan. 

The Planning Center, 1990b. Hioh Desert Intemationd Aimort 

Reddingius. N., and A. Bowles, 1990. Assessment System for Aircraft Noise (^SANI. Extensions to Alpha Test 
Prototype System Software. Volume V. NSBIT Technical Operating Report No. 20, BBN Laboratories. Inc. 

Redlands Airport, 1991. Personal communication with P. Lock, owner and operator, Redlands, Califomia, 

8 July. 

Rialto Airport, 1991. Personai communication with B. Rscher, Rialto, Califomia. 27 June. 

Rodriguez, Sgt, 1991. Telephone conversation between Rodiguez, George AFB, and D. Ahibom, The Earth 
Technology Corporation, regarding biohazardous/medical waste, 24 May. 

SAIC, see Science Applications International Corporatioa 


7-6 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 











San Bernardino County, 1968a. General Plan t Iprtata . Background Ranoit. Trananortiitlnn/fafni totinn l«ma 
(Draft). Offices of Planning, San Bemaidina CalMomia. July. 

San Bernardino County. 1988b. The VtoQrVaW evIfrfraatmetufeEnhancafnent Program: Enolnaera Final 
Report 

San Bernardino County. 1990a. George Air F otta Baae C^Womla Land Uae Study. Prepared for the U.S. Air 
Force. George Air Force Base, AprI. 

San Bernardino County, 1990b. San Bernardino Courtv Air Poitalon Control Diatriet RaoulatlQna. 

San Bernardino County, 1990c. San Bamarril no Countv Ganerai Plan. 

San Bernardino County, 1991. The Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County Welcomes You. A 
brochure introducing the Board Of Supervisors, San Bernardino, Califomia. 

San BemardiTK) County Air PoHution Control District, 1991. Draft Air Quality Attainment Plan • Planning 
Emission inventory Forecasts. 

San Bernardino County Solid Waste Managemerft Department, 1969. San Bernardino County Solid Waste 
Management Plan 1989-90 update. San Bemardirx), CalNomia, November. 

San Bernardino County Solid Waste Management DeparUnent 1991. San Bernardino County Soiid Waste 
Management Sy^em Update. San Bernardino. Caiifomia. January. 

San Bernardino SWMD, see San Bernardino Solid Waste Management Department. 

Saurenman, H.. J. Nelsen, and Q. Wflson, 1982. Handbook of Urban Rai Noise and Vibration Control. 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 

SBCAPCD, see San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control District 

SCAG, see Southern Califomia Association of Governments. 

Schultz. T., 1978. Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance, Journal of t he Acoustical Society of 
Amfiltaa. 64(2), 377^. 

Science Applications International Corporation, 1985. installation Restoration Program Phase II - 

Confirmation/ Quantification. Stage 1. nnal R eport for Geome Air Force Base. California. Contract 
No. F3361S-80-D-4002, Prepared for U.S. Air Force. Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory 
(OEHL), Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. 

ScierKe Applications intemationai Corporation, 1987a Installation Restoration Program Phase ll/Stage 2. 
Confirmation Qualification, August 

Science Applications Intemationai Corporation, 1987b. Water Quality Analysis 

Science Applications Intemationai Corporation, 1990a Biological S urvey of George Air Force Base. 

Scierwe Applications Intemationai Corporation. 1990b. Archaeological Survey and Inventory of George AFB. 
Califomia 

Science Applications intemationai Corporation and Hathaway Associates, 1991. George AFB WWU 

Buildings/Facaities- 


Gewge AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


7-7 











Smith, J.. 4r.. and K. Berg, 1988. iiwentorv of Rare and Endangerad Vascttor Ptonm n| CaUfomia. Catifomia 
Native Plant Society, Spedai Pubiication No. i (4th edition). 

Southern Caiifomia Association d Governments, 1991. Personai convnunication with T. Merwin, Aviation 
Program Manager, SotAhem Caiifomia Association of Governments, Los Angeies, Caiifom^ 6 February. 

Southern Caiifomia Edison Company, 1991. High Desert District Meter HooioA) Projections. 

Southwest Gas Company, 1991. Totai Annuai Gas Consumption Tabies for 1986-1989; Monthiy Gas 
Consumption Tabies for 1990; Victorvlie District Mder Hookup Projections. 

Stebbins, R., 1985. A Reid Guide to Western Reotles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 

Stetson. T., 1974. Report on Review of Overdraft of the Mojave River Basin. Prepared for Mojave Water 
Agency, Victorviile, Caiifomia. 

Stevens, K., and A. Pietrasanta, 1957. Procedures for Estimating Noise Exposure and Resuitina Community 
Reactions from Air Base Operations. WADC TN-57-10. Wright Air Deveiopment Center, Wright-Patterson 
AFB, Ohio. 

Subsurface Surveys, Inc., 1990. Inventory of Groundvater Stored In the Mojave River Basins. Prepared for 
Mojave Water Agency, Victorville, Caiifomia. 

SW Gas, see Southwest Gas Company. 

Swing, J.. and D. Pies, 1973. Assessment of Noise Environments Around RaBroad Operations. The 
Association of American Railroads. 

Talbott, E., J. Heimkamp, K. Matthews, L Kuller, E. Codington, and G. Redmond. 1985. Occupational Noise 
Exposure, Noise-Induced Hearing Loss, and the Epidemiology of High Blood Pressure, American 
Journal of Eoidemioiogy. 121,501-515. 

The Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport and Robert D. Niehaus. Inc., 1989. Ridership. Economic 
Development and Enviromental Impacts of Super-Speed Train Service for Selected Cities in the 
Southern Caiifomia - Las Veoas Valiev Corridor. October. 

Thompson, S., 1981. Eoidemloiociv Feasibiiitv Study: Effects of Noise on the Cardiovascular System. Report 
No. EPA 550/9-81-103. 

Thompson, S., arxf S. Fidell, 1989. Feasibility of Epidemtoiogic Research on Nonauditory Health Effects of 
Residual Aircraft Noise Exposure. BBN Report No. 6738, Canoga Park. Caiifomia, BBN Systems and 
Technologies. 

Transportation Research Board, 1985. Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. National Research 
Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Air Force, 1983. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AlCUZ) George AFB. 

U.S. Air Force, 1989a. Environmental Assessment. Impacts of Air Warrior on Reiocation from George AFB. 

U.S. Air Force, 1989b. Environmentai Assessment. CumiJative impacts of A ircraft Realignments at George 
^ (draft). 

U.S. Air Force. 1989c. Environmental Requirements and Concerns. 


7-8 


George AFB Dispose and Reuse FEIS 








U.S. Air Force. 1989d. George AFB. Cailiomia. Commandar^a Umg Ranoa Facittv In^arowemant Pfan. Year 
2QQQ. March. 

U.S. Air Force, isase. aai ad HA7arrioua Materiala Resoonaa Plan. George AFB. 

U.S. Air Force. 1990a. Fadwai FacMMes Aoreament Under CERCLA Section 210. EPA Region 9. Department G« 
Heaith Services. Regionai Water Quality Control Board and the U.S. Air Force. 

U.S. Air Force. 1990b. Base Comprehensiva Plan: Water Supply System. Tab G-1. July. 

U.S. Air Force. 1990c. Base Comprehensive Plan: Sanitary Sewer System. Tab G-2. Jiiy. 

U.S. Air Force. 1990d. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Disposal and Reuse of Pease Air Force Base. 
New Hampshire. December. 

U.S. Air Force. 1990e. Hnal Environmental Impact Statement for dosure ct George AFB. Califomia. December. 

U.S. Air Force, 1990f. Ha7arrinns Waste Management Plan. George AFB. Environmental Planning and 
Compliance, September. 

U.S. Air Force. 1990g. Land Management Plan for George Air Force Base for Plan Period of July 1990 to Juiv 
1992. 831CSG/DEV. 

U.S. Air Force, 1990h. Real Property Inventory for George AFB. November. 

U.S. Air Force. 1991a. George AFB. Communitv Relations Plan for the Installa tion Restoration Program. 
January. 

U.S. Air Force. 1991b. DtaftEftvIfpnmentaUinpact Staiemeni Disposal andJeuse of Chanute.AFB...llllnflls. 
March. 

U.S. Air Force, 1991c. Socioeconomic impact Analysis Study. Dlsposai and Reuse of George AFB. Califomia 
(Draft), September. 

U.S. Air Force, 1991 d. The SpU Prevention and Response Plan • George AFB. 

U.S. Air Force Bioengineering, 1990. Aerospace Medicine. Potable Water Monitoring Program, June. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Consen/ation Service, 1986. SoB Survey of San Bernardino County. 
Califomia. Mojave River Area, in Cooperation with University of Califomia, Agricultural Experiment 
Station, Soil Conservation Service District Office, Apple Valley, Califomia. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1985. Federal Aviation Administration. Federal Aviation Re gulations fFARl. 
Part 150. Airport Noise ComoatibAity Planning. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 14, Chapter 1, 
Subchapter I, Part ISO, Table 1,18 January. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, FAA, arxl U.S. Air Force, 1988. Microcomputer Air Pollution Model for 
Ch/Hian Airports and Air Force Bases - User Guide, issued August 1988, Document 
#FAA-EE-886/ESL-TR 88-54. 

USDOT, see U.S. Department of Transportation. 


U.S. Environmental Protection Agerrcy, 1973. Public Health arxl Welfare Criteria for Noise. Report No. NCD 
73.1, Washington, DC, June. 


Geo^e AfB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 


7-9 










U.S. Environmerrtai Protection Agency. 1974. Intennrtitwi on Uwate of En\4rcyMTiafitai Noise Reouisite to 

Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adeouste Maroln d Safety. EPA Publication No. 550/9-74-004, 
Washington. DC. 

U.S. Environmentai Protection Agency. 1977. GuldeHnea fo r Air Quelltv Maintenance Planning and Analysis. 
Volume 10. Pr ocedures for Evaluating Air Qualltv Impacts d New Stationarv Source. EPA document 
No. 450/4-77-001. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985a. AP-42. Comt iltetiQn d Ak PnMutent Embsion Factors. Volume I. 
Stationary Point and Area Sources. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina, September. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985b. AP.42. Conrm iation of Air PoButant Emission Factors. Voiume 
II. Mobile Sources. Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987. Industrial Source Comde x nSCi Dispersion Model User's 
jauide. Second Edition (Revised), Volume 1, EPA document No. 450/4-88-002a, December. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. A Citizen Gu ide to Radon - What it is and What to do About it 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, EPA Document No. OPA-86-004. August. 

U.S. EPA, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Van Dijk, R, A. Souman, and R de Fries, 1987. Nonaudkory Effects of Noise in Industry, Vot. 1: ARnalField 
Study In Industry. International Archives of Occuoatjonal and ErT Vironmental Health. 59.133-145. 

Victor Valley Economic Development Authority, ISSOa. George AFB Callfomla. Land Use Study. Proposed by 
the County of San Bernardino Land Management Department for the Victor Valley Economic 
Development Authority, April. 

Victor Valley Economic Development Authority, ISSOb. George AFB Reuse Study Traffic Analysis - Existing 
Conditions. Prepared for Victor Valley Economic Development Authority by Nolte and Associates, 

16 January. 

Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority, 1987. A letter to George AFB, order requiring corrective 
action WWRA sewer use ordinance, 9 April. 

Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority, 1988. Wastewater Master Plan . 

Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority, 1989. A letter to HQ TAC/DEEV regarding corrective actions 
to be taken as part of George AFB closure EIR/EIS, dated April 13,1989. 

Victorville, City of, 1990. City of VictorvHle Circulation Map, Victorvlle General Plan, 30 October. 

Victorville Planning Department, 1991. Single Family Subdivision Activity. 

WEOA, see Victor Valley Economic Development Authority. 

Ward, Cushing, and Bums, 1972. TTS from Neighborhood Aircraft Noise, Jourrtal of the Acoustical Society of 

America. 55(i). 

Williams, C., K. Pearsons, and M. Hecker, 1971. Speech Inteiligibaity in the Presence of Time-Varying Aircraft 
Noise, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 56(3). 


7-10 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 







CHAPTER 8 
INDEX 










8.0 INDEX 


A 

A-weighted sound levels (dBA), 3-100,3-102, 
4-152, 4-153 

Aboveground Storage Tanks, 1-5,3-76,4-92, 

4-96, 4-101, 4-105, 4-108, 4-112 
Accident Potential Zone (APZ), 3-16 
Adelanto Correctional Facility, 3-12 
Adelanto School District, 3-9,3-12,4-23 
Adelanto Water District, 3-46 
Aesthetics, 3-1, 3-7, 3-17, 3-19, 3-106, 4-1,4-6, 

4-9, 4-11, 4-16, 4-18, 4-20, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25 
Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC), 1-8, 3-35, 
3-41 

Air installation Compatible Use Zone (AlCUZ), 

3- 15, 3-16, 3-17 

Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), 3-32, 

4- 34 

Air traffic control (ATC), 1-3, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 

3- 32, 3-33, 3-40, 4-32, 4-34, 4-36, 4-43, 4-44. 4-46, 

4- 57, 4-65 

Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA), 

3-39 

Air Transportation, 4-36, 4-45, 4-51,4-57, 4-63 
Aircraft maintenance, 2-24,2-29,2-34,3-83 
Airfield, 2-5, 2-7, 2-9, 2-12, 2-14, 2-17, 2-18, 2-20, 

2- 21, 2-26, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-33, 2-34, 2-37, 

3- 9, 4-6, 4-7, 4-10, 4-11.4-16, 4-18, 4-20, 4-24, 

4- 34, 4-36, 4-42, 4-45, 4-57, 4-65. 4-114, 4-115, 
4-117, 4-120, 4-122, 4-123. 4-125. 4-128, 4-142, 

4-145, 4-147, 4-149 

Airport Development District (ADD), 2-16,2-18, 

4-9, 4-191.4-192, 4-193, 4-194 
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), 3-16,4-16 
Airport Layout Plan (ALP), 1-3,1-4 
Airport Reference Code (ARC), 2-5 
Airspace, 3-30, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-40, 3-41,4-26, 
4-32, 4-34, 4-36, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-51. 4-57, 
4-63. 4-65 

configuration, 3-30 
management of, 3-28 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 

3- 100 

AMTRAK, 3-6, 3-42, 3-43. 4-26, 4-37, 4-45, 4-51. 

4- 58, 4-63 

Announcement effects, 4-2 
Apple Valley Airport, 3-40,3-42 
Aquifer, 3-89, 3-91 


Asbestos-containing material (ACM), 3-79,4-92, 
4-96. 4-101, 4-105. 4-109, 4-111, 4-112 
Atchinson Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad 
(AT&SF). 3-6, 3-42, 4-37, 4-45, 4-57, 4-63 
Aviation maintenance, 3-9 
Aviation support, 2-7, 2-9, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-17, 

2- 18, 2-22, 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-34, 2-35. 4-18, 4-20, 
4-23. 4-27, 4-29, 4-47, 4-51, 4-52. 4-56, 4-114, 
4-116, 4-117. 4-120, 4-122, 4-123, 4-128, 4-129, 
4-142, 4-145, 4-147. 4-149 

B 

Base Closure and Realignment Act (BCRA), 1-1, 
1 - 2 , 2-1 

Benzene. 3-48,3-73 
Birds, 3-110, 4-185 
Bryman loamy fine sand, 3-84 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 3-50, 3-112, 
4-189 

C 

Cajon Pass, 3-42 
Caliche layers, 3-84 

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 3-92,3-93, 

3- 94, 3-99, 4-139, 4-142 

California Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(CAAQS). 3-92, 3-94, 3-97, 4-127. 4-129, 4-130, 

4- 133, 4-139, 4-143, 4-144. 4-146, 4-148 
California Clean Air Act (CCAA), 4-129, 4-130 
California Code of Regulations (CCR), 3-55, 3-58, 

3- 75, 3-76, 3-80, 3-81, 3-83, 4-101. 4-105, 4-109, 

4- 111 

California Department of Water Resources 
(CDWR), 3-89 
Caltrans, 3-21 

Carbon Monoxide (CO), 3-92, 3-94, 3-97, 4-128, 
4-133, 4-135, 4-138, 4-142. 4-143, 4-144, 4-146, 
4-148, 4-150 

China Lake Naval Weapons Center, 3-31,3-32, 

3-35, 4-44 

Clear Zone (CZ), 3-16 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 3-55, 3-57, 
3-58, 3-76, 3-80, 3-117, 3-118 
Compatible Use District (CUD), 3-15 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 

3-55, 3-72 

Continental Telephone of California (Contel), 3-4 
Corrective Action Order (CAO), 3-47, 3-48 


George AFB Dispose and Reuse FEIS 


8-1 








Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 1-1, 

1- 9,4-1 

County Sen/ice Area (CSA), 3-46 
D 

Day-night average sound level (DNL), 3-15,3-16, 

3- 102, 3-103, 3-104, 3-106, 4-10, 4-11, 4-16, 4-18, 

4- 152, 4-153, 4-155, 4-164, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 
4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-172, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 
4-180, 4-181,4-182 

Decibel (dB), 3-15, 3-100, 3-102, 3-106, 4-152, 

4-156, 4-172, 4-174, 4-175, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183 
Defense Environmental Restoration Program 
(DERP), 3-61 

Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office 
(DRMO), 3-58 

Department of Health Services (DHS), 3-58, 3-64, 

3- 83 

Desert cymopterus, 3-114, 4-194 

Desert pavement, 4-113, 4-114 

Desert tortoise, 3-112, 3-114, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187, 

4- 189, 4-192, 4-193, 4-197, 4-198 
Disposal Area 

Central, 3-65, 3-74, 3-75, 4-90, 4-108 
Industrial Storm Drain, 3-65, 3-74, 4-122,4-123 
Northeast, 1-5, 3-57, 3-61, 3-65, 3-72, 3-73, 3-91, 
4-95, 4-108 

Southeast, 3-65, 3-74, 4-108, 4-109 
West Perimeter, 3-65,3-75,4-108 
Disposal management team (DMT), 2-45, 2-46, 

3- 57, 3-58, 3-76, 4-24, 4-27, 4-38, 4-47. 4-52. 4-64, 

4- 111,4-112, 4-126 

Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), 3-16, 

3- 35, 4-32, 4-34, 4-44 
Dormitories, 2-35, 2-39, 2-40, 3-11,4-24 

E 

East Storm Drain, 3-74 

Edwards APB, 2-47,3-35,4-44 

Edwards FAA RAPCON, 3-32, 3-40, 4-32. 4-34,. 

4- 36 

Elementary schools. 2-29, 2-39 
Employment, 1-2, 1-7, 2-2, 2-5, 2-14, 2-15, 2-18, 

2- 20, 2-25, 2-26, 2-30, 2-31, 2-33, 2-36, 2-37, 2-40, 

2-41, 4-2, 4-3, 4-5, 4-6, 4-25 

Endangered species, 3-106,3-112 
Energy, 3-43, 3-51, 4-153 

F 

Family housing, 2-40, 3-11 
Feasibility study (FS), 3-64 


Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 1-3,1-4, 

2-3, 2-5, 2-7, 2-9, 2-10, 2-12, 2-16, 2-21, 2-29, 

2- 44, 3-28, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-72, 3-102, 3-103, 
4-10, 4-26, 4-29, 4-32, 4-34, 4-36. 4-42, 4-44, 4-45, 
446. 4-57. 4-115, 4-135. 4-139, 4-155 

Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR), 1-3,3-103,4-7 
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), 1-6, 4-63, 4-64, 
4-126 

Federal Correctional Complex (FCC), 241,4-22, 
4-126, 4-181,4-199 

Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA), 3-61,3-65, 

3- 73 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 3-104, 

4- 155 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 3-80, 4-109. 4-112 
Federal Property Management Regulations 
(FPMR), 2-1,3-79 

Federal transfers. 2-1,249,4-5, 4-22,4-63, 

4-118, 4-126, 4-150 

Reel mix. 2-5, 2-12, 2-20, 2-22, 2-26, 4-29, 442, 
4-56 

Flight Level (FL), 3-39 
Fort Inwin, 3-35 
Fungicides, 3-57, 3-80, 3-81 

G 

General Plan, 3-14, 3-16, 4-9, 4-11,4-24 

Adelanto, 3-14, 4-9, 4-11,4-16, 4-20. 4-22 
San Bernardino County, 3-14,3-16, 3-17,4-9, 
4-16, 4-18 

Victorville, 3-14, 3-22, 4-9, 4-16, 4-18. 4-22, 
4-27, 4-37, 446, 4-52, 4-58 
Geology and soils, 3-1,3-84,4-1,4-113 
Golf course, 2-13, 2-23, 2-24, 2-30, 2-39, 241. 

2- 44, 3-88, 3-110, 3-112, 3-116, 4-9, 4-18. 4-27, 
4-52, 4-58, 4-112 

Groundwater, 1-5, 3-75,3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 4-119, 
4-120, 4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 
4-127 

H 

Hazardous materials, 1-5,1-7, 3-55, 3-57, 3-85, 

4-1, 4-88, 4-93. 4-97, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-106, 
4-109, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-125, 4-126 
Hazardous Materials Response Plan (HAZMAT), 

3- 57 

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), 

3- 57 

Hazardous Waste, 3-55, 3-58,3-61. 3-72, 3-85, 

4- 1, 4-24, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-93, 4-95, 4-97, 4-99. 

4-104, 4-112 


8-2 George AFB Disposed and Reuse FEIS 








Herbicides. 3-1,3-81,3-107,4-88.4-89,4-92, 
4-95,4-97, 4-99,4-101, 4-102, 4-105,4-106, 
4-109,4-112 

Hesperia Air Lodge, 3-40,3-42 
High altitude tactical air navigation 
(HI-TACAN), 3-35 
High Desert. 3-2,3-6,3-51,4-39 
High Desert International Airport (HDIA), 2-16, 

2-18, 2-20, 2-22, 2-24, 4-39, 4-42 
Highway corxiitions, 3-21 
Historic properties, 3-119 
Historic structures, 3-118,3-119 


Independent land use concepts, 2-49,4-22,4-118 
Installation Restoration Program (IRP), 1-5,1-8, 

1- 9, 2-41, 3-57, 3-61, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 

3- 69, 3-70. 3-71, 3-72, 3-74, 3-75. 4-90. 4-93. 

4- 109, 4-111,4-112 

Instrument flight rules (IFR), 3-30,3-32,3-33, 

3-35, 3-40. 4-44 

Instrument landing system (ILS), 3-35,3-40,4-32, 

4 ^, 4 ^ 

J 

John Wayne Airport, 3-42 

Joint Powers Authority (JPA), 2-3 

Joshua tree woodland, 3-6,3-107,4-184 

L 

Land use. 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-7, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-17, 

2- 18, 2-20, 2-22, 2-24, 2-25, 2-26, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 

2-31, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-37, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41. 2-44, 

2- 45, 2-47, 3-1, 3-7, 3-9, 3-12, 3-14, 3-15,3-16, 

3- 17, 4-1, 4-2, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11.4-16, 

4- 18. 4-20. 4-22. 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-27. 4-29, 4-37. 
4-38, 4-42, 4-46, 4-47, 4-51, 4-52, 4-56, 4-58, 4-60, 
4-63, 4-65, 4-114, 4-116, 4-118, 4-126, 4-129. 
4-139, 4-147, 4-150, 4-155 

Landfill, 4-109 

Apple Valley, 3-50,4-85 
Hesperia, 3-50 
Phelan, 3-50 
Victorville, 3-50,4-85 
Long Beach Airport, 3-42 
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 
(LADWP), 3-12 

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), 3-42 
M 


Military operations area (MOA), 3-30,3-31,3-32, 

3- 35,3-39, 3-41, 4-34 

Military training routes (MTR), 3-85.3-89 
Mohave ground squirrel. 3-114,4-188,4,193, 

4- 197 

Mojave Block, 3-86 

Mojave Desert, 3-2, 3-84, 3-85, 3-86,3-88, 3-90, 

3-112,4-121 

Mojave monkey flower, 3-114,4-194 
Mojave riparian forest, 3-107,3-109,3-110,3-111 
Mojave River, 2-24, 3-14, 3-85, 3-88, 3-89, 3-91, 

3- 106, 3-107,3-109, 3-110. 3-111, 3-114. 3-118, 

4- 113, 4-115. 4-116, 4-119. 4-121. 4-122. 4-186, 
4-192, 4-194 

Mojave variant loamy sand, 3-84 

Mojave Water Agency (MWA), 2-15,3-44,3-90, 

3- 91, 4-78. 4-82. 4-84 

N 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS), 3-92, 3-94, 3-97, 4-127, 4-129, 4-130, 

4- 133. 4-139. 4-140. 4-143, 4-144, 4-146, 4-148 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1-1, 

1-2,1-4, 1-5,1-9, 4-1 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 3-117, 
3-118 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES), 3-89, 4-121. 4-123 
National Priorities List (NPL), 1-9,3-61 
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 

3- 118, 3-119 

Native American Resources, 3-119 
Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), 3-92,4-133,4-138, 

4- 144, 4-145 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx), 3-94, 3-97, 4-128, 4-130. 
4-133, 4-139, 4-140. 4-142, 4-143, 4-145, 4-146. 
4-148 

Noise exposure model (NOISEMAP), 4-155 
Noise-sensitive areas. 3-106 
Norton AFB, 2-47, 3-32, 4-36, 4-44 
Notice of Intent (NOI), 1-4 

0 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA), 3-57. 3-79. 4-89. 4-112 
Off road vehicle (ORV), 3-106,3-110 
Ontario International Airport, 3-6,3-41,4-36,4-45 
Ozone (O 3 ). 3-92. 3-94, 3-97 

P 


Mammals, 3-110 Paleontological Resources, 3-119 

March AFB, 2-47,4-36.4-44 Palisades Ranch, 3-40 

Medical and biohazardous waste. 3-1 _ Palmdale Airport. 3-41,3-42,4-44 

George AFB Di^osal and Reuse FEIS 8-3 













Particidate manor (PMio), 3-92.3-94,3-97,4-127, 
4-128, 4-129. 4-133, 4-135,4-139. 4-140, 4-142. 
4-143, 4-144. 4-145, 4-146. 4-147, 4-148 
Pesticides, 3-1,3-81,4-109,4-112 
Physiography, 3-85 

PolycNorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 3-1,3-80, 

3- 81,4-92,4-112 

Population, 2-2,2-5, 2-14, 2-15, 2-18. 2-20, 2-25, 

2- 26, 2-30, 2-31, 2-33, 2-36, 2-37, 2-40, 2-41.4-25, 

4- 26, 4-37, 4-45, 4-51, 4-58. 4-63, 4-64, 4-126. 
4-127, 4-128, 4-130, 4-135, 4-142, 4-150, 4-151 

Preliminary Assessment (PA), 3-64 
Problem area wetlands, 3-114,3-115 
Public meeting, 1-4 

R 

Radar Approach Control (RAPCON), 3-31,3-32 
Radon. 3-1, 3-81, 3-82, 4-97, 4-112 
Radon Assessment and Mitigation Program 
(RAMP). 3-82 
Railroads, 3-6 

Reactive organic gases (ROG), 3-94,4-128, 

4-130, 4-139. 4-140. 4-142, 4-143, 4-146, 4-148 
Record of Decision (ROD), 1-2,2-41,3-73, 3-74 
Regional air quality, 3-94,4-139 
Regional aquifer, 3-89,3-91 
Remedial action (RA), 3-64,3-73 
Remedial design (RD), 3-64 
Remedial investigation (Rl), 3-64 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA), 3-55, 3-58, 3-75, 3-76 
Riparian habitat, 3-111 
Riparian scrub, 3-107 
Riparian vegetation, 3-107,3-115 
Riparian/wetiand habitat, 3-107 
Roadways, 2-36, 4-25, 4-26. 4-27, 4-29, 4-37. 

4-38, 4-42, 4-46, 4-47, 4-51. 4-52, 4-58, 4-135. 
4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-155 
Rodent control, 3-110 
Ruderal habitat, 3-107 

S 

San Andreas Fault, 3-86 
San Bernardino County Air Pollution Control 
District (SBCAPCD). 3-92, 3-97, 4-130, 4-133. 
4-139.4-140.4-141,4-142 
San Bernardino County Associated 
Governments (SANBAG), 3-21 
San Bernardino County Department of 
Environmental Health Services (DEHS), 3-58, 

3- 76, 3-79 

San Bernardino County Library, 2-44 
San Bernardino County Solid Waste Management 
District (SWMD), 3-50, 3-51, 3-53 _ 


San Diego coast homed lizard, 3-114 

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, 3-97 

Seismicity, 3-86 

Sensitive habitats, 3-106,3-114 

Site Inspection (SI), 3-64 

Solid vraste, 2-15, 2-25, 2-31, 2-36, 2-40, 2-46, 

3- 43. 3-50, 3-51, 4-65 

Sound exposure level (SEL), 3-101,3-102,4-153, 

4- 155 

South Coast Air Basin, 3-97 

Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB), 3-94,3-97, 

3- 99, 4-127. 4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 4-133, 4-135, 

4- 139. 4-143. 4-146. 4-149 
Southern California Association of 

Governments (SCAG), 4-26, 4-36,4-45 
Southern California Edison Company (SCE), 

2- 15, 3-51, 3-53 

Southwest Gas Company (SW Gas), 2-16,3-53, 

3- 55 

Southwest pond turtle, 3-114 
Southwest Portland Cement Company, 3-4 
Species of concern, 3-112,3-114 
Spill Prevention and Response Plan, 3-57 
Standard terminal arrival (STAR), 4-43 
State Water Project (SWP), 2-15,3-91 
Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). 3-92. 3-94, 3-97, 4-127, 

4- 128, 4-133. 4-135. 4-143, 4-144, 4-146, 4-147, 

4-148, 4-150 

Sun Hill Ranch, 3-40 

Super Speed Train (SST), 2-16, 2-24, 2-49,3-43, 
4-39, 4-46, 4-87, 4-139, 4-149. 4-188, 4-194 
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 
(SARA). 3-61. 3-64, 4-89 
Surface drainage, 3-88 

Surface water, 3-88, 4-120, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 
4-125 

T 

Tactical Air Command (TAC), 3-6 
Tactical air navigation (TACAN), 3-35,4-32,4-34 
Temporary lodging facilities, 3-11 
Terminal radar approach control (TRACON), 1-3 
Threatened and endangered species, 3-112 
Threatened species, 3-112 
Toxic Substance Control Division (TSCD), 3-80, 
3-81 

Traffic flow conditions, 3-20 
Trichloroethylene (TCE), 1-5,1-8,3-57,3-72, 

3-73. 3-91, 4-95 


8-4 


George AFB Disposal and Reuse FEIS 










u 


U.S. Code (USC). 3-55 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD), 2-44 
U.S. Department of Transportation, 2-44,4-23, 
4-111, 4-119, 4-150, 4-182, 4-199 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 3-112, 
4-189, 4-193,4-197, 4-199 
Underground storage tanks (USTs), 1-5,3-76, 

3-79, 4-92, 4-96, 4-101. 4-105,4-112 
Union Pacific Railroads, 3-6 
Upper Mojave Basin, 3-89,3-90,3-91 
Urban/landscaped habitat, 3-107 

V 

Vegetation. 3-106,3-107,3-109,3-114.4-115 
Very high frequency omnidirectional range 
(VOR), 4-32,4-34, 4-44 

Victor Valley Economic Development Authority 
(WEDA), 1-3,1-6,1-8, 2-3, 2-5, 2-7, 2-9, 2-12, 

2- 13, 2-26. 2-46. 2-47 

Victor Valley Infrastructure Enhancement 
Program, 3-21 

Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation 
Authority (WWRA), 1-5,1-7,1-8, 2-15, 2-46, 3-46, 
3-47. 3-48, 3-50, 3-51, 4-80, 4-82, 4-85 
Visual flight rules (VFR). 3-30,4-34,4-36.4-44 
Visual resources, 3-17 

Visual sensitivity, 3-17,3-19,4-9,4-16.4-18.4-22 
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 3-73 

W 

Wastewater, 1-7,2-15,2-31,2-36,2-40,2-46. 

3- 43, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-51, 3-73. 4-65, 4-120 
Water supply, 2-15,3-43,3-46 

West Storm Drain, 3-74 
Wetlands, 3-114,3-115 
Wildlife resources, 3-110 


George AFB Di^osal and Reuse FEIS 


8-5 











THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


8-6 


George AFB Dispose end Reuse FEIS